The Nexus 7 has no HDMI output. So, no, it couldn't do all that.

Also, your point #1 reminds me of a Steve Jobs quote, regarding the Apple I (a kit computer):

"It was very clear to me that while there were a bunch of hardware hobbyists that could assemble their own computers, or at least take our board and add the transformers for the power supply and the case the keyboard and go get the rest of the stuff. For every one of those there were a thousand people that couldn't do that, but wanted to mess around with programming - software hobbyists. And so my dream for the Apple 2 was to sell the first real packaged computer."

Yes, you don't have any interest in this machine. And maybe I don't; I still run Linux on the desktop, after all. But there are apparently a lot of people who are voting with their wallets they they want this experience without having to jury-rig anything.

Good points all...there might be another way to rig a Nexus 7 (Wi-Di? I don't know...). People do vote with their wallets, but unfortunately on the "wrong" things sometimes (not that this is necessarily the case, but if you look at campaigns like YogVentures, it seems a bit foolish to give $500,000 to a team with little/no proven development experience). My only concern is that I feel many companies will be giving Kickstarter-funding a bad name when they can't live up to their promises.

"1) It does not solve a real problem."

I believe this is completely wrong-headed. This solves a huge problem. How many people have you seen play Android games on a TV, or even ever connected their Android device to the TV? And how many of those are more on the tech consumer rather than producer side?

To clarify, I mean that it does not solve a problem that cannot be easily remedied already. Buy/use a tablet with HDMI-out, hook up bluetooth controller. What part of this process requires a million dollars of funding, I am not certain. Also, I have no idea how they plan to sell the device so cheap (unless controllers are sold separate, but even still it is a stretch...). They would have to use tricky contracting deals to make up for the cost of the console, which is exactly what is wrong with modern consoles. Again, I like the idea of a new console, but I think they are just going about it the wrong way.

>I mean that it does not solve a problem that cannot be easily remedied already. Buy/use a tablet with HDMI-out, hook up bluetooth controller.

What problem does a console solve? Couldn't I just buy a computer and hook it up to my PC? Why would anyone buy a console?

How many Android games work great with a bluetooth controller? Which controller with what features? How likely are you to leave your tablet hooked up to the TV? Do tablets cost 100 dollars?

The obvious interest in the device shows it DOES solve a problem. I sure hope these guys knock it out of the park.

I do hope they do well, but I am also a bit skeptical. Here is why: Android is one of many choices I could develop for. When I develop, I consider cost/benefit ratio (among many other factors). As it is, there is quite a bit of fragmentation across Android hardware. User experience is obviously a bit different with a joystick/TV than a phone or tablet. Even if this console does really well, its number of units will probably still be dwarfed by mobile phones and tablets. There are some games that work well in a console-esque context, some that work well for mobile, and there is a bit of overlap between the two. But generally speaking, making a game that takes advantage of the console would probably require special attention. The real problem is a chicken-and-egg scenario - people will not develop for the console unless it catches on, and the console won't catch on unless there are good games exclusively targeting it (the real motivation to buy the console won't be the TV-based experience, it will be because it has good games you can't play on any other device). This is why people buy iPhones - not because they are the best device out there (they are not), but because there is a huge ecosystem of apps for them, and the experience is consistent and predicatble. I am not really unfairly biased -- I have developed games and other applications on iOS, Android, XBox, Windows, and Mac natively, in addition to using Flash and HTML 5 for cross-platform development.

If they wanted to make a killer console, they have to make killer tools -- and their hands are kind of tied by Android. Android is a bit bloated, the emulator sucks, development can be occasionally slow and painful, and like many of the other platforms, there are several quirks. It is just not the friendliest thing I have developed for...although I don't blame the company for picking it as it is one of the few open platforms.

How many people have I seen carrying a TV on a train or in the airport or in a shop while someone else is trying stuff on?