Community Comments on Google's Acquisition of SageTV

[rnadeau]

Sage TV as a business may no longer be, but as a community cannot be suppressed!

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

I didn't mean that Apple will release nor offer the first solution. There were all kinds of media players out before AppleTV. GOogle already has a horse in the game too, but that's not what was intended.

If anyone will have a SUCCESS first, it will be Apple. It always has been for over 10 years. They define markets. And ultimately, that's what's important to the shareholders like me.

With regards to Android, I think consumers are winning with variety and some OEMs like Samsung have been able to edge themselves into better profits/positions, but Google's in no position to celebrate themselves. They make peanuts from Android at the moment and there's no obvious signs that's about to change any time soon. Smoke and mirrors and large activation numbers don't change that.

Having to choose a PVR solution today, the current SageTV still wins out over-all in my books.

I think it's completely impossible for anyone outside of google to ascertain how much google is making on android. The information they receive from it is extremely valuable. That is where they make their money, not from selling handsets. Google would make just as much, if not more, off of android if the phones were given away free.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I think it's completely impossible for anyone outside of google to ascertain how much google is making on android.

To a point, but, Google's net income has dropped as they transition to selling more ads in the mobile market. I expect that to change as they get a better handle on the relatively new mobile app market, but I also expect them to push far more aggressively into the "living room" as the traditional PC browser ad market continues to shrink. Google knows Apple is selling ads and planning a living room coup d'état.

[tophatt]

Do you think it is likely that Google will use the HD300 to "push far more aggressively into the "living room"" ?

[TwistedMelon]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I think it's completely impossible for anyone outside of google to ascertain how much google is making on android.

It may be impossible to know precise figures, but it's not impossible to make very educated guesses based on facts that Google themselves have provided. You can read plenty of estimates that have been written earlier this year. Even if all of them are grossly under-valued, it all still shakes out to peanuts compared to Google's other revenues. Google reports results publicly (and to the SEC) quarterly if you want to see how much their entire operations bring in.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by tophatt

Do you think it is likely that Google will use the HD300 to "push far more aggressively into the "living room"" ?

Very unlikely. GoogleTV and/or some other Android powered STBs/TVs will be part of that push.

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

Even if all of them are grossly under-valued, it all still shakes out to peanuts compared to Google's other revenues.

The market they need to advertise in is going mobile -- As eyes turn from the PC of yesterday to smartphones, tablets, and yes, TVs, Google knows they have to succeed with Android, just like they need to eventually succeed in the living room. Sink or swim. The losses you see today are part of that necessary transition.

[TwistedMelon]

It doesn't matter how many more Android products Google gets OEMs to push to consumers if they aren't able to effectively monetize the platform and continue to spend the way they have in development, promotion and sales.

That aside, it was only anecdotal to the discussion of Google/Sage anyway. Google can be fickle with pet projects. I'd not give their TV push more than a 50/50 chance at this time. And I'm talking odds of an internal cancellation, not public adoption. Though that would still probably be at least a couple of years away. I'm sure they're fine with losing more money if it looks, at least for the moment, that they're gaining some momentum (I don't think they are though). GoogleTV is still "irrelevant" in the marketplace and have thus far not come remotely close to Eric Schmidt's "Summer 2012" boast.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

It doesn't matter how many more Android products Google gets OEMs to push to consumers if they aren't able to effectively monetize the platform and continue to spend the way they have in development, promotion and sales.

The number of Android devices absolutely does matter, provided they are "Google" enabled. Android is the new vehicle for Google's ads, and the more eyes on them the better.

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

I'd not give their TV push more than a 50/50 chance at this time.

As those viewing Google ads on their PCs continue to drop, Google has no choice but to look elsewhere. Since ads on tablets and phones tend not to do as well as they did on the PC (lower margins), the captive audience of the TV is Google best hope. Google's "Project Glass" is a pet project. TV? Nothing "pet" about it, and Google must capture a substantial portion of that market to succeed, as Android in the mobile space alone is not enough.

[TwistedMelon]

Originally Posted by brainbone

The number of Android devices absolutely does matter, provided they are "Google" enabled.

But you've omitted the most important part of what I wrote. If Google are not able to effectively monetize the platform and continue to lose money, it doesn't matter if they have 1 or 1 BILLION devices out there. Either way they'll fail.

I'm not sure what the deals are like with their TV product, but the biggest issue they have in terms of consumer acceptance is that the platform itself is not at all compelling - it's ill-defined and adoption is completely stalled. Even little players like Roku are selling more boxes, and everyone, including again Roku, Microsoft, Sony (excluding their GTV product), Apple and others have more eyeballs in front of their platforms.

I don't believe that "giving it away" alone, like they've done in the mobile space, is going to change things very much for TV. If on the other hand they came out with a clear focus and a clearly defined product, that for example targeted TiVo and cableco DVRs, they might have something. But right now GoogleTV has been sort of like their Q product. Ill-defined and a "solution" in search of a problem.

[tmiranda]

IMHO the "Smart TV" market will not succeed until we see an iTV. Once that happens the masses will ooh and aah over Apple's pretty interface making the market take off. After that it's up to Google and others to capture part of the market. I just don't see any company other than Apple being able to create a market in the space. Once it's created the competitors can step in.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by TwistedMelon

But you've omitted the most important part of what I wrote. If Google are not able to effectively monetize the platform and continue to lose money, it doesn't matter if they have 1 or 1 BILLION devices out there. Either way they'll fail.

I believe I addressed that point in my position that the living room is one of the areas that Google needs in order to monetize the Android platform. Mobile devices are a great way of modeling your user's behavior, but not a great way to sell ads. TVs are a great way to actually put the data you've collected to use.

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I just don't see any company other than Apple being able to create a market in the space. Once it's created the competitors can step in.

Others will create the technology and do all the difficult leg work of getting content providers and networks to move off the Cable Co. teat, but yes, Apple may be the company that steps in and reaps the initial rewards, convincing everyone that they need a smart TV (iScreen? iPanel? iTV? iPotato?) to be cool.

[darcilicious]

Sign me up for the iPotato please!

[Brent]

Just speculating here but if Google can take the agreements it's started with on Google Fiber TV for content etc, it might be a force to deal with vs. Apple. What if Google Fiber TV swallows up Google TV and the services mesh together? Google TV could then do much of what Google Fiber TV (er SageTV) does plus all the existing GoogleTV/Androids stuff.

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by Brent

Just speculating here but if Google can take the agreements it's started with on Google Fiber TV for content etc, it might be a force to deal with vs. Apple. What if Google Fiber TV swallows up Google TV and the services mesh together? Google TV could then do much of what Google Fiber TV (er SageTV) does plus all the existing GoogleTV/Androids stuff.

The end game. It's probably a lot further out then most of us can see. But my guess is that you are really close. When the shift to online TV really happens, Google will be standing there asking where we've been.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by darcilicious

Sign me up for the iPotato please!

Would the smaller screen iPotato be the iPotato mini, or the iSpud?

Originally Posted by Brent

if Google can take the agreements it's started with on Google Fiber TV for content etc, it might be a force to deal with vs. Apple.

Spot on.

Originally Posted by darcilicious

What if Google Fiber TV swallows up Google TV and the services mesh together? Google TV could then do much of what Google Fiber TV (er SageTV) does plus all the existing GoogleTV/Androids stuff.

Exactly where I see things going.

[Fuzzy]

In the end, for a non-fiber google/sage system to be mass marketable, thus being able to be a source of advertising revenue, it has to bring something more than just DVR capabilities plus limited online content. It has to have some significant UI flash also, otherwise, why wouldn't people continue to use the provider DVR's, which are getting better every year.

Sadly, the main thing that will draw people in, if fanart, and I'm not sure that's something google could easily provide out of the box. With most the art at thetvdb being of a somewhat 'grey area', content rights wise, it would be hard for them to use that in the core product. Which would mean either allowing the community plugins like now, which would be great, but can easily be a support issue for mass acceptance, or use art specificly provided by the content owners, which may be pretty sparse, especially considering older content.

The other way to get it to spread, which may not sound that far off with rapidly dropping hardware prices - look at RPi, for example - is for the 'extenders' to be free, with advertising features locked on...

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

In the end, for a non-fiber google/sage system to be mass marketable, thus being able to be a source of advertising revenue, it has to bring something more than just DVR capabilities plus limited online content. It has to have some significant UI flash also, otherwise, why wouldn't people continue to use the provider DVR's, which are getting better every year.

I hear ya. But what if... Google licensed the box to cable and/or internet providers or even TV makers? Part of the agreement would be to offer the hardware at cost and then share the advertising revenues and the cableco gives google the statistics for all views etc for google to sell as a product like Nielson. Just trying to think out of the box like a company that has "thrown spaghetti on the wall" to find new ways to do things.

Google uses the KC area to show off WHY the fiber will make providers $$$. And in turn provides a new source of revenue for Google along with some sort of built-in advertising control. Again - I'm totally speculating/brainstorming here.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Brent

I hear ya. But what if... Google licensed the box to cable and/or internet providers or even TV makers? Part of the agreement would be to offer the hardware at cost and then share the advertising revenues and the cableco gives google the statistics for all views etc for google to sell as a product like Nielson. Just trying to think out of the box like a company that has "thrown spaghetti on the wall" to find new ways to do things.

Google uses the KC area to show off WHY the fiber will make providers $$$. And in turn provides a new source of revenue for Google along with some sort of built-in advertising control. Again - I'm totally speculating/brainstorming here.

As a consumer, I like that idea less - a product sold through the provider is still a provider DVR, which people only really use because the feel there is no other choice.

The thing is, cablecard is still a viable option for dedicated hardware, so they COULD still do this completely without the cable providers being directly involved... I know at least someone at google has been looking in the direct sales/lease direction, as they were one of the members of the AllVid alliance. (along with Hardware manufacturers Sony and Mitsubishi, AND retailer Best Buy). It's still not beyond the realm of possibility that a google licensed software couldn't run on a sony or mitsubishi - or googlorola, of course - sold through the likes of best buy, as a plugin box with a cablecard option. They, with this model, would not be able to to advertising injection, and couldn't divert the in-stream ads, but they could still do UI level advertising (banner type), and obviously inject adds in any online sourced content.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

it has to bring something more than just DVR capabilities plus limited online content.

A unified platform that is simple for the average user to use is what it will bring. What you buy on your phone is available on your PC and TV. Your shows you watch on your TV are available on your tablet and phone. The apps you use on your ... ad nauseam.

Devices like the UG007 and iMito MX1 appear to be "almost" there, lacking live TV/DVR and a good 10 ft. UI.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

The thing is, cablecard is still a viable option for dedicated hardware, so they COULD still do this completely without the cable providers being directly involved... .

But then Google doesn't have full control of the stream, and as a result isn't able to leverage real-time / viewer specific advertising.