This is hardly the first entrant and pretty much every tv and blu-ray you buy moving forward will have similar capabilities to what Google has announced. Though perhaps with a different provider.
Yahoo actually has the most TV's out right now with similar interactivity using their widget platform. They're on Sony, Samsung, Vizio and LG tvs
http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/
Samsung has their own platform running on their TVs and blu-ray players. Its an HTML engine and also supports a "Flash Lite" or Stagecraft. (and their tvs still run yahoo widgets as well)
http://www.samsung.com/us/internetTV/
Vudu (recently bought by Wal-Mart) has an app platform being supported by many manufacturers as well its Lua based and on Toshiba, LG and Sanyo products. (this is outside of their on-demand video service)
Panasonic has "Viera Cast" which is actually a cloud based service I haven't really figured out yet
So besides these there's quite a few "Over The Top" boxes that provide similar functions such as
Roku
Popcorn Hour (about to launch their new Popbox in a bit)
Apple TV
Boxee
Anyway its fun to see Google hopping into the space we'll see how well they do.
Apple TV should have been this product, if it was open and allowed you to browse any website and ran flash, it didn't.
Boxee would be this product if it had shipped a box that worked with the TV. (Yeah, I know about the boxee box). The difference is Google has the muscle to close the loop on this one.
The others are all closed at various levels or lack developer traction.
Boxee is the closest in terms of being open, I was hoping to replace my apple tv (had it from day 1 and use it for my videos and photos)
You can hack the Apple TV and put Boxee on it. The fact that so many people did that should've clued Apple in.
What Google has, that only Yahoo and Microsoft can match, is federated search for video content. Apple should buy a search engine and apply it to search video content.
Google also has the brand clout to take on Microsoft and Apple. Yahoo has less brand power, but it has enough to leverage itself into this market.
I agree. The newer versions of Boxee have been much heavier, and crash or slow down significantly the Apple TV. I had a lot of hope for Boxee on Apple TV with their beta, but it's clear to me that their focus is on selling their boxee box now.
The alphas ran decently on it. Since there is no HD decoder hardware in the Apple TV (there's a minipci card you can apparently buy for like $50 that replaces the minipci wifi card that adds on hardware HD decoding), so you can not watch HD obviously. However, even the interface and regular SD videos are slower than heck on it now.
Apple and Boxee dropped the ball.
What would have been real genius (no pun intended), was if Apple bought Boxee from Avner, -or- they collaborated together for the Apple TV and Apple TV HD.
I'm not holding my breath though. It'll never happen, since their philosophies are so different, and Apple would want the iPhone OS SDK on it, which would require a rewrite of Boxee.
Actually I think there's some legs on the dark horse in the race with Vudu. Considerably weaker w/r/t brand awareness, but shelf space in WalMart is pretty precious (Vudu's new parent). I could see Wal-Mart using their considerable clout to get Vudu onto TV's sold in their stores.
Not impressed yet. I watched the video and I can't tell if Google TV will know about the channels I already receive. If you look at their pitch (around 0:30), they say it's too hard to find what I want to watch because I receive hundreds of channels. I don't know about you, but I have a DVR, and it's quite easy to find and record any show and watch them anytime.
So if Google TV doesn't give me access to the live shows I already receive, it doesn't really solve a problem. I also have an AppleTV, so I understand the value of being able to watch video podcasts and YouTube on my large screen TV.
Android apps on the TV has the potential to be huge particularly if the build these Google TV systems with a decent video chipset (like that Tegra chipset Nvidia's been demo'ing on a prototype Android tablet). Particularly with Logitech, long time maker of TV remotes and game controllers, on board, this could challenge Wii for home gaming, possibly even challenge the Xbox 360 and PS3.
While I can see something like this doing very well against the Wii in the casual gaming market, the hardware is too slow to compete with the 360/PS3 graphically for hardcore gamers.
That said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hasn't the Wii been wildly more profitable than its competitors?
We don't know what the hardware for GoogleTV will be yet do we? But you're probably right. The odds that it'd include Xbox360 level hardware are realllly slim. :-(
I'm not counting Apple out yet. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes with Apple TV. It wouldn't surprise me if they had something waiting in the wings. Apple has a pretty good track record of keeping a big project secret, announcing it and shipping it before their competitors have established any fortified position. If you were to combine together all these devices -- Apple TV, Roku, Popcorn Hour, etc there's a pretty big market there. No one has quite figured it out yet. An Apple TV Rev 2 running iPhone OS with an SDK running on cheap ARM hardware sold at a low margin could be hugely successful very quickly.
I don't have TV, I have a 30" monitor. My sweetie and I roll the chair away from my desk and sit on the couch a few feet behind. HD content looks great, and I have a variety of sources to choose from, you tube, hulu, USENET, etc.
It's unfortunate that the demo they performed went so badly. If I'm going to view internet on my TV, it has to be easier than plugging in my laptop. After watching them fiddle around with their devices so awkwardly, I doubt it will be any easier. Part of me was wishing that I could watch Steve Jobs debut a new web-enabled Television that just freaking works.
Yeah, but in all reality they had 4,000 people trying to use bluetooth (which only has 79 channels). Perhaps it was dumb of them to not use a WIRED keyboard. I didn't see many problems besides the keyboard issue.
Seems like it would be pretty straightforward. Just update the AppleTV OS with an App Store and BlueTooth+expanded IR capabilities, and let the 3rd party developers bring the internet stuff and advanced input options to it. It seems that Google TV doesn't leverage my local media, so my iTunes/media library is still isolated from my living room, unless I'm missing something and it turns out to be an Android OS variant (supports native 3rd party app development) and developers can implement that sort of functionality with it.
according to matt cutts' live "buzz". It is an android OS variant!
"Software: Built on Android 2.1 + Google Chrome + a Flash 10.1 plugin. Aha: Android apps will work on Google TV. The mobile market will work on Google TV. Demo of Google TV running Pandora with no changes by Pandora. Brittany Bohnet from the Google TV team is up. From a web browser, you can select an app, and the app gets sent straight to the Google TV. Two application frameworks: web apps, and Android apps. A Google TV-specific SDK will come out down the road. Ambarish Kenghe is up to talk about Google TV. You can optimize for the size of the screen. From a web site, I think he said you'll be able to switch channels and record shows."
They asked everyone to please turn off our phones because the wifi was interfering. I'm pretty sure they said "wifi" and not "bluetooth." I thought that was strange because you'd expect a keyboard/remote to be bluetooth.
Theory as to what went wrong: they pushed out an update to the GoogleIO conference Android app earlier this morning. I'd already upgraded before the keynote started; some of the people I was there with got it & some didn't. The app now uses wifi for inside geolocation. I wonder if a lot of wifi devices coming on swamped the system a bit?
Don't Bluetooth and 802.11b/g wifi both operate on the same 2.4Ghz spectrum? I'm pretty sure if you do a google (or duckduckgo) search on "bluetooth wifi interference" you'll find a lot of hits.
It's a beta presentation, relax. You can find on youtube many failures that happened on Steve Jobs presentations too. I'm sure the final version will work just fine, just like any google product.
Glitches happen to anyone in a presentation, Steve Jobs is no exception. The difference, however is Apple rarely demos "betas", "early release" or "pre-alpha" stuff like Google seems to show off exclusively (OS betas naturally being the exception. Everybody shows off OS betas — it would be foolish not to).
Put another way: What was the last product Google unveiled that wasn't a beta in some capacity?
Is it just me, or does this seem a lot like what boxee does? Perhaps Google, with it's brand name will be finally able to push the web+tv concept into the mainstream.
I'm likely to be completely wrong, but I seriously think that Apple is prepping Apple TV for the iTunes cloud that we continue to hear about. It will be the premiere device for them if they want to enter that market. Imagine on demand streaming of all the shows you want for around $30/month. Ready to stream to your iPad, iPhone, iMac, and Apple TV.
"Imagine on demand streaming of all the shows you want for around $30/month"
Never going to happen. They'll do ala-carte pricing for on-demand content but no major network would go for a fee this low. I shouldn't really say never, it could happen but it would be very near or even above what you pay for cable now.
Realize that a large portion of your cable bill already goes to the networks - and the networks get a large chunk of chedder in ads. There's no way $30 a month for "all shows" could come anywhere near making up for the money a network makes with cable. For Apple to offer this service it would cost you more then you already pay for cable.
Realize too that the large cable systems are actually looking at providing this service with an initiative called TV Everywhere.
Between Netflix and Hulu, I get a lot (not all) of shows (and movies) streamed to me for ~$11 month (my netflix) + ads (hulu). For $30 dollars a month, I would expect access to a much higher percentage of old shows, plus streaming of the new ones.
Now, of course that doesn't mean the networks like it, or will agree to a contract like that. They should though, because they'll never get more than that out of me per month, and I see cable becoming increasingly irrelevant as streaming becomes more popular.
If you're not a power watcher you can make this work at that price point.
But as pointed out elsewhere Hulu is a trial service and still working out their model. It has quite a few shows but its totality is actually quite small. They're controlled by the networks and if you follow their TOS you should only be able to watch their shows on a pc NOT on a TV.
Netflix's service is awesome but again quite limited.
Sports is completely ignored in your model. ESPN makes $2-3 per cable subscriber whether you watch them or not. This equals about 1 billion (no joke) a year in revenues for them. So just to get ESPN it would cost about ~%10 of your viewing budget. Now its not just ESPN every network thats older than 5 years old gets a cut of your cable bill. Let alone the fact that you can't stream most local sports over the internet at this point.
I see both sides of the argument and I thought as you do that cable is becoming more irrelevant. Heck on Monday the UFC's Roku channel launched - which allows users to bypass cable for PPV events. My company built that. But the truth is that the TV Networks are pretty inextricably tied at this point to the cable operators. Internet delivery of on-demand content at a reasonable rate doesn't yet make sense.
"Between Netflix and Hulu, I get a lot (not all) of shows (and movies) streamed to me for ~$11 month (my netflix) + ads (hulu)."
You left off "...for now." Hulu is on record that they'll be moving to a PPV model for certain shows. The days of completely ad-supported Hulu are numbered.
Heh, will it play Hulu running on that ugly Flash? Will it do Youtube streaming?
I bought the AppleTv on day 1 and use it a lot, but I will never pay Apple to see content that is free on the internet. Why would I pay iTunes when I can see The Daily Show at thedailyshow.com?
Lame. Until apple allows a fully functional browser on the AppleTv, they are dead.
I'd love to see it (sort of), but Apple has pretty a pretty piss-poor record of doing well anything in "the cloud". If anyone could get it right, it's google.
That's what Apple tends to do, though.. They wait and wait until a market already exists, and then they redefine it. Maybe they're bidding their time for cloud services?
Well then Microsoft must be kicking serious ass in the space too because they have spent a lot more.
I am super skeptical of any company that spends a lot of money to break into an area that isn't in their 'core competency'. Apple has shown they only know how to offer online services for a high subscription rate. It'd be interesting to see if they can offer anything decent for free or a low price point.
The difference being boxee never got it shipped with a box (yeah I know about the boxee box which hasn't shipped yet). Google with its muscle can get it done. Built into Sony Tv, logitech box, built into dish network - done.
BTW, boxee can't mix and match TV programs and web - this can. You can't do a google search when watching TV through boxee.
This takes the integration to the next level, IMHO.
I think they left a few things out, like playing back local media. This appears to be built on android, though, so maybe that means that functionality like this can be enabled later. I wonder if it will support hardware decoding for H.264 and WebM.
Local media was not mentioned, but I don't see something like the Logitech box NOT doing local media. If not, I expect someone to write an Android app for it instantly.
This doesn't seem to offer much more than TiVo. Based on Google's 2 minute pitch, much of what they promised is already available on the Gen 3 TiVo: record programs, Netflix, YouTube, video on demand, photos. The only things I saw that were new were a "global" search capability and bookmarks. Is that enough of a difference maker? Probably not. Maybe if there was some other benefit thrown in (aka no recurring service fees).
Plugging in a computer to your TV hasn't been easy until very recently. Most computers do not have the hi-def outputs that TVs require. The only standard port you can use from a laptop is probably S-Video. Then there is the problem of appropriate resolution, refresh rates, zoom-levels, and audio quality.
I've had many different computers connected to my TV for almost a decade now. The most annoying part has always been the input device (remote vs. keyboard/mouse vs. Boxee's iPhone app). I have a DVR. I hit "Guide" and instantly the guide shows up. If I have a computer hooked up playing VLC, it's not as simple. You can run MythTV, Windows Media Center, or a bunch of other apps but none of them work as smoothly and nicely as my Verizon FiOS DVR. I even bought a Panasonic ShowCenter ( http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1911939,00.asp ) and while it played nearly everything, it just didn't work well all the time. It crashed, caused audio-sync issues, and I had to keep reentering my wifi info everytime I restarted it.
Right now my solution is to have a small hidden netbook connected to the TV. I VNC into the netbook using my laptop while I sit on the sofa and play it however I want. So far this has been my most favorite option.
My television came with a VGA port on the back of it. The funniest part? Actually setting my video card to display 1080p makes it an unsupported resolution (at 60Hz). It stretches things like 1024x768 fine, but that's not really what I was hoping for.
The thing that worked best was a DVI->HDMI converter (which are apparently very similar). Go figure.
Also, a bit off-topic, but if you're looking for a DVI-HDMI converter, do not buy it from Best Buy. Their cheapest model is something like 10x the highest price I found online for the same product.
Plugging your computer to your TV is not an option unless you have a dedicated computer plugged to your TV. Then you want the computer to be quiet, small and not FUGLY.
You want the computer to be operated by a small keyboard and a remote rather than a mouse.
And you want your computer to have digial out, handle 7.1 surround and have appropriate software to handle GPU encoding etc. When you add that up, the cost goes high.
Hence, something like the logitech box or the boxee box (appropriately priced)will do the job without another computer. (I own an apple tv)
AppleTv got it right - other than the closed / crippled part.
Or, perhaps you just feel like watching that one show on Hulu by plugging your laptop into the TV?
That's what I do when I feel like it. It works just fine. You don't have to have a computer dedicated to being connected to your TV unless you want to. You can have them occassionally plugged in, and for not much extra work, either.
I just unplug one of my consoles, plug in the computer and violà
He seems to finally settle with beaming media to his PS3 via DNLA and buying an AppleTV to achieve his aims.
Key quote on the Mac Mini:
When it works, it’s great. The trouble is that 15% of the time something happens – EyeTV crashes, iTunes has been updated and won’t let you play anything until you’ve accepted terms and conditions, or another app is telling you that an update is available.
For these times, I don’t have an easy solution, other than to screen share and sort it out with the MacBook. Sometimes (like in the instance of EyeTV crashing) you just have to restart.
There's few good answers in this space at the moment. I've got an Acer Revo running Ubuntu and XBMC that's doing great for me but it required me to climb a major learning hump to get it all into shape. I didn't mind that, in fact I enjoyed it, but there's few good, easy options for non-geeks, or even geeks with less time to spend. There are lots of mediocre options but they're all flawed in a variety of ways.
It's always on, so it's a great home storage server (I have a Drobo w/ 4.5TB of storage attached via FireWire 800).
It downloads torrents & podcasts nicely.
Also, the shared library support coming in Plex/Nine looks killer. I'm looking forward to running Plex on my MacBook without having to maintain a separate metadata library.
Yeah everyone is going to use it differently. I no longer download any media, as I got tired of collecting media and then losing it after hard drive crashes. Also everything I want to listen to or watch is online for streaming, minus latest movies. If I want one of them bad enough I'll bit torrent it.
Overall my Mac Mini connected to my LCD TV using a wireless mouse and keyboard (gyration handheld mouse) suits me via Firefox.
You are correct in some ways. But no true optical audio out? You use a Toslink to Optical converter, I read that getting 7.1 out of it was not possible. Not sure about 1080p playback.
Oh, $600 for the mac mini vs $200 for something like the Boxee box / Logitech control box (hopefully $200)
All said and done, Mini is not the ideal box for the consumer, geeks can get it to work, but most people can't.
The mini has 'true' optical out. Mini-Toslink is Toslink, so it's just a matter of buying the right optical cable.
DD/DTS 5.1 is a limitation of Toslink. If you want 7.1 or the newer lossless codecs, that requires HDMI or an conversion to multichannel analog audio on the device (some HD-DVD players did this, back when that was still a thing :)
That is correct. Hence my gripes towards the mini - it wasn't designed to be a digital media player, whereas the AppleTv is (HDMI, optical out). If it supported 1080p and was open, it would be the device. The boxee box could have been the device, but now I am going to wait for the logitech device.
For the same reason Boxee is coming out with a dedicated box. Plugging a PC into your TV, setting up a remote, setting up software, etc. is easy for computer geeks like us, but most of America (and I assume the world?) is still baffled on how to set the clock on their DVD player or microwave.
Not to mention most PC's are surprisingly loud when you leave them running in the living room (or bedroom) 24x7.
Also the interface in general is bad for TVs. Media centre front ends such as XBMC can solve this issue, but that's not a consumer friendly "out of the box" solution.
Nielsen's value lies in their ability to know exactly who is watching TV (or using the computer, now that they can monitor internet usage).
Members of a household log in to a Nielsen box when they watch TV, and Nielsen knows precise demographic information about each member of the households they monitor.
Google's not going to be able to tell you a Hispanic, thirteen-year-old male watched Ninja Turtles (online) from 8-8:15.
I bet they could. Just look at what Google account the Android phone acting as a remote is logged into. It'd probably be easy enough to build some demographic information just analyzing the users e-mail and searches.
Assuming that's true (what does a white person say in their e-mails), Nielsen can do it legally. There's no way Google can sniff and data mine your e-mail within the law or their TOS.
If you're saying there are more of them and that Nielsen relies on a sample, then that's probably right. (Although, statistically, I'm not sure that matters).
And Google doesn't use analytics from set-top boxes, they use data from Nielsen:
"The demographic data imported for Google TV Ads comes from The Nielsen Company, the longtime television audience measurement experts. AdWords data is drawn from their National Homevideo Index (NHI) daily national cable report. We draw the demographics from the viewing source data, using the quarter-hour report periods."
This looks many times more powerful and easier to use than my current cable box (of which most cable companies give you no choice). Searching for shows on my cable box is slow and time-consuming, so GoogleTV looks very promising if it can interact nicely with existing set-top boxes.
This is also a great way for Google to enter the home entertainment space and begin leveraging this platform to expand the reach of their advertising and analytics platforms.
They could do what iPhone did to phones to the desktop/television. A simple platform that does what 90% of people need (watch Hulu/Netflix, browse eBay, send email, etc). The Chrome Web Store can provide the App Store component.
I think the really critical part is getting the price so low that they get massive distribution. At least until TVs have it built in. No one thinks "I need to buy an internet computer for my TV", so they have to make it cheap enough that people will say "why not?"
They should make good money off ad revenue, so hopefully they can give the devices away, or get them down to $19 or $29.
Lots of new tvs are Internet enabled already with YouTube support and other stuff. And if your tv isn't, then there are bluesy players that do it, not to mention ps3s and xboxes. However the one thing usually missing is July, so if google can bring that then it's awesome
It'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (PS3) and Apple (Apple TV) all have boxes that in some way attempt to bring in TV/movie/photo content to your TV. Those three haven't impressed me too much with their efforts. Of course I'm in Canada, so many great features are inaccessible to me.
Apple TV in particular has been particularly weak. It should have been something like this from the get go. Maybe they'll finally announce some interesting stuff for it now that the iPad is out the door.
Cheapo laptop ($500), connected to my TV and surround sound, wireless keyboard + remote control to switch back to my FiOS TV is close enough for all of this for me.
I see a simpler and arguably better search-find-consume cycle that includes more sources like the TV channels you subscribe to, PPV, etc.
I'm not sure if thats enough though. I guess that would depend on the price point + execution. Right now I already get what seems like the same results it promises — all of my video is sourced online and I just feed the video from my computer to my TV setup.
But I don't find cable valuable. Maybe this is more valuable for people who do?
I just looked at this and thought "Boxee. Yeah, I have that already."
OK, so they've jumped into a market that's already got a few players and since they are so big they'll bring it to the masses. That's not all that exciting from where I sit.
The video was mostly fumes. It's hard to really see the true vision of the product with that they released. But, at least this announcement may actually get Apple to rethink their Apple TV strategy.
It's not at all clear from the video, but what are you typing on when you watch to search for whatever it is you're asking the Google TV device to search for?
oh, for the demo they showed a keyboard and an android phone as well. The input device / controller is going to vary based on provider. I can imagine there will be many remotes with built in keyboards something like this:
Maybe there is something i am missing here, but how is this better than hooking your laptop to your TV and bookmarking on your favorite shows on your browser?
Microsoft just keeps missing the mark with Media Center (MCE). It's been around since 2002-2003, but has never gained any significant traction.
It's actually a pretty nice product. The UI works well and is pretty simple to use; if someone can use a Tivo, they can figure out MCE's interface.
The problem has always been the hardware and the marketing. When it first came out, you needed a dedicated PC to run it (unless you wanted to watch it on your monitor, thereby missing the point of the whole application), which was expensive (if you wanted it quiet) and painful for the lay-person to set up, especially considering Wifi wasn't quite up to the task (802.11b was what was primarily out there).
To get around this, MS had a good idea with the Extenders, but again, the execution was horribly flawed. You still likely needed a spare PC and a fast network connection to stream data to the Extender. Additionally, the companies that made extenders tended to be Linksys and D-Link... not exactly companies busrting with consumer friendly/simple UIs. Plus they were another $200-300 addition. Plus, Extenders were never marketed well either because the manufacturers didn't have the money, or they just didn't care.
Fortunately, MS did also build Extender functionality into the Xbox. But again, it is still some separate, hard to find mode on the Xbox. You have to pair it to a PC like you would a bluetooth device, and can be confusing for a non-techie. And once you have that done, now your Xbox has two different ways of playing music/video: One with the MCE mode and UI, and one with the native Xbox dashboard UI. Plus the Extender has to "connect" to your PC every time you want to use it.
Perhaps the most damning experience I've had with it came when I showed it to a friend of mine. He's about as enthusiastic about technology as you can get, but didn't know about MCE. Back in 2007ish, after looking at it for 5 minutes he said:
"This looks awesome, why haven't I ever seen this before? Good job Microsoft."
Hindsight is 20/20, but they really should have made it 100% native on the Xbox, or released a similar device that didn't require a PC sync.
Media Center took the approach of replacing the DVR, while Google is supplementing it.
While I love the Media Center DVR, its web browsing sucks (there's no TV-focused browser). If Media Center fixed that problem, and fixed the issue with extenders being able to play all content (including Flash) then it would be a compelling device. Now it's hard for me to justify not using my Comcast DVR. Sure not as good, but I get tons of OnDemand content, and its a small quiet device with no upfront cost.
I think if Microsoft had made a silent low power box with MCE on it and marketed it as a DVR they could have had this whole market. I still don't understand why I can't walk into retailers and see such things on the shelf. I don't understand why it isn't built into the standard xbox. They have a device - it's in the living room already and it's even already connected to the TV. But it doesn't run their DVR software. There's something very inexplicable about it all.
I'm not quite familiar with WMC story/ecosystem even though I am using it with W7 these days.
One thing I noticed is that the missing good/solid hardware from big companies (i.e. Sony). Right now I'm using W7 with my computer and its screen, not a separate device that I can hook-up to my TV.
AppleTV sort of did that half-ass (pardon me). AFAIK AppleTV cannot work with my Cable provider: it only streams content from the internet.
I get what you're saying but in this case I'm not sure I agree. I think Google's looking to extend Android to any embedded device that will run it. I think this is much more an extension of android then a whole new product direction.
It's open source. :-) Hopefully you'll be able to get plenty of devices that use it. Logitech is creating a companion device. They said it should be available worldwide.
This is hardly the first entrant and pretty much every tv and blu-ray you buy moving forward will have similar capabilities to what Google has announced. Though perhaps with a different provider.
Yahoo actually has the most TV's out right now with similar interactivity using their widget platform. They're on Sony, Samsung, Vizio and LG tvs http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/
Samsung has their own platform running on their TVs and blu-ray players. Its an HTML engine and also supports a "Flash Lite" or Stagecraft. (and their tvs still run yahoo widgets as well) http://www.samsung.com/us/internetTV/
Vudu (recently bought by Wal-Mart) has an app platform being supported by many manufacturers as well its Lua based and on Toshiba, LG and Sanyo products. (this is outside of their on-demand video service)
Panasonic has "Viera Cast" which is actually a cloud based service I haven't really figured out yet
So besides these there's quite a few "Over The Top" boxes that provide similar functions such as
Roku
Popcorn Hour (about to launch their new Popbox in a bit)
Apple TV
Boxee
Anyway its fun to see Google hopping into the space we'll see how well they do.