Google has joined forces with Intel and Sony to build a television set-top box based on its Android mobile operating system and Chrome web browser. The New York Times reports that this "Google TV" contraption - in development for several months - is designed to make it easier for television watchers to use web applications on …
I beg to differ!
"At the end of the day, you're changing the attitude of the consumer. They've reached a point where they expect the ad to be relevant and they're more likely to watch it."
I expect any ads to be irritating and annoying and interrupt what I'm doing. That's why I have an ad blocker on my browser, and rarely watch commercial TV without recording it first so that I can fast forward through the ads. If it ever gets to a point where I can't fast forward through the ads for whatever reason (probably because of the increasingly invasive lock-down being orchestrated by the interested parties), then I shall simply stop watching altogether. I know the broadcasters won't care that I don't watch any more (because I wasn't watching their ads anyway), but at least 'll not have to put up with them!
Why do the ad people continue to pretend that they are doing us all a favour? NOBODY wants to watch their adverts. Full stop. Yes, I know they need the ads to pay for the programs, but they could at least stop pretending that they are anything other than the horrible annoyance that they are.
I assume you'll be cutting Vulture central a cheque for your share of the costs in creating and displaying this content.
Let me guess...
It's a PVR which fast-forwards over TV advertising on recorded programmes or replaces TV ads with their own ads when watching live?
@ brainless AC
Maybe you should think about the reason why some sites show ads. Indeed, they fund the site, they are sometimes the only reason a site can stay up.
In a world without any ads, many nice sites will go away or become subscription based. I'll never block ads (unless on mobile where my bandwidth counts) because I know that it supports the owner of the site.
For TV, this is mostly irrelevant, of course, but if everybody starts recording the broadcasts to skip ads, the broadcasters will have less income and serve even worse shows/series...
There's no such thing as a free lunch
Yes, I know
Idiot! Yes, I KNOW the ads are needed to fund the web site / tv channel / whatever. I said as much at the end of my post.
Maybe you should spend less time watching ads and use the time to learn to read intead?
And what is so bad about subscription sites? I'd much rather make a small payment to each of the sites I regularly use than suffer ads. In fact, the payment would probably be less than the so-called free version available now. Without the ads, the money goes to supporting the site directly, no advertising agencies or other third parties taking a (majority) cut. Also, the goods that used to be advertised can now be made available cheaper as they no longer have to cover an advertising budget. Everyone's a winner - except for the ad-men and who gives a toss about them?
want to "collaborate" with me on a set top box that detects when an ad is being received and simply plays a 3 minute music* vid or something instead?
I would just like to point out that again our government has let us down and forced us down a route we shouldn't have gone, it has been obvious for some years now that the future was not DAB or DVB but is instead AV streamed over the net. Millions have been poured into DAB and DVB while we the public de Gen sit around and watch our money get poured down the drain!
The government is trying to get the digital communist bill through parliment without actually looking into the future impact! It annoys me to see ideas like this, an add driven web streaming platform no doubt be battered about due to piracy laws being impossed! Look at project Kangeroo or whatever it was going to be called, we get told it is anti competative to have one provided so instead our tv licence goes up and channel 4 fork out loads of there budget so we can waste more of our time signing up to yet another online broadcast! aaaaargh!
It is quite astonishing how long it is taking to create a universal standard for on-demand TV.
I remember writing a report about on-demand TV in 1995, thinking it would arrive in a couple of years.
Android versus Chrome
In the past Google has talked about Chrome as an operating system - it was to be all you needed to run web-based apps and a new take on thin clients. I never understood how that fitted with Android. I gather the idea has now been dropped and Android is the only Google O/S, with Chrome merely a browser again.
Improving quality for our customers
$5 says this will connect to Google and send them my viewing habits, without asking, and then I get targeted ads on my PC.
No one forces you to use it.
Just like Windows really.
Now tv will get (even more) annoying pop-over ads than networks already do. They seem to have taken HDTV as a license to use up loads more screen real estate, but they're still better than the crap that just popped up on the rickroll youtube video I was embedding (for the 'benefit' of a coworker.)
The headline was "Lets make Babies!" Subtitle: "Combine your picture with celebs to see how your babies would look" and it had an animated gif of the Blockbuster dancing baby from way back. Pretty much 100% distasteful.
TV advertising at least has some sort of standards, based on the fact that it's expensive, and that cuts out a lot of the morons. If I have to deal with Internet-quality ads pasted over a TV program, I doubt I'll even bother to download the stuff any more.
- Mounties always get their man: Heartbleed 'hacker', 19, CUFFED
- Samsung Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner hacked in just 4 DAYS
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- Analysis Oh no, Joe: WinPhone users already griping over 8.1 mega-update
- AMD demos 'Berlin' Opteron, world's first heterogeneous system architecture server chip