Google TV: No Need to Tune In Just Yet | Hacker News Reader

Google TV: No Need to Tune In Just Yet

online.wsj.com

29 pointsgrellas13 comments

Same negative leaning review at nytimes:

"[Google TV is] all customizable, unfamiliar and mostly baffling, and you don’t get a single page of instructions. (I learned how to use Google TV by shooting a fusillade of questions to the Google P.R. people — an option I’m guessing won’t be open to you.)"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18...

Apple failed with the Apple TV; now it's Google's turn to fail.

WSJ, Owned by News Corp, who ownes Fox, who recently blocked Google TV.

Not exactly an unbiased source.

I don't think they're telling Mossberg what to write in a review. Most reviews of Google TV have had similar sentiments.

That's not how biasing and influence work 99% of the time, they don't explicitly tell you; you just know. It can even be unconscious.

That doesn't mean it was a factor here, but Mossberg himself should have done the conflict-of-interest disclosure.

I doubt Mossberg is the type to be swayed by what News Corp's top people think, but I agree that printing a disclosure would have helped a bit.

Do you mean beyond what is described here? http://allthingsd.com/about/walt-mossberg/ethics/

I know it can be tough to hear that the new GoogleTV might not be complex or unfriendly to use (both are true if you have used one), but the AllthingsD staff disclaimers are really good. They are prominent and not mired in legal-speak unlike some other high profile "main-stream media" like Newsweek. In which, I still don't understand how Dan Lyons gets away with not stating FSJ site. Read Kara Swisher's again, is there any blogger or old media columnist that has anything that clear?

That's really not how it works--particularly in terms of Mossberg. I've worked with a fair number of companies who got a Mossberg review, and it was always clear that he cared first and foremost about getting the story right and that he didn't care who he was going to offend if he didn't like a product.

Having worked on a couple products (one a hardware product and one a software product from a different company) that were reviewed by Walt Mossberg throughout the years, I came away very impressed each time with him as a reviewer. I give the guy a lot of credit for taking the time to really understand the product and digging deep into features, thoroughly test it on each platform, and asking technical questions when appropriate.

Both reviews he gave on products I worked on were fair in both praises and criticisms, at least from my point of view. While I don't always agree with everything he writes, I do think the guy is a real professional at what he does.

This may or may not be germane, but what the fuck have you seen that stupid Sony remote control?

That's actually one of the bits I like best of the system (not actually used one, but have thought about using my XBMC setup with a similar unit). I'm not really impressed by a response that says "we've removed all the buttons from your remote, look how nice it is, by the way, we also removed all the related functionality too".

Maybe, just maybe, if competitors could achieve 80% of the functionality with 20% of the buttons, then that would be something to crow about. But solving 20% of the problem isn't enough.

It just means you now have at least two remotes (one for live sports, one for digitally delivered TV shows etc.) which multiplies complexity, but Apple (or whoever) only takes credit/blame for part of the problem/solution and pretends the rest doesn't exist. It's not someone elses problem, it's my problem and Google is to their credit at least trying to solve it. Pass-through HDMI alone is a genius idea that would make my homebrew XBMC solution a great deal better.

I'll believe pass-through HDMI when I see it. HDMI anything is a total pig's breakfast, even today -- thanks, HDCP, for not letting me plug my PERFECTLY HDCP COMPLIANT TV into my PERFECTLY HDCP COMPLIANT SCALER via DVI. It's enough to drive one to books.

WSJ, only recently owned by News Corp, and the acquisition hasn't been without grumbling from the staff. It's not like Mossberg is a long-term Murdoch hack.

I'm sure Mossberg has FU.. well, if not money, then the ability to walk and easily get work elsewhere, if he were being pressured. I doubt he'd sell out his credibility for the recently arrived News Corp brass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com