Apple Online Store“Intel chief Paul Otellini in an interview today confirmed that the first Google TV devices should start shipping in September.

Advertisement: The new AppleTV. The simplest way to watch your favorite HD movies and TV shows on your HD TV. Just $99. Buy Now.

“He also tried to downplay the significance of losing the new Apple TV as a possible device now that it uses an ARM-based chip rather than Intel’s Pentium M,” Electronista reports. “Otellini felt that Jobs took a ‘step backward’ by making the device less of a computer-like device. Google TV would be better since it was the ‘full Internet’ melded with traditional TV.”

MacDailyNews Take: Awww, Jobs’ widdle lapdog doesn’t like being banished to the doghouse.

Electronista continues, “The CEO still thought the Apple TV could co-exist with Google TV but that the two would appeal to different audiences. Apple’s hub would be useful for Otellini’s mom because it’s ‘simplistic,’ he contended, while Google’s would appeal to those who wanted more.”

Electronista reports, “When introducing the new Apple TV, Steve Jobs claimed that viewers wanted to get away from a computer, not just have another one in front of the TV. Otellini didn’t respond to this observation, nor did he address the issue of many already having media players, phones or tablets to check Facebook without interrupting the main screen.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Apple TV isn’t “simplistic,” it’s “simple” – in a good, Apple way. Apple has millions of Apple TV customers and feedback from them over a period approaching 4 years; and Google does not. Techies guessing at what the general public wants are almost as effective at wasting money as the government. In other words, if you think Jobs hasn’t thought this thing through deeply from many angles, think again. If you think Jobs doesn’t have a plan that contains more than he’s revealed so far, Think Different.™ We wouldn’t bet against Apple and Steve Jobs and certainly not in favor of a search engine/advertising company.

Google wants input one on your TV. Apple wants input two. The difference? Input one is where your cable box goes. Input two was where your VCR or DVD player used to live. It’s a port that’s up for grabs. There’s nothing wrong with Google’s approach, except it’s hard. Really hard. It’s like trying to take the Russian front hard. In winter… The cable companies have a very firm lock on the cable box. They don’t want to open it. They don’t want to share it. They want to keep it to themselves. The last thing they’re going to do is allow themselves to be commoditized by Google or anyone else. While I think Google TV will have some appeal with enthusiasts, it’s too ambitious too soon and it’s going to need some iterations quickly. That’s why I think Apple’s approach makes sense. It’s not a guaranteed win but it has a good chance of success.

With good positioning in Apple retail stores, some marketing and growing content deals Apple can slowly educate, evangelize and evolve the usage of connected TV. With a base to show to developers Apple can then safely unveil an SDK and get the developer machine in gear. With a solid position on input two Apple can safely do an end run around cable companies without having to make a direct assault. And from that position it’s a lot easier to make a run at input one.Michael Gartenberg, September 5, 2010