LG Google TV Review
by Jason Inofuentes on October 2, 2012 9:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Google TV
- Media Streamer
- Media Player
- LG
- Honeycomb
- Android
- LG L9
- LG G2
God help us, if there’s one area where expectations may never be met, it’s in the ongoing-but-never-here revolution of television. Every year we hear about the next big thing in television, and every year no one ends up throwing their TVs out the window to make room for something new. Even the HD revolution was so tepid as to require a federal program to provide digital tuners for those unable or unwilling to replace their aging tube TVs. Sure, flat panel TV prices dropped considerably, but all that served to do was make profiting from the television business all the more difficult.
The value adds that have been thrown our way since then have been lackluster. Increasing refresh rates were a thing for a bit. Then there was 3D. And now Smart TVs. Of all those, Smart TVs are the only ones with the possibility of truly altering how we watch television on a day to day basis. And for a lot of reasons, they’re still likely to fail. Too many cooks stir the pot in the US television industry, and until someone manages to pare that down to a scant few, we’re not likely to get the on-demand, always ready, universal experience that this pastime has been aching for.
Google TV isn’t it. Apple TV isn’t it. Cable company DVRs certainly aren’t it. It’s not even your Roku, nor my beloved HTPC. So, that’s the bad news; now here’s the good news. They’re all trying. Smartphones had been around for a long time before this recent explosion of the market. The earliest Palms and BlackBerrys were anemic and dreadful to use for more than messaging, but they were just a start. LG remains committed to this space, and though they continue to explore their own Smart TV alliance sans Google TV, they are committed to fielding Google TVs. Samsung has recently joined its own Smart TV efforts with Google TV wares. And Google itself has extended its reach by adding television services to its Google Fiber initiative—a small experiment, no doubt, but one that could serve as an example for removing traditional big telcos from the TV experience.
For now, though, we have to take a close look at what we have. LG’s Google TV is an attractive TV, with plenty of features, and the promise of software updates well into the future. Though performance feels sluggish at times, the hardware platform is sound and capable. And at $1099, while it’s not an inconsiderable amount of money, it’s comparable to similarly specced sets. But is it worth the risk to tie yourself to this TV, when a non-Smart TV could be had for much less and paired with a $100 box that apes the functionality of this set? Only if LG holds up their end of the bargain.
What Microsoft needed in order to provide the experience we have with the 360 was a hardware platform prepared to meet any challenge it faced seven years hence, and the willingness to devote developer resources to make sure the hardware was always running the software users wanted with frequent updates. Whatever Google has in store for Google TV in the future, if LG keeps their first foray into the Google TV space current with software releases, then there’s a lot of potential here. We hope LG will meet their commitment.
If that kind of trust is too rich for your blood, then a wait and see approach could pay off. Then again, whatever set you have now, you’re probably just one Ben Franklin away from trying what’s next.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
JasonInofuentes - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
Great points, though I take issue with the tablet-as-remote concept. That's a lot of baggage and the technology exists to make a smart remote that is aware of device states. If all your components (source, display, receiver) are connected via HDMI 1.4 and use CEC for command and status, and Bluetooth is used as the protocol for communicating with the remote, then you could have a Logitech-like remote with macros that can modify the macro on the fly to reflect current states. Trouble is, not everyone implements CEC.I entirely agree that the ideal would be for a single interface to be able to query the full range of possible content options, and I think Google has a great first step towards that. Though it's a clunky affair, their access to EPG's and ability to adjust cable set-top boxes through IR blasters (and someday, hopefully, CEC) means that from their search you can do this with cable content along side streaming video options. That local storage component is still missing, and though it's a big one for those of us that have terabytes of storage devoted to movies, we are the most minor of minorities. The vast television audience mostly watches . . . television. So, for Google to put up the effort to implement a protocol for indexing and searching your media server (and to do so in a the many countless ways that your server may be configured) is not really worth it. Sad, though.
Jason
will2 - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
The last 2 posts cover what I would like to see in an intelligent Multimedia/computer system, but with 1 major difference: Instead of assuming every home wants a TV with integrated tuner - a fine concept before it was seen screens could be used for other things - but which necessarily dedicates, if not limits, part of the box to a narrow form of media consumption, I would prefer the display to be just a Monitor with just numerous HDMI, USB, & Wireless connections, where the consumer is free to buy either a USB tuner with BT4 Remote for traditional 1 room viewing (cost little different from tradional TV), or next up, a small 'pendroid+WiFi' or HTPC/XBMC where, if the user wants to view TV or compute, from different parts of the home, where only additional Monitrs need be purchased (a great saving over buying a standalone TV for multiple rooms). That way, the owner is not tied to any mode of consumption, (can buy TV Tuner, or Internet feed, or Cable) and where makers can focus developments on providing a UI that allows integration of all of these flexible configurations in an easy to use mannner. A BT4 remote, that improves on the model of the Boxee Box mini-double-sided keyboard, so all you need in the room you are working in is a Wireless Display and the smart keyboard remote. If integration is done right, this should work for non-technical consumers also - so big market potential. Any problems with this idea ?Sureshot324 - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
I have a similar remote for my HTPC (Wiimote style with a thumb keyboard) and IMO it's the best system for controlling a PC/media center from the couch. I use keyboard shortcuts for a lot of things like play/pause.zeiker - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
On my wishlist is a device (right now it's an HTPC /HTLT with video playback software) with 5.1 digital sound output, HDMI 1080p output and capabilities to stream internet content as well as BluRay, DVDs and - .iso files of DVDs and BRDs. Trying NAS devices, streaming routers, DLNA devices, it just isn't happening with what I see available.Therefore my current optimum solution (for all things video) is a discrete BRD player and HTLT and pull the net content from the laptop and mpgs and .iso files from a NAS through the laptop to the TV via Cyberlink playback software.
Anyone know of a better implementation out there?
JasonInofuentes - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
I'm actually pretty solidly against consolidation of functions in lots of cases. The best disc player, are just disc players. The best streamers, are mainly just streamers. I think we'd all love to have something that played all of those, and any other content you wanted, and did so well; but I don't see it happening, just as I don't really see it happening without compromises in the tablet space. Want a reader? An e-ink device is your best bet. Want a gaming device? Pretty solid on some SoC's, but with a dedicated handheld you know the games will work, and how well they'll work. Want a productivity device? Tablet's might be good for that, but how much more convenient for writing is a tablet than, say, a MacBook Air?Point is, maybe you're living in a good place if you have a good streamer, and a good BR player.
smartthanyou - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
A few quibbles...HD did not require a federal program for the digital tuner box. The box was for the switch to digital signals and to free up the analog spectrum. HD was part of what was being broadcast digitally, but the main reason was to free up the spectrum so the Feds could auction it off. And the program was BS to begin with. Just a waist of money, people should have been forced to buy their own box if they needed it.
The AppleTV was always meant as device for people buying into the iTunes/Apple universe. It was never meant as the next big thing.
Finally, it will never matter what hardware and software comes out, the only way we are every going to get a fundamental change in our television viewing is if there is massive change of heart with the content producers. In other words, it won't happen anytime soon.
With corporate consolidation, the companies involved just want to protect/grow profits. They don't want massive change, just massive piles of cash.
As consumers, we could force change by simply walking away from their products, but we refuse to do that. We complain, gripe and bitch about the evil media producers and corporations while we hand over our money.
JasonInofuentes - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - link
The HD switch did require federal programs to coordinate, and the tuner box was part of it, and a response to the actually flagging rate at which consumers were upgrading equipment. That issue was somewhat isolated to more rural areas that were underserved by big cable, but the tuner program was a part of it. One reason why the tuner program ended being such a flop, though, was that TV companies saw that demand had become rabid for their products and rapidly lowered prices to compete. And that's how we ended up with so much attention being devoted to 3D and now Smart TV's. Set manufacturer's need to be able to raise their margins to be profitable. Adding $50 in compute components to make your TV "smart" and providing some tag along services is cheap, and allows you to add a lot more than $50 to your price tag.Kracer - Thursday, October 4, 2012 - link
It seems that every technology space is crappy until Apple comes and does what us geeks want in a closed ecosystem so that everyone likes it.It happened with PCs, MP3s, Smartphones and tablets.
And after Apple comes along and moves things to where they should be we have to wait again for a proper open eco-system learns from Apple.
It happened with PCs, Smartphones and Android tablets just need the apps.
So until Apple comes along and gives everyone a kick up the back-side, we are stuck with customizing XBMC to kingdom come.
JasonInofuentes - Friday, October 5, 2012 - link
I think Apple has a certain undue influence, or perhaps 'undue' is to strong a word there. But there I think PC's should be left out of your list. The greatest innovations were in the openness of the Apple ecosystem and the ability for developers to extend the functionality of the OS through add-ons like Growl. It's only recently that Apple has opted to close their desktop ecosystem, and I think it's to the detriment of developers, even if it is to the benefit of Apple's pocketbooks.And note, Apple has thrown in with the Apple TV with just the structure you're talking about. And that has largely been a draw. It sells well, but it isn't a revenue driver. Nor is it, I suspect, a big iTunes revenue driver.
Kracer - Saturday, October 6, 2012 - link
On the Apple TV;I was thinking about the all so rumoured iTV or Apple television or whatever.