According to documents obtained exclusively by The Verge, Google is about to launch a renewed assault on your television set called Android TV. Major video app providers are building for the platform right now. Android TV may sound like a semantic difference – after all, Google TV was based on Android – but it’s something very different. Android TV is no longer a crazy attempt to turn your TV into a bigger, more powerful smartphone. “Android TV is an entertainment interface, not a computing platform,” writes Google. “It’s all about finding and enjoying content with the least amount of friction.” It will be “cinematic, fun, fluid, and fast.”
What does that all mean? It means that Android TV will look and feel a lot more like the rest of the set top boxes on the market, including Apple TV, Amazon’s Fire TV, and Roku.
All these devices look the same. It’s going to be very hard to stand out if they all have the same services. On top of that – I’m not putting a separate box next to my TV. Why can’t my tablet or PC act as the box? This is 2014, is it not?
If you see a separate box, they blew it.
Thom, what are your thoughts on the Chromecast form factor? It’s very limited currently, but at least for me is good enough, at least for the price. One can’t actually see it, since it’s just a stick on the back of the TV.
For TVs that don’t support screencasting, it seems like the perfect solution – a tiny dongle that’s just a dump pipe.
To me, Thom is incorrectly getting Apple-y on this one:
1. if I only upgrade my “dumb-TV” once every 5-10 years or when it completely fails, why would I want it to include smart-TV functionality that can be improved from a hardware perspective on a much more rapid cycle at a very low cost?
2. Why would I depend on TV OEMs to supply software capabilities that they have completely failed to provide or have done so poorly?
3. If not #2 above, why should I depend on TV OEMs to do a quality job of integrating a third party’s platform and doing it well with respect to both hardware and software when they’ve shown little capability to do so.
4. If not #2 or #3, why would I count on platform providers to develop high quality TVs at low cost when the market shows there’s little opportunity for such a device and little chance of it succeeding.
Yes, one integrated UI/UX experience and/or at least a relatively integrated UI/UX that can sit on top of other UIs and controlled easily and hopefully switched rarely, but I’d far rather have an extra, tiny, low-cost box than to wait on the Cable providers, TV manufacturers, or platform providers to backdoor the Cable providers and TV manufacturers any day.
You’re misunderstanding me.
The TV should act as a display. Nothing else. Stuff a cheap wireless HDMI dingle behind your TV, and done. The *tablet* is the box.
I’m interested in the Amazon Fire TV simply because I have a Kindle Fire HDX that can then use the TV as a second screen, so I get what you’re saying there.
I do wish the Fire TV could be an HDMI dongle, and maybe the second generation will be, but really I’m fine with a box next to the TV. That’s the way it’s been all my life, starting with analog satellite and cable boxes as a child, to Roku and similar boxes today. I guess if the TV is an artistic expression of one’s living room decor, I can see why one would want the device hidden, but as small as the Roku already is, it’s out of the way enough for me.
I also don’t like so-called “Smart” TVs since you generally can’t change the “smart” part when it inevitably breaks or loses support. Whether it’s a Chromecast or Roku Stick-sized device that hides completely, or a tiny box that sits out of the way, the TV should be the slave to the content, not the other way around.
Isn’t the remote working off Bluetooth? Meaning, you can hide the box behind the TV, same as a dongle? If you aren’t mounting the TV, you could probably even mode the FireTV case to mount it to the back of the TV.
How is a dongle not a separate box?
Whatever, if I misinterpreted, I still think you are wrong to say a “box” is blowing it whereas a dongle is (potentially) success.
A wireless HDMI dongle can be the size of a HDMI connector… Which you need for the box anyway. It needs to be a dumb pipe, a replacement for a tablet-to-TV cable, usable regardless of platform (which, coincidentally, is why companies dislike it).
Even then, a dongle is only necessary for old TVs. Modern TVs can have it built-in.
Edited 2014-04-05 23:26 UTC
As someone who has both a ChromeCast and an AppleTV, I can assure you that the scales are clearly tipped and it’s not towards the option that I can’t see.
It appears Roku is further along, providing much more functionality than ChromeCast with their dongle, but it still seems, from what I’ve gathered, that the power of the boxes is superior and desirable in comparison to the cheaper dongle.
At some stage, you will want dedicated processing for apps and/or will not want TV viewing to impact the state and battery of your other devices particularly if you are multitasking with the device while viewing.
Moreover, I think flash drives are almost about the only application where a dongle is preferable to a device connected by a cable because of the potential stress placed on the tv by the part (not that they are large now but a small accidental hit against a dongle can cause damage) and the inflexibility of configuration (if your HDMI ports are closely configured, a dongle (even though they’ve become quite small) can prevent you from using all of your ports). (Albeit, this is a very, very minor concern in comparison to the processing, network, and power advantages of a device larger than a dongle.)
Edited 2014-04-06 00:41 UTC
But the Chromecast does do the processing, so it doesn’t drain your mobile device, other than the few seconds it takes to locate and launch a show.
And it’s a lot easier and faster to use your phone or tablet rather than a separate remote with fiddly on-screen display.
Yes, it does processing, but it’s anemic and slow.
Other options can use smartphones as a remote as well.
Moreover, my TV already has everything you want. I use the PS3 and AppleTV because they’re good at what I want them to do. The SmartTV functionality built into the TV is complete and utter crap and I haven’t attempted to use it since the first week or two of owning it because it was crap, cumbersome, poor performing, ugly, and unreliable. If you are arguing for it to be built into the TV, I circle back around to my original comment.
If I understand correctly, what Thom is proposing is really just similar to Apple’s CarPlay system, but for a TV.
Well, by using a wireless hdmi, you are requiring the tablet/phone to support it, right?
Well, they don’t. At least the ones I have don’t. A set top box is the only way to support existing devices people have (tablets/phones) and support existing tvs that people have.
Plus my experience with wireless hdmi hasn’t been the greatest. But maybe that’s just my set up.
Wireless on a device that never, ever, ever moves is just dumb. At the very least, add an Ethernet port and make wireless an option. Why even bother adding wireless if you’re only going to support 2.4 GHz?
You can pretty much do this already with a miracast TV. However, there’s always going to be lag, and you’ll probably never get any decent performance when gaming this way. Well, maybe it’ll work better when we have fiber internet in the home and the wireless routers get faster. But I don’t think the technology is there yet.
Personally, I don’t mind putting a small, $100 box under the TV, esp if somebody else wants to use the tablet while I’m watching a movie.
Edited 2014-04-05 22:57 UTC
I don’t get it Thom. So you’re saying, instead of buying a $100 small box that can entertain me, buy a dongle + tablet/computer @ 2-3 times the cost to do the same thing? Any other good ideas you’ve got?
You already have a smartphone or a tablet, don’t you? Why should I buy yet another device for something my smartphone and/or tablet can do just fine?
(If not – then it’s a different story).
I might, plenty of people don’t.
Exactly. Your quip was based on an assumption that is not valid for a lot of folks. You also ignored the fact that a single box with a remote can be operated by 99% of people. Tablets/Computers used to stream media on the other hand, not so much.
It’s not about the box. That can be made really small and can be hidden away. Thom’s idea is bad because it introduces a dependency on a personal, portable device.
The TV is a communal screen. Ideally it shouldn’t be dependent on one person’s phone or tablet for playback functionality or content. Say I’m watching a movie with my family but then need to leave the house. Does the movie stop when I take my phone with me? No? Then you need a box that has some smarts. It can’t be just a “dumb pipe”.
Bingo. Same reason that the smart connected devices that use your phone as a control only really work if you’re single (or want everyone in the family to have a compatible smart device).
I don’t want to waste the battery on my phone or tablet to watch content on the TV. I’m ok with one box. I don’t want 4. That’s the real problem Each of these solutions fails to connect to certain services. My Apple TV is great except I can’t get to amazon prime content. My PS3 can stream amazon prime content and act as blu-ray player, but can’t get to my ITMS content. My TV can do hulu and netflx but also can’t do ITMS.
I hate having all these little boxes and devices in my living room. I’m starting to think a small PC is the best choice because it’s the only one that delivers a browser, netflix, hulu, itunes, etc. The only problem with that is the user iterface sucks for using it like a set top box.
I want all my devices to access all my content. No one can do that yet.
A generic Android box using a Snapdragon 800 SoC (with an Ethernet port) would be ideal. Especially if it has access to the Play Store. Install a “10′ UI” launcher. Install BubbleUPnP (or similar) to view local content. Install all your streaming apps for Netflix, Hulu, etc. Anything else that’s needed is just a Play Store search away, including games. Bluetooth for remote/gamepad support. HDMI to connect to the TV.
Okay, so you can’t get iTunes on there, but that’s an Apple issue, not an Android issue.
And those of us without Apple accounts won’t mind. 
The FireTV is most of the way there, but it’s not generic enough, and locked (mostly) into Amazon’s anemic (aka non-existent) non-US ecosystem. I’m hoping the Android TV is more open and generic.
<a href=http://www.roku.com/now-playing>Roku comes awfully close.
(edit)
Silly OSAlert. Still can’t get a simple href right.
Edited 2014-04-07 22:06 UTC
Because it’s nice to use the phone while the TV is on, and none of them can multi-task like that (yet?)?
Because it’s nice to walk around the house with the phone and not be tied to the room with the TV (even if you have wireless coverage over the whole house)?
Because sometimes I forget the phone in the car, or at work, or upstairs, and the TV is downstairs and I’d like to just watch something?
Multi-purpose devices are cool. But having the phone/tablet be the guts of the display system is just dumb. Why not just plug the HDMI cable into the tablet and leave the tablet behind the TV, then?
I see what you’re saying, and for the technically savvy, it *might* be OK, but you’re still introducing things just begging to fail. I’ve got a Miracast dongle, it works, but it’s a ropey, nasty interface, which is a chore to use. I can push things from my tablet, but that’s no good if my girlfriend wants to watch TV and I’m out and about using my tablet.
Even for the tech savvy, that idea of tablets/dongles etc. introduces points of failure, and also points where one manufacturer can blame the other for lack of function.
With the Apple TV (though I think it’s rubbish), at least it’s one box which is always plugged in, it’s cheap and there is only one port of call to complain about failure.
For the non tech savvy, asking them to plug in dongles, download Miracast stuff, “pair” their devices etc. is too complicated, and for the tech savvy, it’s just over engineered and waiting to fail.
I agree with the TV as display part. “The *tablet* is the box” makes me wonder how many people you share your tablet and TV with. It sounds like a terrible solution for my wife, kids, and frequently at my house without me mother and mother-in-law.
1. more and more studies show that people use their smart devices simultaneously with watching TV.
Having a tablet busy serving content is incompatible with that.
2. while tablets penetrations is rising it’s nowhere close to 100% and will never be
3. There are always people who are comfortable with traditional IR remote based TV interface (or at least most of the time) and would consider switching to touch screen too complex. Whatever is to replace it should at least be collapsible to basic channel zapping.
I’ll have to disagree. I just ordered a CuBox-i4Pro to evaluate as a potential successor to the bulky “small form factor” Athlon64 I’m currently using as an HTPC.
http://cubox-i.com/products/
I don’t want a playing movie to be bound to a specific person’s mobile device.
…though software to enable the HTPC to also act as a Chromecast/MiraCast receiver for video clips is always welcome.
Edited 2014-04-05 21:33 UTC
Some people like boxes because they don’t have smartphones, tablets etc etc and don’t want/can’t afford them. My father is possibly the most hypocritical technophobe alive. He doesn’t understand the internet and doesn’t want to, but despite that he’s an avid console gamer. He uses his PS3 for video streaming and watching DVD’s, as well as playing games, but has no interest in tablets or smartphones. What about him? Sure, he might be and edge case, but for this reason, the box under the TV won’t ever die.
What i’m more interested in, is more interoperability and standards between devices and boxes. Why shouldn’t I be able to control an Apple TV with an Android smartphone? Why shouldn’t I be able to use my PS3 controller with an Xbox? If you could sell me a box that sat under my TV that allowed me to do all that, shut up and take my money.
Crap article from a source that I’m quickly losing confidence in. Me, invested in gen 1 Google TV, only to be told by Google that I’d need to invest in Google TV 2. Did so. Then was promised by Google personnel in 2013 that great things were coming in Q4 2013. Then Chromecast sucked up all the Google TV oxygen. Then rumors about Google TV 2 supporting Chromecast with nothing announced Q4 2013. Funny, secret documents released just a day or so after Amazon SHIPS a box that does everything that Google has promised for a few years now. Told them at The Verge and I’ll say it here…a crap article from a source that is quickly losing my confidence as an independent source of technology news. Really, Google has figured out TV after failing at 1.0, 2.0. Chromecast and now Android TV…give me a break. But conveniently after Amazon makes their first TV announcement. Did the Boxee management team take over Google TV?
Edited 2014-04-06 03:43 UTC
You probably should be directing the bulk of your anger at Google, not The Verge.
xbmc + tvheadend > *
The end.
IMHO, it is all down to YASTBTFPF
Yes another Set Top box to find power for.
Chromecast was a good idea as it drew its power from the system it was connected to.
At the moment I have attached to my TV
– Freeview PVR
– Freesat PVR
– DVD player
– HDMI cable for connecting my laptop
I really don’t want any more clutter around my TV. I get more than enough TV shows recorded by my PVR’s for me to watch when I want to or when I’m away on business. Last trip I took more than 50 hours of shows I’d recorded with me.
No I don’t have cable (Virgin Media does not pass my front door), for do I have a Sky subscription.
The first thing that I’ve always attached to my TV is some form of hard disk recorder (yes, it’s a box, sorry about that). Whether it’s a dedicated unit or some sort of HTPC with tuner cards, it’s the #1 priority for me and I suspect most people who actually want to watch TV programmes on, you know, your *TV*.
After that, other ways of displaying (non-broadcast-TV) content on my TV are icing on the cake and *definitely* shouldn’t be another box with another remote (I’ve just added those with the hard disk recorder, remember?). This is why I didn’t go for Apple TV (never mind the abhorrent Apple ecosystem lock-in with it) or any of the Roku products and just settled on a cheap and cheerful Chromecast as a second HDMI-based device hooked into my TV.
With the right apps (Plex, LocalCast etc.), you can then stream content from your network or local device, though sadly Google have dropped the ball with the lack of AC3 audio support). Plus there’s BBC iPlayer if I forget/fail to record a BBC show on my hard disk recorder (the hard disk recorder is still a superior solution by *far* compared to Chromecast TV channel streaming apps and anyone who says otherwise needs their head examined).
More of my (UK-centric) thoughts at my TL:DR-inducing Chromecast page at http://chromecast.richardlloyd.org.uk/
Sounds like we need the 3DO. A single standard for under tv box entertainment, acts as game console, tv recorder, media player etc. Made by many manufacturers, but implementing the single standard so everything just works. Too bad that’ll never happen. DLNA is the closest thing and it’s a bastardised mess.
My kids use my TV (and my home in general) way more often than I do. For them, the ultimate interface is a tiny remote like that of the AppleTV. Three buttons are right up their alley. A mandatory tablet is a terrible idea. For one thing, it means I have to leave it at home for them when I am not there. For another, it is just one more point of failure for them (dead battery, UI problems, network connections, broken when dropped/spilled on, etc).
I have four remotes as the kids manage to lose/destroy them at the rate of about two a year. At $15 I am ok with that. How much would tablets / phones cost me in Thom’s scenario?
For me, the TV is just a monitor. In fact, my TV does not actually have a tuner (so it really is a monitor, not a TV). I would like to be able to upgrade it or replace it when it fails without messing with the rest of my setup. I would like to be able to enhance the software without worrying about the expense associated with upgrading the screen.
I provide the tech capabilities for my family. Once it get it setup the way I want, I do not want to have to mess with it again. The less of the configuration is exposed to others the better it is for me.
For all these reasons, a device that plugs into my TV is the perfect solution. Of course, the smaller that thing is, the better.
If you see a separate box, they blew it.
Thom, love ya, but sod off with the Jobs quotes
Bought a new Toshiba TV in 2012, has integrated youtube, iplayer, wired ethernet and DLNA streaming^aEUR|
Except Google retired the youtube url it visits, and the device is locked down enough that the integrated plugins dont work on other video urls ^aEUR only a firmware update will ^aEUR~unblow^aEURTM it. That update isn^aEURTMt coming.
DLNA compat. is terrible. Screen^aEURsharing from other devices? Yay, macroblocks.
So until these devices run an OS that I can easily firmware replace whenever, I welcome a separate box that I can upgrade at my choosing.
Edited 2014-04-07 11:55 UTC
Thom – the box sits next to the tv because the tv is a public, or at least shared, device.
your tablet or phone are yours, full of private info. most also have apps that will take over your connected TV screen if needed.
but a huge screen that does nothing unless you use your personal device to control it seems pretty useless to me.
wait — they already have those – they are called computer monitors. you can already hang those all over your house, and just plug into it when needed. but no one does that.
that’s why there are set-top boxes. my roku is the size of a cassette and black, so no one sees it anyway. i get firmware updates, an active channel store, and linux reliability for $69 only.
Edited 2014-04-07 15:53 UTC