7 ms·

So if you want to search for something on TV, which GoogleTV is supposed to enable you to do, how would you do that using Apple's three-button remote? I have an

So if you want to search for something on TV, which GoogleTV is supposed to enable you to do, how would you do that using Apple's three-button remote? I have an idea about a prayer and Steve Jobs, but wouldn't elaborate on it. I think the blog post doesn't have a point at all, since it compares apples to pears.

steveklabnik 16y ago
You'd do it by grabbing your iPad off of the coffee table, searching for something, and clicking 'send to TV.' So much easier and simpler than trying to make everything do everything. Leave the keyboard to a device that's better used with one, and make the two work together nicely. I still think that little 'Oh, and I can push stuff to my tv with my iPhone' feature they skimmed over at the Ping event will end up huge.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  But wait, that's exactly what you can do with an Android device or an iOS device and a GoogleTV already. See the section "Your phone = remote control" here: http://www.google.com/tv/features.html http://www.google.com/tv/features.html.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    There's a difference between "There's a checkbox that's been ticked for this feature" and "this product has been designed around this concept."
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      Of course there is. What is it that makes you think the latter is so vastly superior to the former though? I like the fact that I can choose an input device that meets my needs, one of which happens to be my phone. What's wrong with choice?
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        Nothing is wrong with choice. An analogy: I love using vim. It's super awesome. But most people don't want to use vim. I'm in the minority of users. That doesn't mean that vim is wrong, or that Notepad++ is 'better.' It just means I'm in a minority. In this case, the latter is vastly superior (for me) because a TV isn't something I want to screw around with. I want to do two things with my TV: Start playing the game that's currently in my XBox, or flip through my Netflix queue and click play. I've never used 99% of the options on my XBox dashboard, because I don't care about any of that stuff. I just want something super simple.
ary 16y ago
I think you're missing the point. The comparison of the remotes isn't intended to point out the "better design" of the Apple version. The comparison is of the overall approach to user experience. It's obvious that Apple doesn't think people want to search when sitting in front of their TV's, whereas Google almost can't approach a problem that it doesn't think centers around search. This is not to say that there haven't been rudimentary search capabilities in the Apple TV. It's just not a focus.
raganwald 16y ago
I don't have an AppleTV, but I do have a Mac Mini that runs iTunes and FrontRow. It has a small remote that is excellent for controlling the volume, fast forwarding, rewinding, and so on. If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time. Disclosure: I do not hack my Unix filesytem for the sheer joy of nerding out. My opinions about usability probably do not map to anyone who reads HN regularly.
- nkurz 16y ago
  If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time. This seems like a good direction for Apple to take. Instead of putting a full keyboard on every remote, just allow additional peripherals to be added via USB or Bluetooth. Unfortunately they certainly hasn't made this easy: http://www.hackint0sh.org/f98/77420.htm http://www.hackint0sh.org/f98/77420.htm I guess I can see why Apple would keep this entirely within their own ecosystem for economic reasons, but this feels like it really limits the utility of their devices. Wouldn't they do as well to have a simple way of connecting standard devices AND provide what they feel is the best experience via custom apps?
mikeryan 16y ago
Actually the article is missing a larger point. Most users probably don't want to be searching on their TV. Maybe a larger cognitive disconnect of Google's Device is that their answer to the problem isn't the right one. At some point Google really needed to try to figure out whether search was the feature that people really needed. I'd say content discovery is still a huge gaping hole as more IP Delivered video gets pushed to the main TV screen in your house. I don't think that text search is how people are going to find it. But hey when your main tool is a hammer every problem starts looking like nails right? Apple's focus is on delivering video. period. They don't need the complexity of an GoogleTV because they're delivering the main thing that people want on their TV. They end up with a $100 box which is very usable and probably delivers the key features that people need. BTW Vizio has a more elegant solution for a keyboard with a clamshell remote http://gizmodo.com/5443308/every-3d-vizio-comes-with-this-crazy-keyboard-remote http://gizmodo.com/5443308/every-3d-vizio-comes-with-this-cr...
- zachwaugh 16y ago
  I agree, and that is my point actually, the remotes were just an example. But the remotes reflect how they approached the whole problem. Google went with the assumption search was necessary, and had to find a way to fit it in. Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    This is kind of ridiculous. I do want to be searching on my TV. That's why I have a computer hooked up to it with a wireless keyboard and mouse. Just because Apple designed a product that fits your needs doesn't mean that it fits everyone's. Statements like "Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out" are offensively condescending and give Apple too much credit. Building any product requires making assumptions. So far Apple has happened to be right with many of theirs, and for that they deserve a ton of credit. But the fact of the matter is that the Apple TV obviously doesn't meet very many people's needs, otherwise it would have sold better. I think Google deserves some credit for trying a different approach, based on different assumptions. Proclaiming it DOA because the remotes look complicated is more than a little short-sighted. "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." This can go the other way too you know, and might turn out to be just as ridiculous: "No hulu.com. Clunky remote. Lame."
oh_no_my_eyes 16y ago
the mac people seem to be saying the solution to this problem is to buy an iphone or ipad. that is a really, really lousy answer. despite the fact that to use one of those devices would be really cool, it means I have to buy a totally separate device for the device I just bought. At least the remote comes with the TV! Even if it sucks its fully functional. How do you actually search from that remote? Can you? That visio remote looks pretty cool as far as solving the qwerty interface obstacle. I don't know why they don't just implement a simple Apple remote with an annoying on screen keyboard but really kickass voice recognition...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

steveklabnik 16y ago

You'd do it by grabbing your iPad off of the coffee table, searching for something, and clicking 'send to TV.' So much easier and simpler than trying to make everything do everything. Leave the keyboard to a device that's better used with one, and make the two work together nicely. I still think that little 'Oh, and I can push stuff to my tv with my iPhone' feature they skimmed over at the Ping event will end up huge.

stanleydrew 16y ago
But wait, that's exactly what you can do with an Android device or an iOS device and a GoogleTV already. See the section "Your phone = remote control" here: http://www.google.com/tv/features.html http://www.google.com/tv/features.html.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  There's a difference between "There's a checkbox that's been ticked for this feature" and "this product has been designed around this concept."
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    Of course there is. What is it that makes you think the latter is so vastly superior to the former though? I like the fact that I can choose an input device that meets my needs, one of which happens to be my phone. What's wrong with choice?
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Nothing is wrong with choice. An analogy: I love using vim. It's super awesome. But most people don't want to use vim. I'm in the minority of users. That doesn't mean that vim is wrong, or that Notepad++ is 'better.' It just means I'm in a minority. In this case, the latter is vastly superior (for me) because a TV isn't something I want to screw around with. I want to do two things with my TV: Start playing the game that's currently in my XBox, or flip through my Netflix queue and click play. I've never used 99% of the options on my XBox dashboard, because I don't care about any of that stuff. I just want something super simple.

ary 16y ago

I think you're missing the point. The comparison of the remotes isn't intended to point out the "better design" of the Apple version. The comparison is of the overall approach to user experience. It's obvious that Apple doesn't think people want to search when sitting in front of their TV's, whereas Google almost can't approach a problem that it doesn't think centers around search. This is not to say that there haven't been rudimentary search capabilities in the Apple TV. It's just not a focus.

raganwald 16y ago

I don't have an AppleTV, but I do have a Mac Mini that runs iTunes and FrontRow. It has a small remote that is excellent for controlling the volume, fast forwarding, rewinding, and so on. If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time. Disclosure: I do not hack my Unix filesytem for the sheer joy of nerding out. My opinions about usability probably do not map to anyone who reads HN regularly.

nkurz 16y ago
If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time. This seems like a good direction for Apple to take. Instead of putting a full keyboard on every remote, just allow additional peripherals to be added via USB or Bluetooth. Unfortunately they certainly hasn't made this easy: http://www.hackint0sh.org/f98/77420.htm http://www.hackint0sh.org/f98/77420.htm I guess I can see why Apple would keep this entirely within their own ecosystem for economic reasons, but this feels like it really limits the utility of their devices. Wouldn't they do as well to have a simple way of connecting standard devices AND provide what they feel is the best experience via custom apps?

mikeryan 16y ago

Actually the article is missing a larger point. Most users probably don't want to be searching on their TV. Maybe a larger cognitive disconnect of Google's Device is that their answer to the problem isn't the right one. At some point Google really needed to try to figure out whether search was the feature that people really needed. I'd say content discovery is still a huge gaping hole as more IP Delivered video gets pushed to the main TV screen in your house. I don't think that text search is how people are going to find it. But hey when your main tool is a hammer every problem starts looking like nails right? Apple's focus is on delivering video. period. They don't need the complexity of an GoogleTV because they're delivering the main thing that people want on their TV. They end up with a $100 box which is very usable and probably delivers the key features that people need. BTW Vizio has a more elegant solution for a keyboard with a clamshell remote http://gizmodo.com/5443308/every-3d-vizio-comes-with-this-crazy-keyboard-remote http://gizmodo.com/5443308/every-3d-vizio-comes-with-this-cr...

zachwaugh 16y ago
I agree, and that is my point actually, the remotes were just an example. But the remotes reflect how they approached the whole problem. Google went with the assumption search was necessary, and had to find a way to fit it in. Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  This is kind of ridiculous. I do want to be searching on my TV. That's why I have a computer hooked up to it with a wireless keyboard and mouse. Just because Apple designed a product that fits your needs doesn't mean that it fits everyone's. Statements like "Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out" are offensively condescending and give Apple too much credit. Building any product requires making assumptions. So far Apple has happened to be right with many of theirs, and for that they deserve a ton of credit. But the fact of the matter is that the Apple TV obviously doesn't meet very many people's needs, otherwise it would have sold better. I think Google deserves some credit for trying a different approach, based on different assumptions. Proclaiming it DOA because the remotes look complicated is more than a little short-sighted. "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." This can go the other way too you know, and might turn out to be just as ridiculous: "No hulu.com. Clunky remote. Lame."

oh_no_my_eyes 16y ago

the mac people seem to be saying the solution to this problem is to buy an iphone or ipad. that is a really, really lousy answer. despite the fact that to use one of those devices would be really cool, it means I have to buy a totally separate device for the device I just bought. At least the remote comes with the TV! Even if it sucks its fully functional. How do you actually search from that remote? Can you? That visio remote looks pretty cool as far as solving the qwerty interface obstacle. I don't know why they don't just implement a simple Apple remote with an annoying on screen keyboard but really kickass voice recognition...

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]