Google TV

Rumors say system is developed and has been demonstrated to potential partners

Google TV needs an innovation injection. What was promising two years ago has been left to slowly waste away because no content deals were sourced and nobody was interested in having what Google TV could do in their living room. If rumors reported by the Wall Street Journal are true, that innovation is in the works.

According to their inside sources, Google is actively pitching the idea of an online TV service to media providers and distributors. Yes, just like everybody else is doing if you believe all the rumors out there. Google already tried this and was sorely disappointed with the result a few years back, but the difference this time, says the Journal, is that the content providers are looking for nationwide distribution.

In easy-to-understand talk -- let's say HBO, for instance, already had failed negotiations with Google about offering their content on Google TV. In today's landscape, where the competition is fierce and the dollar doesn't stretch as far, they would find more value with a service from Google that would sell their subscription to anyone with the box to stream it, sans cable company.

We have no idea how much of this is true or not, but the WSJ says Google already has the system developed and is shopping it around. It's something we'd love to see, so we're hoping for the best.

Source: Wall Street Journal


Reader comments

Google rumored to be considering online TV service


I like it but this what's going happen. Paying for all the channels ala carte is going to get really expensive.

Posted via my themed "WHITE DRAGON" LiquidSmooth Sprint GSIII.

Or just paying for individual series or shows instead of the whole channel. This would be much better and easier for people if Fiber was being implemented faster and people had fast internet speeds, but most cable company's make you share bandwidth with your neighbors bring down speeds. And a family of 4 streaming their shows from each room is gonna make buffering annoying

I don't know if it can get more expensive. I wanted to add 1 show to my cable package. To get that show, I had to add the channel (paying for hundreds of other shows). To get that channel, I was forced to get a package of other channels I don't want.

I can't believe this isn't considered tied selling and completely illegal. It's like going to the grocery store for milk and them saying milk is dairy so you need to buy all dairy and dairy is part of a isle in the store of which you need to buy the entire isle. I would agrue that regardless how much the milk costs, picking and choosing the specific things you want would be cheaper. Also more money would make it directly to actual innovators of the desired show. The losers are cable companies and adds and I loath them both.

A la carte is the future and I'd HAPPILY pay directly for the content I want, even if for no other reason than limiting the amount of navigating I have to do to get there.

I don't know why they would just, "consider," this option. This seems like it would be the next big revolution in the media industry. First music, then movies, now live TV. Whoever gets here first will have a HUGE market advantage. I think everyone would do this if they could.

Google fiber is a true service provider.. Where as this is just a Internet service.. Plug the box in and u access all the channels through the Internet.. No need for google to build an infrastructure in the the local area...

Downside though is that it's relying on your current isp to deliver the goods. For people in areas with data caps this is just not gonna work.

Why would you need a box? Every major cable channel already has live feed in digital format. Broadcast that over the web and you've got internet-based cable that can be viewed from a browser. This is already being done every day....I could probably list about 5-10 websites that already provide this service....Google just wants to do it LEGALLY

actually the infrastructure they are building is for the 1 gb internet and the fibre channels are streamed via the internet. so whats the difference?

I cut the cable a few years ago. I'm rocking a ROKU 3 in my living room. The family is pretty happy with it. I couldn't wait any longer for an excellent Google TV option.

Posted via Android Central App

Serious do you guys watch live events like news, or even the Oscars, or major networks shows, if any?

And does roku have access to YouTube yet?

Posted via Android Central App

I cut the cable 6 months ago. I do still have only internet and have a 100mbps down. We use xbox 360s around the house and suscribe to hulu+. We already had multaple 360s in the house and they work drasticly better than the built in smart tv,bluray player, box options. Why pay 60 to 100 for some add on box when u can get a 360 slim for not much more.
Hulu gives us most of our prime time shows and only a day later. I read and watch local live news on my gs3 through my local stations apps and we dont care about over paid hollywood giving thereself awards.
Any shows we caint find like some syfy channel stuf we just go to there website and display it on the tv. I would pay just to stream the syfy channel through there xbox app.

Posted via Android Central App

For us, we just watch over the air TV for live events. Though its rare that any such events interest us. But with the major networks and a few of the smaller ones here (DC) we can easily get most anything we'd want.

Im not much of a person to watch sports so it dosent really affect me but if there ire ways of watching on the internet (i wouldnt know). Then u could just display it on your tv through the computer. Understandably not convenient.
Once enough people can break the cord then maybe they'll come out with the subscription app something similar to Netflix but for all sports or A NFL app or a NBA app where you can stream any live game. Or just pull up a game you missed and stream it right then. If the networks whatever get out of the way with their exclusive contracts they could make a lot of money on that

Posted via Android Central App

This. And I'm not sure the big channels will open up their networks to a 3rd party internet streaming service - they can't even figure out how to sell their OWN streams for people that WANT to buy some sporting events. ESPN3 is only open to select providers, and you can't purchase a game or the streaming service if you don't aren't on a particular network. And these are internet only games, it's not like they're also broadcast over the air.

I seriously use powered rabbit ear antenna for over the air HD. I don't watch much live sports because I live out of the market for my two favorite teams - I listen to live broadcasts on the internet for those two favorite teams.

I readily agree that cutting the cable is not that viable an option for live sports fans.

Posted via Android Central App

Good!! I've had a ton of cable providers in my day, and not a single one of them is worth a damn!! I always end up paying far more than I should, I only watch about 5 channels, and I'm stuck footing the bill to pay for channels that quite honestly, I couldn't care less if they went under tomorrow. Give me cbs, showtime, hbo and the history channel for a fair price, and I'm all in!!! Also, if we're talking about web-based cable, we're also talking about watching it on a web-capable a computer or a smart TV. While most may opt for a smart TV, I'll take a desktop computer for my TV viewing any day!! I can DVR anything I want for free, and my storage is only limited by the size and number of hard drives I want installed. Computer screen not big enough?? Getting a size upgrade for a computer screen is about 1/4 the price of upgrading a smart TV. This is by far the most customer-friendly solution I can possibly imagine! Some say a-la-carte will cost more money, but I tend to disagree with that assertion, entirely!! I'd like those who believe this will cost more to take a minute to think hard about what channels they actually watch, opposed to those they subscribe to but never tune to. I'm willing to bet a vast majority of people don't actually watch more than 5-8 channels on a regular basis, and if you do want to watch something on a channel you don't subscribe to, maybe an option for pay per view season passes will be in the cards and a very good alternative option.

Make it available to Australia so we don't have to wait 5 years for something.
Australia = 'I am currently enjoying this new TV show called Survivor'

I've cut the cord. Would love to subscribe to only the channels I want. I would be all over this. I'm just afraid we will start seeing more company's adding bandwidth limits.

Posted via Android Central App

Outside the USA, constructing a viable selection of channels to form a one stop service goes from very hard to VERY VERY hard. The UK probably consumes more American produced content than any other nation; but that market is dominated by Sky, Virgin and a few minor players (including bizarrely BT).

I think Google could probably do it, but making it pay its way is close to impossible. Perhaps the long term worldwide success of You Tube shows what Google feels more comfortable with.

Apple have clearly been trying to negotiate and assemble their own assault on the medium for some years. In all probability they cant produce a sufficiently strong offering without sacrificing their sacred margins doctrine - Thus stalemate. iTunes still dominates Music and I think most content producers refuse to give Apple that much power in their playground. Would you?

Posted via Android Central App