Nexus Player

http://www.google.com/nexus/player/

by gulbrandr • 12 years ago

369 239 12 years ago

smackfu6• 12 years ago

$99 plus $40 for the controller. Since Google doesn't seem to want to provide that information.

wfjackson2• 12 years ago

For $40 more you can get a new Xbox 360, although games might not be as cheap as on the Play store. That Xbox is just a 4GB one, but I don't see Google Player local storage mentioned in the linked page.

Touche6• 12 years ago

Then you got loud fans and a poor interface for watching TV.

baldfat4• 12 years ago

Being a Chromecast user already I would say that XBox 360 is just not at all close to the same experience and no Gold Memberships.

microtonal• 12 years ago

But if you have an Android device, you can do much more with this or a Chromecast, because both support Google Cast. XBox only has the crappy Smart Glass app (it's probably good on Windows Phone), and that's it.

(I own an XBox One)

freehunter12• 12 years ago

A silly price, considering their competitors cost the same, and have been in the game for much longer. Google is late and entered the market at the same price as established players, but with a track record of failure in this space (Google TV and Nexus Q).

They probably don't want to provide the information because it's embarrassing.

Igglyboo9• 12 years ago

They don't show the price on the 6 or the 9 either, they definitely aren't "embarrassed" about their phones and tablets.

VikingCoder4• 12 years ago

...those devices didn't have the whole back catalog of the Google Play Store running on them. This one presumably does.

general_failure6• 12 years ago

I don't think the price is silly. App development is far easier on these devices than competitors.

increment_i• 12 years ago

I'd hesitate to call any of the players in this space "established". It's still a wide open market. Of all the people I know, maybe a handful own an AppleTV, a few use a Chromecast. Other than that, there's tons of market share for the taking.

smackfu6• 12 years ago

At this price point, I don't think a lower price would do anything. If you charge $99, no one complains about the price. If you charge $79, do you really get any more buyers? If they could do box + controller for $99, maybe that would attract people, but a crummy controller would get a lot of bad attention in reviews.

pbnjay• 12 years ago

I wonder if they're not releasing that info so they have the ability to lower the price if Apple TV makes any price cuts/big features tomorrow.

Steko• 12 years ago

What's interesting here is Google has abandoned the super cheap device strategy (nexus 4/7) and decided to go after iMargins.

jewel• 12 years ago

I've been anxiously awaiting this. We're thinking of shipping an enterprise product on the Amazon Fire TV, but it's relative lack of control is quite limiting. Hopefully this is priced similarly.

I've tried nearly every android TV stick, and while they are pretty close to what we need, and infinitely customizable, we had trouble getting consistent hardware. It seemed like each batch would behave slightly differently.

Igglyboo9• 12 years ago

Same here, I want a Fire TV but Amazon's particular flavor of android seems to be a lot more locked down than ASOP and has a smaller ecosystem. This will be perfect for me.

omnibrain• 12 years ago

Looks like "Nexus Q reborn". It looks very similar to the Amazon Fire TV.

smackfu6• 12 years ago

Nexus Q was so bizarre. They included a stereo amp in it and you could run speakers directly. I'm sure that added a lot to the price when most people are either going to plug it into their TV or their existing receiver.

agumonkey• 12 years ago

Surprisingly not mentioned on the fr_FR main page https://archive.today/zYpBZ

edit: ha... probably market limited.

baq3• 12 years ago

intel inside. interesting times.

xngzng• 12 years ago

Feel quite certain we will see Apple announce 4th generation Apple TV tomorrow with a gaming capable A7 processor for Metal games, and voice capable remote control the same as Nexus Player.

ccozan• 12 years ago

"Start here, finish there" is one of the good features. However is not really new, I can do the same with Amazon Prime ( w/ App from Smart Tv and App on Tablet ).

dchuk5• 12 years ago

There is so little innovation going on in the apple tv-esque space. All of these devices look and act exactly the same (Fire, AppleTV, this thing, Roku, etc)

baldfat4• 12 years ago

I don't care about innovation I care about Silos.

Stares at the lack of Amazon Instant Video on Android and rolls eye. I stopped giving amazon money for videos and music until they have it on Android as they already have it on Fire, and iOS.

cheald• 12 years ago

http://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-prime-instant-video-arrives-...

VikingCoder4• 12 years ago

You can get Amazon Instant Video on your Android phone, but not your Android tablet. /half-glower

http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Prime-Instant-Video/dp/B00N...

intelekshual• 12 years ago

There's no dedicated app in Google Play, but you can enable Amazon Instant Video streaming inside the Amazon app. It's still an unnecessary hurdle, but the silo is slowly being demolished.

http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-com-Prime-Instant-Video/dp/B00N...

freehunter12• 12 years ago

There's an Amazon app for Roku that I use pretty heavily. Wonder how long that will last now that they have their own Roku competitor though.

The pissing contest between vendors is ridiculous though. I vowed to stop using Google things until they quit being childish with Microsoft and Windows Phone. But all of Microsoft's apps work just fine on my iPhone. Amazon's not the only one who can be petty.

Touche6• 12 years ago

I hate silos too but Amazon is the absolute best about this. Amazon Video is available on many platforms. Google Play is not. iTunes is not.

smackfu6• 12 years ago

That seems unfair. The Fire TV had some innovations (voice search, game controller support, advanced parental controls.) This Nexus thing seems to have copied most of those.

pikachu_is_cool• 12 years ago

There's plenty of innovation with the Raspberry Pi.

gagege• 12 years ago

Did anyone else not see Amazon in that list of apps?

freehunter12• 12 years ago

Amazon doesn't play well with Google.

Igglyboo9• 12 years ago

Amazon is directly competing with their Fire TV.

general_failure6• 12 years ago

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo...

Raphael• 12 years ago

Amazon has video streaming inside its main Android app. I don't see why it wouldn't work.

wfjackson2• 12 years ago

Get your apps on Google Play, or rent a movie if your app doesn’t have what you’re looking for

What? Are they exclusively targeting movie content with this? It doesn't make much sense to rent a movie if store apps don't have a feature I am looking for.

cleverjake• 12 years ago

The movie rental would be through the google play store. The "apps" most likely are referencing netflix, hulu, and their ilk

Shebanator• 12 years ago

I think you are reading way too much into that sentence.

freehunter12• 12 years ago

Rent a movie from Google if it's not available to stream on Netflix is what I read it as. They just didn't want to say the name of their competitor.

Igglyboo9• 12 years ago

Wanted this ever since I saw the Amazon Fire TV, will no doubt be much more "hackable" than Amazons version of android.

cfontes2• 12 years ago

Hum... interesting.

OUYA was almost dead. Now it's done.

tracker1• 12 years ago

Ouya was an almost great implementation of that idea... honestly, I think the controllers were pretty bad. The fact that you have to put the Ouya on its' side to get decent controller reception is close to unforgivable. It just wasn't quite fast enough for a full screen interface. Also, the media options were an also ran. It's okay as an emulator box, but the gimped controllers ruin the experience... I have two ps3 controllers that I haven't tried with it as of yet, but plan to.

bduerst2• 12 years ago

Almost bought an OUYA two weeks ago. The only thing I could think when I saw that controller is that I'm glad I waited.

tachyonbeam• 12 years ago

I wonder why they went with an Intel Atom CPU instead of using ARM chips as they do in the Nexus phones. Seems like a strange choice.

UnoriginalGuy• 12 years ago

To me it makes total sense. Intel's Atom has facilities to do hardware accelerated H.264 video decoding[0]. They're both low power chips (ARM and Atom) so can both be passively cooled, ARM is just more focused on minimalism, whereas the Intel Atom is a little bit more feature rich (which is great if you happen to be utilising one of those features, as in this case).

[0] PDF(!): http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/...

oflordal• 12 years ago

Every modern ARM SoC built for thisnpuepose has H.264 hardware video decode (and typically HEVC for that matter).

brucehart2• 12 years ago

I thought that was strange as well. Any phone or tablet app in the Play Store that uses native code will not be compatible. I'm guessing they did this to make it more attractive to game developers. PlayStation, XBox, and PC are now all x86 platforms. Makes it easier for top game studios to also target Google Player if it runs the same architecture.

baq3• 12 years ago

actually, 99% of native apps should work flawlessly _on the condition_ that they're downloaded from the Play Store. intel has something called the Houdini for AOT binary translation: http://stackoverflow.com/a/13005569/38749

nodata2• 12 years ago

Probably so they can use Player as a way of getting Atom ready for phones. The Atom chips use more power, but it doesn't matter because they'll not be running off battery.

rwg2• 12 years ago

Intel is almost giving away Bay Trail-T CPUs to try and claw marketshare away from ARM-based CPUs/SoCs. As an example, Intel's advertised price for an Atom Z3735F (quad core, 1.33–1.83 GHz, 2.2 W SDP, 2 GB RAM max., Intel's Gen7 graphics) is $17, but I've read that the "real life" price dips under $10 in volume. This is an absolutely mind-boggling price for a quad-core x86-64 CPU with really quite good integrated graphics.

An exciting (to me, at least) development is that OEMs are starting to produce sub-$100 HDMI sticks with Bay Trail-T CPUs and 16 GB–32 GB of eMMC storage inside. Assuming the firmware isn't crippled, those sticks should be able to run unmodified copies of any modern x86 operating system. On Linux and FreeBSD, there is stable, functional, non-proprietary GPU support, which is a huge win over the vast majority of ARM-based systems. (Even the "OPEN hardware and software platform" Matchstick is currently chained to a binary blob because of the Mali GPU. Maybe one day the reverse engineered Mali driver will be awesome, but it's not there yet.)

ZenoArrow2• 12 years ago

"An exciting (to me, at least) development is that OEMs are starting to produce sub-$100 HDMI sticks with Bay Trail-T CPUs and 16 GB–32 GB of eMMC storage inside."

I'm very interested in this, but it's the first I've heard of it, please can you share some examples? They sound like a great match for a Motorola Lapdock (I have one, but currently unused).

jwise0• 12 years ago

Intel's earnings report supports the concept that they're not making much money on Atom. Their mobile BU this last quarter managed to turn about $1M of net revenue ... at an operating loss of about $1.04B! [1]

Watching Intel Mobile strategically over the next year or two will be very interesting indeed.

[1] http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/3545134377x0x786...

Aissen• 12 years ago

This is probably not it because it has an Imagination GPU, as opposed to the Intel ones in Bay Trail.

This is probably an old Moorefield-thingy to copy the Apple TV, like the Z3560. (which is sad considering that Bay Trail is available, but it probably wouldn't allow to have the same margins.)

nogridbag2• 12 years ago

I realize the controller is sold separately, but I did find it a little odd that the controller says "ASUS" at the top instead of "NEXUS" since it seems to be the official controller.

AdmiralAsshat• 12 years ago

I think the question on everyone's mind is: how well will it run XBMC?

wnevets4• 12 years ago

With the chromecast, I have no interest in another box that plays video content. Having a dedicate box to play casual android games on my tv isnt very appealing to me either.

Is there really a big market for this thing?

heymishy• 12 years ago

my thoughts exactly - what does this give me that a chromecast doesnt? i dont care for a controller (or for games).

i can't think of anything this can do (that id want to do) that the chromecast cant for a lot cheaper.

drewg1232• 12 years ago

My chromecast sits unused in a drawer because I hate to have to use my phone / tablet to watch TV (lack of tactile feedback, phone lock timeout, and being distracted by work email when I'm trying to relax). This thing has a remote, which is a huge win for me. Maybe it even has an IR receiver (or one could be plugged in via USB), which would allow better integration with my harmony.

Also, you'll probably be able to side-load xbmc on it without rooting, like you can on a Ouya, an Amazon FireTV or (rooted) AppleTV to get full access to your media library, to act as a PVR front end, & to give you access to the vast world of shady XBMC plugins.

The open question for me is what sort of video the thing will be able to play back natively. And whether or not you can side-load Amazon Instant Video

Igglyboo9• 12 years ago

Chrome cast mirrors a screen and requires a separate device to control, this can run actual applications.

VikingCoder4• 12 years ago

It does have the voice search, which might be very nice.

Also, it will run your Play Store apps. So, presumably GMail, Calendar, Drive, Maps... and not just the 'cast version of them, but the real deal.

rictic• 12 years ago

Agreed, though it looks like this device is a chromecast player as well.

rnovak2• 12 years ago

correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the chromecast require that you use another device to stream content to it? i.e. to play netflix, I have to stream the video from my phone or something to the device?

wnevets4• 12 years ago

Nope. The chromecast requires another device to send it commands but its the chromecast itself that streams the content.

Pxtl2• 12 years ago

I do think that a chromecast in a boxed set with a simple 4" wifi-only Android tablet would have been the more "Google/Android" solution to the problem this device is attempting to solve, but that would leave the fledgeling Ouya-esque gaming world off the table.

To me the big failing of the Chromecast is families, where the kids will not necessarily own their own smartphone. This device comes with a bundled remote.

However, that's a huge change in the Android world because up until now every official Google Android-device has been touch-enabled. Switching to a remote control is very significant.

deskamess• 12 years ago

I think this is the initial release for a bigger tv interactive system. One that can launch games, shows, movies, photo viewing, wii style casual games for 1-4 people, video chatting (via Hangouts, needs camera or use phone camera), etc. Think family set top box connected to your Google ecosystem; this is your home Google Home portal. Running Chromium or a close facsimile.

If you are a cord cutter this may be your new set top box.

It does not replace Google TV, as that is the third party vendor vertical. However Google TV could die if third parties see the Player as competition or are unable to get features in Player into their Google TV's.

general_failure6• 12 years ago

This kills Roku.

Roku is dead, long live Roku.

freehunter12• 12 years ago

At $99, how is this a Roku killer? At least Roku has Amazon Instant Video.

general_failure6• 12 years ago

For a start, roku has an extremely closed app development policy. Have you seen how you develop apps for the Roku? The Player will have it open just like other devices.

On amazon, Roku 3 streaming player costs 90USD. So, it's the same price range. Except that Player will have more apps in no time.

(And from a developer perspective, Roku is using a custom language. You read that right, a DSL of their own)

nodata2• 12 years ago

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.avo...

arjn• 12 years ago

No, it doesnt.

josteink3• 12 years ago

It's targeting the same market-segment with a similarly priced device, which will have much better app-support on a living platform which is in active development.

It may even work outside the US without setting up a bunch of proxies and hacking your router! Yay!

And it can play games too, which I guess is a deal to some people.

But the Roku has wired ethernet and this has not, so for now my Roku not going anywhere.

moskie7• 12 years ago

I fear the release the this new Nexus Player portends we're not going to see an update to the Chromecast anytime soon, if ever. That makes me sad.

I guess I'm just not the average user, but the Chromecast handily beats what this (and other options in this genre, i.e., Apple TV / Fire TV / Roku) have to offer. I don't want another remote control. And making my phone the best remote control is an awesome solution. And the Chromecast doesn't take up any room in my living room / entertainment center. And it's only thrity-five-goddamn-dollars.

I guess the downside is that I can't play crappy games on my big screen. Darn.

hoopism• 12 years ago

It says this is chromecast enabled... so it's the same thing with more, no?

cfontes2• 12 years ago

But bigger...

jonny_eh4• 12 years ago

Why does it need updating? 4K support?

Since the Nexus Player will have Chromecast support built-in (like all Android TV devices), software will hopefully continue to add support on their end.

moskie7• 12 years ago

Why does it need updating?

This is a good point... it's not missing much in terms of features and functionality.

A pie in the sky idea, that none of these devices have tried to incorporate, is to have a webcam peripheral support to enable video chatting. This is the primary thing I still use my HTPC for. Being able to gather my wfie and/or friends into the living room to video chat with friends that live elsewhere, having those friends be able to see the whole room where we're able to sit comfortably, is really a great experience. And at this point, using an HTPC for that is overkill, in terms of horsepower needed. Incorporating a feature like this into a media device would be a killer feature for me. "Casting" a Skype or Hangout video chat.... I'd be all over that.

dangrossman3• 12 years ago

5GHz wifi for one. No 802.11n/802.11ac on 5GHz at all.

The airwaves are crowded where I live. There are so many networks and sources of interference that any 2.4GHz network I set up inevitably drops out constantly. I've had 3 different routers.

The solution was to move to 5GHz. Pretty much everything else in the house can run on 5GHz and stay connected to the internet that way. Chromecast can only connect to 2.4GHz networks, so I have to run one for it, but it doesn't see devices on the 5GHz network even though they're on the same LAN.

ianburrell2• 12 years ago

WPA-Enterprise support would be good. I would like to use Chromecasts at work for screen sharing but they won't login onto network. Sounds like this is also a big issue for college networks.

Captive portal support would also help in getting on more wireless networks. Chromecast is small enough to take traveling and would be useful to plug into hotel TV. But most hotels networks have captive portals.

king_jester• 12 years ago

Chromecast is a little different from a box like this. Chromecast is about bridging the gap between the Android phone/tablet and the TV as a display. These boxes are more about directly targeting that TV environment as its own ecosystem. For some apps like Netflix this is a redundant point, but for other apps it is a key difference.

moskie7• 12 years ago

Other apps like what? What apps (besides games that need a controller) would the Chromecast (or devices like it) not be able to accomplish?

patja• 12 years ago

The one thing I wish the Chromecast had is a physical remote. Well really I just want to be able to learn/program my IR remote to control it.

sanderjd3• 12 years ago

Could you explain why you prefer remotes?

To me, they are just one more thing to keep track of and keep charged. I think connecting the remote control of things to the one device that is always around, instead of an assortment of tailor made devices, is brilliant.

ChuckMcM• 12 years ago

When casting from my phone, the phone is the remote. If I cast from my desktop I can use the remote that came with it (it was an ASUS motherboard of some flavor).

I'm looking forward to the Mozilla clone which will let me cast VLC directly to the TV. That will useful for me.

Touche6• 12 years ago

I disagree completely.

Phone batteries get low every day. Having to walk to where your phone is charging to change the channel is a bad experience.

Using the phone as a remote is anti-social. I can't pick out what to watch with the person who's sitting in the chair across the room.

Chromecast is good for accidental discovery. You come across an interesting talk on YouTube, Chromecast is good for that.

Chromecast is also good for content that "lives" on your phone, like podcasts.

But Chromecast is bad for picking out a movie or TV show to watch, especially in the company of others.

moskie7• 12 years ago

This just isn't my experience.

Phone batteries get low every day. Having to walk to where your phone is charging to change the channel is a bad experience.

I have solved the fairly rare occurrence of my phone dying when I want to watch a movie by having a charger next to my coffee table. I mean, maybe we just have different experiences, but has this actually happened to you? Regularly? Does it take up more or less time than hunting down a lost remote control?

Using the phone as a remote is anti-social. I can't pick out what to watch with the person who's sitting in the chair across the room.

You'll have to instead talk to them, or have them sit closer and look over your shoulder. Not more or less social, just a different type of social. And add to that, the ability to have multiple people use their individual devices to queue videos is an excellent social experience

baldfat4• 12 years ago

Social is 100% in chromecast favor. I love sitting down with family and friends and just queue up a bunch of different Youtube videos or songs to play. It is hysterical, convenient and cross platform (iOS or Android). This will do everything Chromecast already does.

dragonwriter• 12 years ago

Using the phone as a remote is anti-social.

No, its not, any more than using a regular remote as a remote is.

Having to walk to where your phone is charging to change the channel is a bad experience.

Yes, it is, but that's not fundamental to the Chromecast, its just bad app UI design (for instance, you don't have the same issue if you are tab casting a regular web page that provides the selection before getting to the streaming media). There's no reason that an mobile app that uses the Google Cast API can't have a similar [or even better] optimized casting UI to a dumb tab-casted web page, its just that most so far don't. Extending the line of Google Cast devices -- if it extends reach -- may indirectly improve this, by getting app developers to spend more effort on the UX of their Cast support.

untog3• 12 years ago

I was an enthusiastic early adopter of Chromecast. I hated it, and now use a Roku. I share my television with my girlfriend, I don't want to have to set up Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. on both our phones and have us manually 'cast' to the screen.

The Roku is so much better. Everything is centralised, and the remote is a better interface than a phone screen. So I'm excited for the Nexus Player, as I want my Roku to be more hackable than it is. A Nexus Player with XBMC will be a dream.

myko• 12 years ago

Wow, I'm shocked at how opposite I feel about this. I already had Netflix setup on my phone so casting is no problem (I didn't realize Amazon already works to cast, I guess I'll set that up tonight).

I definitely find the phone/tablet much more comfortable for searching content and flinging it to the TV. Typing to search for a specific show on Netflix on my TV is a huge pain to me.

jonlucc• 12 years ago

They updated it a week or two ago to allow you to select what images are shown during downtime.

dchuk5• 12 years ago

My girlfriend and I have two TVs (bedroom and living room) in the house, each with a chromecast hooked up. I have a media center computer running plex in the living room. We use my original Nexus 7 tablet as our "remote".

NO REMOTE IN THE WORLD will ever beat an app on a tablet or phone. I can search and browse so easily on my tablet to find what I want. I can start a video and then explore other stuff. It's the perfect setup.

If only I could pay the NFL for a streaming-only HD football package, I would have literally everything I need for consuming video. But I don't think that will ever happen (at least without having to get a cable/satellite subscription which I refuse to ever do again).

thefreeman4• 12 years ago

How are you able to get NFL games without a cable / satellite subscription? Or did you just give up on the NFL? I am in a similar situation with sports being the only thing keeping my cable subscription active.

dcole2929• 12 years ago

Depending on where you live you can indeed get a streaming only package from the NFL. NFL Sunday Ticket has a streaming only option for locales where DirectTV isn't necessarily an option. I live in Philly and can get it even though DirectTV is technically in my neighborhood

https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/nflws/

jonny_eh4• 12 years ago

NO REMOTE IN THE WORLD will ever beat an app

Except when you want to quickly pause.

on_and_off• 12 years ago

From what I heard, Chromecast and Google TV come from 2 completely different teams. It is possible that Google will want to focus on only one of these 2, but it is also possible that they will push both ideas at least for some time.

I think Google stumbled on a very great idea with Chromecast. I don't want a smart TV with tons of features and a shitty interface that I have to navigate through with an awkward pad.

I want an extremely dumb TV that only displays what my other terminals (laptop, tablet and phone) tell it to display.

ianburrell2• 12 years ago

The Nexus Player supports Google Cast which may make it the best combination of Chromecast and media box functionality.

Apps on your phone should be able to control apps on the player, and the apps on the player can be used standalone. We'll have to see if apps from the Play Store gets Google Cast control, or if this only happens for the Chromecast-style web apps.

This has the advantage that you can select content on phone and then use the phone or remote on the player to control playback.

DCKing• 12 years ago

Indeed. At $99 [1], equipped with 802.11ac [2], a far more powerful processor that is capable of playing 4K video [3], you could ignore Google TV in its entirety and probably justify your purchase just to use it as a Chromecast Deluxe.

[1]: Reported by TechCrunch. Regular Chromecast is $35.

[2]: Possibly with 5GHz band? Regular Chromecast is 2.4GHz 802.11n only.

[3] http://blog.laptopmag.com/intel-bay-trail-tablets-benchmarks; regular Chromecast maxes out at 1080p. EDIT: Aww, its specs say that it only outputs in 1080p.

tegeek• 12 years ago

Chromecast is one the best device I ever bought for 35$.

potyl• 12 years ago

I fear the release the this new Nexus Player portends we're not going to see an update to the Chromecast anytime soon, if ever. That makes me sad.

At least Chromecast had updates and worked. My Nexus Q never worked as expected.

craigmccaskill• 12 years ago

It wasn't ever a production device. The entire product line was constantly updating to bleeding edge, and thus hardly ever worked. Consumers shouldn't ever have had one. The real mistake was handing them out.

thefreeman4• 12 years ago

I was really excited about the Chromecast when it was first announced. But sadly Google have really hamstrung it every step of the way.

Luckily, Mozilla is developing a very similar device (Matchstick [1]), and looking to do it better. I am unable to find the link at the moment, but they already support like 3 or 4 times as many media formats as chromecast. And Mozilla has a pretty good track record with hackable, open projects.

[1] http://www.matchstick.tv/developers/index.html

doublec2• 12 years ago

I don't believe Mozilla is developing it. It's an external companies product but they are using Mozilla's Firefox OS on it. I could be wrong but that's my understanding from the material presented.

swartkrans2• 12 years ago

Is that running Google TV?

wldcordeiro• 12 years ago

Android TV, Google TV was an OS purely for TVs that failed. Android TV is Android with modifications to run on TVs.

lern_too_spel2• 12 years ago

Google TV is also Android with modifications to run on TVs. https://developers.google.com/tv/android/docs/gtv_documentat...

I think this is just a rebranding to distance Android TV from the failure that was Google TV. I'm taking bets on what the name of the next revision will be when Android TV fails.

Pxtl2• 12 years ago

Now that every company is releasing gamepads for their set-top devices hopefully we'll see android games support them properly.

d23• 12 years ago

Is it just me, or do the controllers (both of them) look just like the Fire TV's controllers?

I just don't get it. Does every company have to jump in head first to any emerging market just because the others are doing it?

dangrossman3• 12 years ago

I wish this was a real Google TV replacement.

My 4-year-old Google TV box (Logitech Revue) -- with Android 3.1 -- is really showing its age. The app store is pretty empty and it only supports things like Amazon Video and HBO Go because Android still had Flash back then.

The missing key is an HDMI input. My TV is always tuned to the Google TV input whether I'm watching live cable TV, a Netflix movie or casting a YouTube video. I have a single remote control (the Google TV one) for all of them. It changes channels and settings on my cable box with HDMI CEC.

All these new boxes make you switch inputs and remotes all the time. I have too many remotes already.

chambo622• 12 years ago

I thought all of the original Android TV devices got updated to the second major version of the platform based on Android 4.2.

bdcs• 12 years ago

Speaking of HDMI CEC, I think you may like a Chromecast

> All these new boxes make you switch inputs and remotes all the time. I have too many remotes already.

The Chromecast can turn on a TV (and the TV can turn on the audio receiver) via HDMI CEC. I was surprised when the Chromecast icon was displayed when the TV was off. Lo and behold, it just worked.

dangrossman3• 12 years ago

It doesn't switch inputs back when it's done, so I'd still need a phone and two remote controls to go from casting back to watching TV on my TV. Its use of CEC doesn't help solve the input/remote problem at all. The 2010 Google TV already did everything the Chromecast does except tab/screen mirroring, minus ever having to switch inputs or use multiple remotes.

izacus2• 12 years ago

Ah, this will replace my RPi with XBMC (for local playback) and Chromecast combo nicely - not having to use two devices will clear up some HDMI space on the receiver :)

The Android TV interface looks pretty sleek as well.

Fuzzwah• 12 years ago

I have a similar setup to you. I'm not sure where you're storing your local content, mine is all on a couple of external USB HDDs connected to the R-Pi.

I'm not seeing how the Nexus Play is going to replace the R-Pi running XBMC.....

My initial take is that the Nexus Play is like paying $65 extra for a chromecast that has a remote. I realize there is more to it than that (due to it running full android) but for my use case that doesn't seem to matter much.

dmayle2• 12 years ago

There is an Android XBMC app, maybe that's what he/she is referring to.

higherpurpose• 12 years ago

Shame it comes with a much weaker Atom processor instead of the new 64-bit Tegra processor, that's already in the Nexus 9 tablet. That decision doesn't make any sense to me, which shows once again that Google's Intel-related decisions are all political, and not technical.

baq3• 12 years ago

when companies are as big as those two, every decision is political.

Zigurd• 12 years ago

It's a $99 product, vs $400 for the N9 tablet. It's an easy bet that the Atom is cheaper and battery life is not an issue.

mmanfrin• 12 years ago

So this is a Fire TV + Chromecast - Amazon Siloed Content.

cbeach• 12 years ago

"Your favourite apps are on Nexus Player"

Spotify and iPlayer are my favourites. Notably absent.

fs111• 12 years ago

to be fair, that is spotify being difficult. They try to push their own connect thing and actively block chromecast...

dmayle2• 12 years ago

I'm confused, both of those offer Android apps. How are they absent?

mahyarm3• 12 years ago

Now we need a $20 google audiocaster. It would kill the airplay speaker market for android devices. You can hack it with a $20 hdmi to 3.5mm audio adaptor, but then it becomes a $55 device.

I'm somewhat surprised there is no ethernet in this player. For some places, wifi just doesn't work in their environment.

andybak2• 12 years ago

I bought a dirt cheap bluetooth audio receiver and that seems pretty close to sufficient.

You can solve this with a Chromecast plus a VGA to HDMI adapter with an audio jack input.

mahyarm3• 12 years ago

In my experience bluetooth speakers require a lot of pairing/un pairing work and extra menu taps, while wifi speakers are one tap once you've set them up.

csulok• 12 years ago

http://www.motorola.com/us/accessories-headphones-speakers/M...

mahyarm3• 12 years ago

Bluetooth is not a replacement for wifi audio.

kin• 12 years ago

Google Cast sounds a bit too good to be true, just like the Chromecast was. I hated the Chromecast 'cause it simply didn't have enough content for me and the performance was terrible.

I'll have to wait and see how the performance for the Google Cast is. I'd like it to at least be as good as my ability to airplay HD MKV files to an Apple TV.

malbs• 12 years ago

I have a chromecast too, its not even plugged in, I hate having to "cast" to it from another device. I use a raspberry-pi with xbmc running on it, but this could be great.... could be.

cbsmith• 12 years ago

A.K.A.: Nexus Q 2.0

notastartup• 12 years ago

Remember ouya?

acgourley• 12 years ago

Does anyone know if it has miracast?

taeric3• 12 years ago

This really looks just like a circular version of the FireTV. The remote looks very similar. To the point I'd assume they are the same design.

Is this just a case where Amazon got a reference implementation out the door before Google did?

slinkyavenger• 12 years ago

If you go look at all the Chinese Android consoles, you'll see they did the remote first, down to the integrated mic for voice search.

There are even a few of them that have a hockey-puck appearance.

taeric3• 12 years ago

That just furthers my suspicion that this is some sort of reference board implementation. Curious that Google is entering the game as late as they are.

For disclosure, I should say I have and rather enjoy a FireTv. Not the most amazing device ever, but more than capable of what it is made to do. (And more to the point, does a good job by me.)

apayan• 12 years ago

I've had the pleasure of using one of these for the past month and it's been really great. I have a Chromecast that I used all the time before, but because I can cast to the Android TV (Player), I don't use the Chromecast anymore (I only have one TV).

The whole UI feels very snappy, and videos load very quickly.

The game pad feels great in my hands. No complaints there.

The selection of games on Google Play isn't huge (yet?). I currently see 16 games listed on it for download/purchase. My favorite so far is Leo's Fortune. I enjoyed it on my Nexus 5 when it came out, but after playing it on Android TV, I won't even play it on the phone anymore because I've experienced how much better the game is with a controller. I suspect that's going to be the case with a lot of games that come out for Android in the future. Touch interface only games have a lot of limitations.

Besides Netflix, you can also use Plex (PlexPass subscribers only right now) and that works pretty flawlessly as well.

I've been very happy with the whole setup and I'll be recommending it to all who are in the market for a set top box.

izacus2• 12 years ago

Um, does it support playing files from local Samba stores? At least through app? (Plex refuses to make a build for my Synology NAS so that's out of the question.)

thedangler2• 12 years ago

Maybe it is just me but I do not see it in the play store. (Canada)

thefreeman4• 12 years ago

This is a legitimate question, not a troll. Are there actually any mobile games out there that you would want to play on your tv with a controller?

Pretty much every mobile game I have ever tried has been a cesspool of micropayment dark patterns, or else something that really just serves to kill time when there is nothing else to do (riding the bus, waiting at an office, etc.)

wastedhours• 12 years ago

Classic GTA titles, certainly.

MarkMc• 12 years ago

I would love to run Sky Force on a big TV.

And no doubt the Nexus Player will spur the development of new 'TV' games (or ones ported from Xbox and playstation)

Raphmedia• 12 years ago

Take a look at gameloft games for starter. There are a bunch of great games out there.

dataminded• 12 years ago

The lack of Ethernet is a deal breaker for me. Ethernet is the only thing my chromecast is missing. I don't want games or apps, just a stable internet connection.

Nux• 12 years ago

I've used the R-pi and now a Intel NUC with XBMC and for watching streams I could tell that I had major issues with WIFI. Everything is SO much better with a proper network cable.

UK-AL• 12 years ago

I don't get this. I have a Chromecast + nexus 7 as a remote and its already my preferred way of watching Netflix etc. Much better than a clusmly remote.

I hope this doesn't mean there backtracking on Chromecast.

devin• 12 years ago

Sad that a bunch of designers can't come up with an original thought. Looks exactly like the Apple TV.

josteink3• 12 years ago

What? A media-hub with NO wired ethernet? How am I supposed to take that seriously?

I don't care about what people saying about wifi having gotten "better". By every single measurable criteria, it is slower, is less reliable, has lower capacity and higher latency than wired gigabit ethernet and I doubt that will change anytime soon.

I demand wired ethernet on my devices, and I know a bunch of other who do too.

teh_klev• 12 years ago

I'm totally with you on that. Where I live the channel space is packed out with neighbouring WiFi. Even within line of sight and only 10 or so feet away I barely get more than 7-10Mbs on my Netgear N600 dual band device.

taeric3• 12 years ago

You and the bunch of other folks you know, sadly, aren't really much of a blip on the market for this. There is probably a bigger market that wishes this thing could hook up wirelessly to the tv.

josteink3• 12 years ago

There is probably a bigger market that wishes this thing could hook up wirelessly to the tv.

Sure. We can all wish.

Back in the real world, this is the group of buyers who buys stuff like this, hook it up in a wifi-crowded area and then complain when things don't work properly.

Which is absolutely fair enough, because they're not technicians and not everyone should have to be capable of diagnosing network issues.

So why not just give these "commoners" something reliable in the first place?

thedangler2• 12 years ago

I didn't even realize that it didn't have a wired hook up. This is disappointing. I have a chromcast and it is laggy sometimes, and will simply just stop working. Hopefully the wireless card in the player is better than the chromcast.

Nexus Player

Related Stories