Apple TV is the one you date, Google TV is the one you marry

If by the “one you marry” you mean, is ugly, complicated and comes with third party baggage then yes. However I would prefer to marry something that works, is beautiful and has its stuff together…like apple tv. You may have missed the point when Steve pointed out that 'Consumers don't want their computer on their tv'. Google TV should be great for those willing to put in some learning and effort but likely not for the mass market.

Interesting article – i almost want to believe it but dont see enough +s on Google TV side just yet. I think both of these devices (and others like roku) suffer from a trifecta of maladies – too complicated for consumers, not enough content vs. satellite/cable, and higher upfront cost.if new tv sets coming from sony and others this fall run android OS and integrate 1.0 google tv box functions within the tv, they probably have a better shot at reaching critical mass vs. google or apple tv.i dont just want all my web on my tv, i also want all my _tv_ on tv without having to shell out monthly $$ to Dish/Direct/Comcasts/Uverses of the world.

Both these concepts seem pre-mature and not fully formed.We don't know how the TV app ecosystem is going to shake out on the Apple platform. And, there is no Google box yet. I concur with Rohit that the real driver here is a surly consumer set that wants any excuse to ditch their monthly tithe to the “Dish/Direct/Comcasts/Uverses of the world.”

With that logic, isn't software that's integrated in your TV something thats much easier and “just works” compared to a separate device? All of the GTV interface vids we've seen make it clear it's not a complicated or nerdy thing — or at least, no more so than Apple TV.

I totally agree with you Rohit, which is why I think Google TV offers the best option right now. It gives you direct access to sites like Hulu, ABC, Fox, and others that are streaming their content, and you can bet that Amazon will bring it's rumored streaming video service over as well. Now instead of being beholden to the cable/sat providers, we'll be able to pick and choose what we want to pay for.

In that case we would have to buy a whole new tv that is compatible, which is an excessive price, particularly if we are happy with the set we have now? Ideally both would be integrated directly, though that ties the battle into the third party's ability to execute the end product. While the vids are nice and it does not seem overly complicated I believe most consumers would adapt easier to the mac's UI particularly when it comes to streaming and sending media between devices. Not to mention the clean transitions between apple tv and ipods/phones/pads may ultimately dwarf anything google may be able to create cleanly with existing products that the end user may actually own.

I think the main difference between Google TV and Apple TV… is the Apple TV is actually something I can *buy* not something that was pre-announced but not fully baked. When is Google TV going to be available?I see an SDK in the near future, and while they haven't done well in this space, I don't think we can count apple out.

The TV and cable/satellite integration won't happen immediately, but over time it will allow GTV to be introduced into homes that wouldn't pay for a separate device like the Apple TV. Logitech's Revue box is the *first* GTV, whereas this is the third (or fourth?) iteration of the Apple TV — so of course it's a bit more expensive. It also does a lot more than the ATV as well. By next year, as I wrote, we'll likely see cheaper GTV boxes as well.Google is already showing off the ability to push web pages from Android phones to GTV — it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to offer the media streaming push that Apple is doing I'm thinking long term here. Sure, there are a few features that are more appealing with Apple TV, but eventually those features, and its low price, won't really matter.

Up until today Apple TV was just a rumor. We actually learned quite a bit about GTV over the past few months, and you can expect an actual release announcement soon since the Revue box is expect to hit this fall. I don't see how that means we can't compare them. Indeed, it seems telling that what we know about GTV so far is more compelling (IMO) than the announced ATV.

TV software that is integrated in TVs i believe is anything but “much easier.” The TV companies have never been known for their software, and for good reasons. Typically TV menus are confusing and use crazy menus that most people don't touch. iOS devices on the other hand deliver arguably the most usable interfaces of any consumer product to date.Apple can leverage the fact that 100's of millions of people understand and love their multimedia interfaces that have created the market leader Apple is today. I'm not going to make a snap judgment, but if usability is the discussion(which it seems to be) the edge typically falls in Apple's favor as that is their core competency. If Google comes out on top of this department I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Where is this great Google product you speak of? Can I go buy it?No, hopes and dreams don't mean anything…Let us know when and if there is something that can actually be bought that does a fraction of what Google claims…

I'm sure it seems compelling. That's the point though, Apple products aren't announced until you can actually hold one in your hand within the next 3 – 4 weeks.I'm not saying the Apple TV announced is near as compelling (sounding) as what Google has “announced”. I haven't actually read all the things that Google has promised, but I know that Apple already has relationships with all the major publishers, and has a working system and platform for syncing between multiple used devices with iTunes. I haven't read enough about Google TV, so I won't comment. But from what I've heard of the Android experience, they don't have a usable desktop experience with their phones, so I doubt that a first rev is going to see as clean of an experience as what Apple already provides, and is just making better.Saying that, an SDK would kick ass.

Sorry, looks like I muffed up the responseI'm sure it seems compelling. That's the point though, Apple products aren't announced until you can actually hold one in your hand within the next 3 – 4 weeks.I'm not saying the Apple TV announced is near as compelling (sounding) as what Google has “announced”. I haven't actually read all the things that Google has promised, but I know that Apple already has relationships with all the major publishers, and has a working system and platform for syncing between multiple used devices with iTunes. I haven't read enough about Google TV, so I won't comment. But from what I've heard of the Android experience, they don't have a usable desktop experience with their phones, so I doubt that a first rev is going to see as clean of an experience as what Apple already provides, and is just making better.Saying that, an SDK would kick ass.

I think he means “one you marry” in that its something that has substance, is your best friend and that you want to spend the rest of your life with. Opposed to the “one you date” in that its something that costs you a lot of money to get started and doesn't really have everything you want, hence you have to “pick up” another “superficially attractive” model soon afterwards and spend more money again only to receive the same result i.e. pretty much every Apple device ever made, perfect example the iPhone & iPad. What Lord Jobs knows about consumers is what he tells them they know. “Consumer don't want their computer on their tv?”, no, they want a handy device they can browse parts of the internet on while they sit in front of the television, watching show through a device which he also sold them. GTV built into a television is a great idea. A television is a low frequency, high range product so it makes sense to have it built in.

All current gen games consoles do exactly this. Furthermore Apple have released something that needs to connect to a computer or server to be properly useful, yet they claim consumers don't want a computer on their TV! Doesn't make sense! While it is cheap at $99, its more expensive than getting a remote for your HTPC, console or even laptop. Yes, I'm saying this is generation of Apple TV is little better than a remote control considering we all have access to this content already from one platform or another.I know this seems to be aimed at the less technologically savvy but if Sony, Nintendo and MS rebranded their consoles as 'media' consoles that may be all the layman wants to hear.And Devindra don't get me started on GTV. Unless Google release the software free for download like Boxee and XBMC, (apart from search) I can't see the appeal over Windows Media Centre or even FrontRow.

The title is interesting, but in reality it should have said “Apple TV is the one you date and should have married; Google TV is the one you wait and wait for thinking she's all that but she never arrives or when she does she's not nearly as hot as you thought she'd be.” I suppose that's more words and more truth than a blog headline these days is allowed to have.The new Apple TV architecture is a step up, and it is real. It can grow to be more but at $99 it is pretty fine as it is. Google TV is a nebulous mist of pretty concepts that is likely to never coalesce into real, usable products for real people.

Google TV's implementation will be limited to whatever pieces of it the hardware manufacturers want to embed — in whatever modified or crippled form they want them. There will be no consistency and no standard install. The inconsistency and incompatibility will kill it in the long run — if anyone really brings it to market in the short run in the first place.

I think your proposal is a bit pre-mature. You have not even been on a blind date with the Google box.

Now TV get fanboynized!

NOR the apple box for that matter. The linkbaiting headline was great, the article? not so much.

I love how any vaguely creative headline is called linkbaiting Sorry you didn't like the article Jeremy, but it'd be great if you could list what you disagree with.

ok…1. “Instead of scrolling through hundreds of channels with a clunky channel guide, you can use Google TV’s search to find content from live TV, your DVR, or web video instantly.”who wants to do that? i'll tell you who – NOT people in their living rooms.2. “Google is working with TV manufacturers and cable/satellite providers to integrate the service into TVs and set-top boxes, which could help put an end to ugly TV programming guides and other terrible user interfaces forced upon couch potatoes.”Google is the KING of terrible user interfaces. So much so they *finally* hired an outside expert to help them on Android phones. The TV is a significantly harder UI problem to solve, one they are simply not well suited for (at present).3. “Instead of going out and buying a separate device, users will inevitably get access to Google TV by default through their cable/satellite provider”They are having some traction with Echo, because the satellite guys are in big trouble. They have NO inroads in the cable world, since their solution is the literal antithesis of what big cable wants in the future. By definition: if Google wins TV, Cable loses.4. “Apple’s price lead won’t last forever, though — you can bet that by next year, there will be a Google TV box around or under $99 as well.”Have you read about the actual hardware specs? The only way a product comes out at those price points is either (1) massive performance sacrifice or (2) massive subsidy.5. “Meanwhile, Google TV will have the same advantage as Google’s Android mobile operating system — it will be everywhere, making it unstoppable.”Except, unlike mobile, the TV makers are shying AWAY from this platform, as it is too expensive to implement.Overall – *can* google succeed with gTV? Sure. But not with 1.0, and not in the near term. This is a 3-5 year investment, at a minimum, just to play the game. Hope that was more constructive than my prior comment, which I acknowledge as being a little too snarky – my apologies.Best,Jeremy

Hey Jeremy, thanks for fleshing out your thoughts. And yes, I agree that in the long term, it's Google TV that's going to succeed. That's sort of what i was trying to drive home with this piece — the one you marry is the one that's going to last for years, it's not a hot fling like Apple TV

Not only that, but Apple will sell millions of these AppleTV devices before Christmas. Coupled with a few million of the older models and Apple has such a huge start that GTV will be stunted from the start. And like most things “Google” it will quietly be shelved once they learn no content providers will sign up.

You have a point, albeit, the same point that was made at Android's launch.Hmmmm… how's that going ?

[...] Apple, on the other hand, does have a successful platform in iOS as well as a successful hardware business. So, if the company did decide to launch a TV set, it would probably be better than what’s currently available in the market today. That doesn’t take into account the competition from previously owned HDTVs matched with set-top boxes like Roku or Google TV. [...]

[...] chief. I don’t blame the guy for throwing his weight behind Google TV — I think it still has the potential to be the best long-term solution for combining web video and traditional TV. But Google has been slow to update the software, and [...]

[...] [...]