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
Apple wants to turn your TV into a big iPod. Google wants to turn it into a big serach engine. we’ll see what consumers want …
for us hobbyists that want to do both and more on our TV with one box, Apple put an HDMI port on the new Mac Mini earlier this year. too expensive tho.
“Intel CEO says ‘simplistic’ Apple TV is more for ‘mom,’ sees Google TV devices coming this month”
There are an awful lot of “moms” with money out there, don`t knock em.
At this point, if Otellini doesn’t get his mom an AppleTV for Christmas, he’ll never hear the end of it…
I don’t understand Google TV, and I love all this stuff.
If I don’t get it, normal people won’t.
I really don’t think the world wants the internet in any form on their TV. Google still thinks YouTube has a role in our television future. They don’t get it.
Speaking of YouTube, thoese on-screen “ads” they’ve implemented? Annoying. Totally destroy the experience. Totally random.
Does anyone actually click on them?
If they do, do they ever buy anything?
Oh Mother!
Apple better get the AppleTV production ramp up for Xmas and next Mother’s Day!
I wouldn’t be surprised if, on the day that these Google TV devices are announced, Apple happens to announce AppleTV app store availability.
Nothing like stealing the thunder from a competitor.
There is nothing about the AppleTV that precludes having the “full internet” on your TV. It appears to use the same fundamental architecture as the other iOS devices, so why shouldn’t you eventually be able to browse and check Rotten Tomatoes and other “internet” things using your TV as the display.
The only way that Google TV will work is if the content providers back them in a big way. But it won’t happen because they don’t want to mess with the status quo and they do not want to cede control to Google any more than they want to cede control to Apple.
Yeah, that WebTV was a BIG success wasn’t it. Ottelini ought stay out of this fray. It’s one thing to promote Intel’s activities with the Google product, but dissing TV is a REALLY bad move. Steve ALWAYS takes note of these slights and finds a way to pay back in spades. I’ve got my v2 TV ordered.
Pics of Ottellini’s Mom or it didn’t happen
So, Intel chief Paul Otellini is telling moms of America that they are simplistic.
Brilliant!
TV is for kicking back. It should be simple. If I’m using a computer vs. a device, then I’m not relaxing.
Btw, it’s hard to make things simple. It’s simple to make things hard. Simple does not mean less powerful or less sophisticated. This is why MS-types are getting their @$$ handed to them.
Apple tv is for mother’s because it’s simplistic.
And Google tv will appeal to men because men want more. Always more!!
Just ask mom!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
Tachies detest any device that is simple enough to be used by real people.
Late Rear Admiral Grace Hopper probably understood more about computer technology than young Mr.Otellini.
Anyway, Google and Intel software engineers need to learn about KISS (keep it simple stupid) Principle. KISS is actually lot harder to implement than GeeWiz.
You don’t need to be a mechanic or rocket scientist to drive a car–it just works. You don’t need to understand the intricacies of all the technologies being incorporated in a car in order to make the car move to wherever you want.
Likewise, Apple just wants every state-of-art products they produce to just work whether the user is a mom-or-pop, a student, a farmer, a truck driver or other ordinary person. Google’s approach is different, they want their products to be used only by geeks or rocket scientists. Their products are not “for the rest of us” – harks back to the IBM era.
A TV must be simple to use. As if the desktop and laptop are not complicated enough by themselves, Google wants to introduce the same level of complexities into the TV. The internet is already on mobile products. The TV is a bulky box. So just imagine if you are nowhere near a TV and you want to access the internet, which product would you rely on? That why the TV will always be for entertainment purpose and not for serious work. If a group of people want to access the internet on the only TV available, it’s not going to be an enjoyable experience. That’s why the internet has never caught on the TV and will never be.
Google brainy people are so brain dead and desperate that they will press all the buttons blindly without getting anywhere.
Apple knows which button to press and they get the right result most of the time.
One thing is for sure when it comes to the TV nothing is going to change unless the content becomes available in a format besides cable TV. People want to watch thier shows when they want and their live sports. For most people cable tv and a DVR fill that need.
Googles chance is only if the networks see google as less of a threat then Apple and feel they must do something digitally.
@Brother Mugga
Fsck TV
Mac mini (or otherwise) + Blu-ray player + Hi-Fi.
What I believe is being missed here is nothing less than . . .
The o t h e r shoe.
Is there anyone else out there that thinks
a) AppleTV can’t replace a cable box, satellite dish or DVR until it can provide live television for sporting events, concerts, press conferences from the Oval Office or a cave in Pakistan, and
b) that there was a reason (that maybe wasn’t discussed in the presentation of the new AppleTV) that Apple streamed an hour-plus long event LIVE on its website to millions of viewers, and
c) that the new AppleTV is built to stream video wirelessly from online, from a computer, from an iOS device?
My guess is that we will see live feeds of games, news, and events on the AppleTV — once the rights and prices have been negotiated.
iCal me.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
I own a 160GB Apple TV & ordered my sister one of the new ones for her Birthday. I like the ability to take my Apple TV to the call room (I’m a FT weekender) and not have to bring a laptop along, so the HD is something I prefer.
BTW- my Mom has a Mac Mini with an EyeTV & with Front Row really doesn’t need one.
The Apple TV is so cheap and integrates so nicely with iTunes as well as my iPad, iPhone, and Mac, that it’s pretty much a no-brainer as is.
But…
I would like a lot more features, and would pay a lot more for them. While I don’t want something that’s another computer per se, it would be nice to have games, widgets, alerts, etc…
Hilarious:
“Google TV would be better since it was the ‘full Internet’ melded with traditional TV.”
Oh! A WebTV! Dead product dude. But my mom still has her’s.
“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.”
Incorrect terminology! The corrected quote:
Apple’s hub would be useful for Otellini’s mom because it’s USER-FRIENDLY,
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> while Google’s would appeal to Microsoft suckers who wanted more USER-HOSTILITY. 🙁
I can see this competition is going to be a laugh riot. Bring it on Google. Just be ready. Be VERY ready…
NEXUS ONE!
See? I scared you, didn’t I.
Even after VCRs had been around for a decade, some people were completely frustrated in figuring out how to program it properly. Not exactly a selling point.
The more complex the device, the simpler the UI needs to be, unless the company is aiming for the tiny niche of experts only. It is called “convenience” (or “don’t waste my time”), and is often a deciding factor between devices made by different companies.
ARM, AMD.