GoogleTV: what AppleTV should be (a.k.a what Eli Hodapp didn't "get")

I'm sure the topic title will be renamed, but I couldn't help but get a dig in at Eli's expense for lambasting an idea that he completely misunderstood from the get go as far as my rantings on what Apple should do with AppleTV are concerned. Well, Eli...looks like Google, Sony, and Intel "get it":

GoogleTV announced

See? Google "gets" it. Apple should've a while back, but somehow didn't. They've been too preoccupied with the idea of the iPad, apparently, rather than go for the bigger play: do for the living room via the digital download set top box market what iPhone/touch did for the mobile market.

Also interesting:

Nice idea...but Apple could go one better. No, I'm not talking integration with iPhone/touch (as you can use it as a remote for Apple TV) or iPad. That just adds to consumer cost. No, I'm thinking take the tech behind the Magic Mouse (touch sensitive) and merge it with a Wiimote-like accelerometer and IR sensor control interface. Touch and motion sensing remote, ala iPhone/touch control, but without the need for the consumer to purchase or own the latter. Less entry cost = more chance of adoption by a larger amount of consumers.

The good news is that Google and Apple are prepping for a bit of a showdown. I've seen a few articles positing that Google's move to the living room may spur Apple to actually make AppleTV more than just a "hobby":

http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/google-tv-apple-tv/
http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/google-tv-apple-tv/
http://blogs.computerworld.com/15779/will_googletv_light_a_fire_under_the_appletv

I hope they do. It's the bigger, and smarter, play than iPad, their current "focus", and they could REALLY revolutionize what will be an incredibly fast growing market for years to come. But they have to do for AppleTV what they did for iPhone/touch: open up the SDK, low entry cost for devs, and open up an App Store.

Oh...and new hardware. Multicore ARM and SGX would suffice for 1080p video and would do quite nicely for "spec ups" from iPhone/touch applications...as well as provide enough "oomph" for making native AppleTV apps worth owning. And that remote idea ain't half bad, if I do say so myself. Apple does have some plans for motion sensing remotes apparently. Tie that in with Magic Mouse style touch navigation, and you've got a winning interface, IMHO.

 

The thoughts of some analysts are that Google would have an advantage as Android already runs on a variety of devices with different screen resolutions, but that's the silliest thing I've heard.

Yeah, it may be an issue to increase resolution on iPhone/touch apps for the big screen (not a major one, btw), but native AppleTV apps would have no such issues, and, quite frankly, it would be native AppleTV apps that would "sell" the device to consumers. It (a new AppleTV) can't just be an iPad without the "pad". It would have to be much more powerful than the iPhone/touch and iPad platforms, befitting of something you'd use in the living room on your HDTV. And that means exclusive app content. Including games.

Look at, say, Chaos Rings, the newly announced JRPG from Square-Enix for iPhone/touch. Imagine what that company would do with a vastly suped up variant of iPhone/touch or iPad processors (again, multicore ARM and SGX solution would be good, IMHO). Imagine how many new consumers would open themselves up to Apple's product line via the content available on a new AppleTV with it's own app store. Game consumers, people in the market for cheap secondary computers, etc.

 

quotes were taken from the NY Times article for which I gave the link earlier in my original post. My alluding to what some analysts had stated as far as Apple might use this news to refocus somewhat on what AppleTV could be, as well as the resolution issues, also had links in my original post.

As far as what Eli's lambasting the idea...it's on the forums. Search it out yourself.

 

BTW, no flash doesn't really matter, tbqh. Again, it's not the web surfing experience that would be the major selling point, Eli, but the tie in to iTunes services including an AppleTV exclusive section of the App Store. By leveraging the iPhone OS further in the living room, one can have stuff like Youtube, Facebook, and webmail apps running as native applications, no need for the common web surfing experience as checking mail and social networking sites and watching some vids (and listening to music) are what most people apparently use the web for most of the time. An AppleTV version of Safari would be an obvious addition, but not the be all end all, and not really a focus of the device as it will most likely not be as highly used compared to the native apps or the standalone apps I've mentioned earlier.

That's what you don't "get" about it, Eli, with your references to WebTV anytime I bring up the idea that AppleTV is more important than iPad in the long run. It's not about the web, or surfing the web on a TV; it's about the prospects of leveraging iTunes and the App Store and using those to "conquer" the rapidly emerging digital download entertainment set top box market by offering a device that is MORE than just a set top box (as it'd be, in basic terms, a mini computer with a focus on entertainment).

It's the same way, quite frankly, flash doesn't matter on iPhone/touch's Safari browser. Surfing the web via Safari isn't the major selling point in terms of software for the iPhone/touch. The e-mail, youtube, and social networking etc. apps are used more because those are what most people do on the 'net. And, of course, it's the native apps (such as the games) that are the real "sellers" for the platform over other platforms. Same deal with my vision for what Apple should be doing with AppleTV.

It's about the exclusive apps, Eli, and how the very nature of the App Store would make AppleTV different from the rest of the similar products on the market or products that try to broaden themselves to what Apple does with iTunes (like movie, tv show and music sales on PSN and XBL).