Android Angle: Google TV: It's the Platform, Stupid

Skip Links

Go to page content
Go to site-wide navigation
Go to Contact Us page

Why Next-Gen Set-Top Boxes Might Succeed

By Mark Murphy on Wed, 05/26/10 - 12:45pm.

. What's this?

What is Tech Briefcase?

TechBriefcase is a new, free service where IT Professionals can Search, Store and Share IT white papers and content like this. Learn more

Bookmark content

Speed up your research efforts with content across the web.

Search and Store

Find the white papers you need. Create folders for any topic.

View Anywhere

Open your briefcase on your iPhone, tablet or desktop. Share with colleagues.

Don't have an account yet?

Back in the dawn of time — sometimes referred to as “1996” — WebTV was launched as one of the first serious attempts to bridge the gap between TV and the Internet. A year later, Microsoft acquired it. A decade-and-change later, few remember it.

WebTV certainly wasn't the last firm to try to combine the two experiences, and Microsoft wasn't the only big name to give it a go. Apple, for example, offers their Apple TV, to lackluster results. Firms like Western Digital offer devices that allow Internet streaming. However, few have had much impact. Perhaps the biggest category to have some amount of TV/Internet bridging is the game console market, where online components have been rather successful.

Will Google TV suffer the same fate as WebTV? Perhaps not.

There are many differences between the WebTV of the mid-1990's and Google TV, ranging from the rise of HDMI and LCD TVs to the increase in online video content. But the biggest thing that Google TV — and to a lesser extent other new devices, like Boxee — offers is a platform.

Online video is nice, but it is not dramatically different than the video that consumers already get from their TVs. Narrow differences rarely drive massive consumer adoption, particularly for things that are not exactly cheap.

Web sites, especially in the WebTV era, were designed for “2-foot user interface” (PC and keyboard), not a “10-foot user interface” (TV and remote). Google TV will probably help spur more Web sites to serve up versions better suited to a TV experience, and Google is already providing advice on how to do just that.

But Google TV will also allow developers to write apps that run locally, powered by Android, or apps based on Web technologies that run online (or off), powered by Chrome.

Many people will dismiss the power of apps and a platform. “TVs aren't interactive”, they'll say, forgetting that they said the same thing about cell phones back in the StarTAC era. In fact, it is the very momentum of “there's an app for that” that will, in due course, make Google TV and close competitors seem compelling.

Another complaint making the rounds is “people don't want another box”. For many people, that is undoubtedly true. But all signs point to Google TV being as free for consumer electronics manufacturers as Android is for mobile device manufacturers. TVs, DVRs, dish receivers, and cable boxes may all start sporting Google TV as an option over the next 2-3 years.

In fact, it is that “embeddability” that will likely carve up the “Internet TV” market between three major players: Apple (with an improved Apple TV capable of running iPhone/iPad apps), Microsoft (with a new Xbox capable of running Windows Phone or other apps), and Google TV. Apple will target the high end, Microsoft could target gamers, and Google TV will target your average consumer.

Now, it is far from certain any of this will take off. Google needs developers to cook up some compelling apps specific for TV, to go along with the substantial roster of apps served from the Android Market. Just as device manufacturers were slow to leap into Android until the T-Mobile G1 proved its mettle, there may be similar reticence around investing in Google TV, and with good reason. But, even though WebTV is a historical footnote today, I would not assume Google TV is destined for a similar short-term fate.