As these types of epiphanies pop up on the web over time I wish someone would just come out and say it. Apple, as an organization, approaches problems in a way that just about every other company is too chickenshit to try. When Jobs returned and launched the Think Different campaign it wasn't for the masses, it was for Apple.
It's difficult to articulate this properly because most people don't even have a good understanding of what it means to dissent. Being rebellious isn't thinking differently, it is merely fighting the imposition of someone else's will upon your own. Thinking differently is looking at something in the most honest way you possibly can and attempting to refine your vision without allowing undue external influences to distract from the pursuit.
Rarely can you find a single person, much less an organization, that can avoid tunnel vision and approach problems without the taint of past success spoiling new opportunities. It's kind of amazing to watch.
I have to wonder how many people proclaiming that "Apple just gets it" have actually used the remote in question rather than looking at its (admittedly gorgeous) picture. We have one of the previous generation Apple TV's with a very similar remote. It currently sits unplugged next to the television on top of an upturned yogurt container.
It's on the yogurt container because its lack of vents causes it to overheat if sitting on a smooth surface. It's unplugged because there's no clear power button on its very stylish remote. I happen to know that if you hold down one of the keys long enough it will turn (mostly) off, but I don't think this knowledge is shared by others in the house. It needs to be turned off because of the whine of the harddrive and the aforementioned overheating problem.
Using the remote to enter search terms for Youtube is possible, but is a dreaded chore. Generally one says "Here, let me show you something" and then has to call the other party back from another room when done with the laborious process. This is not attempted as much as when the device was new. A keyboard as a remote may look silly, but would at least make simple things like this possible.
Overall, it's very cute and warm little boat anchor. We'll probably eventually manage to get Boxee installed on it, but the lack of a reasonable means of entering text will really limit its utility. So while I agree that Apple "really gets it", at least in this case I'd apply this solely to their marketing rather than their usability.
Amen: the Apple remote is /ludicrous/. The original poster also was talking about how great it is for being small... it isn't like the people who make television remotes couldn't easily make them smaller: if you take one apart you realize they are almost entirely hollow.
The real world use case for a remote involves grasping it in your hand, which is not even remotely comfortable to do with the Apple remote. Meanwhile, I normally can't even find the thing, because it is so irritatingly small, thin, smooth, and tapered that it is constantly lost: it slides under papers, falls into the couch, or even manages to disappear into your own lap.
This simply isn't a remote that a normal person can use.
Frankly, the more I deal with people who insist "Apple is for end users" the more I realize that these people don't even understand what an end user is. Instead, these people are all geeks who happen to be geeky in the same way the product designers at Apple are, and therefore they get turned on by the same ludicrously ineffective-for-actual-end-users design choices that Apple often ends up making.
(By the way, it isn't usually holding one button: the Apple remote has a bunch of "secret" combo pushes that involve holding down two buttons at once for at least 6 seconds and then letting go. Rather than add buttons to a design, Apple prefers forcing users to remember large numbers of obscure gestures and modifiers keys, and the Apple remote is no different.)
I really like how the Boxee Box team approached the "simple remote vs. youtube searching" problem. Their remote has two sides. On the top is a four-way directional pad, a select, and a menu/back button. On the bottom is a full, cell-phone style keyboard. I think it's the best of both worlds.
> Using the remote to enter search terms for Youtube is possible, but is a dreaded chore.
This is exactly what Apple is trying to tell: searching on TV is not what consumers want. If you ask me as a consumer, searching on TV just does not makes sense. I would search on my ipod and just tell my TV to show things I found.
This reminds me of reviews when first iPhone was released. One the problems reported was that it does not have all kind of ring levels as Nokia ("meeting", "silence", "vibrate and ring", etc.). And what actually people like me want is just silence and not.
But how would you tell your TV what to show you? I'm not talking about spending the evening lounging around searching for interesting things on the web. I'm talking about the 2 minutes to enter "Vienna Vegetable Orchestra" so you can find the video that you already know about.
Do you have one of these that you happily use? Are you referring to using the iPod as a remote to directly control it instead of the included remote? If so, and if you've got this working, I can agree with you that this is a much better model for operation.
I generally use the aluminum remote to control my Apple TV, and the Remote app on my iPhone to type stuff, because typing is ridiculously tedious with the remote. But I don't need to type all that often, so it's an OK tradeoff. Most of the things I want to do on my ATV don't involve typing.
Apple takes the time to figure out how normal people do stuff.
I'm not sure what Microsoft does, but I'm picturing what some a focus group determines followed by the interpretation by committee (with the necessary compromises) followed by what some engineer implemented, all constrained by years of legacy code.
I've been using Win7 at work (I'm linux-only at home) and expected it to be a smooth experience. After all, everybody says linux isn't ready for the desktop yet. I am surprised at how often Win7 guesses my intent wrong or does stupid annoying things like jumping the list under the mouse when I click on an entry.
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.
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
Except that Search _is_ the answer to what we need on a TV right now. Whenever I fire mine up right now, I either want to go to a specific channel, find if a particular program is playing right now, browse a category of programs, or access my existing digital library. Existing remotes, including Apple's minimalistic design, are worthless for doing this. It might look sleek and thin, but it's probably the worst user experience for getting to what I want right now. I don't want to have to press arrow keys a hundred times over through menu after menu after menu to get to the show that I want to watch.
GoogleTV's remotes let me do that. A few button presses and I'm instantly where I want to be. While Apple's product design strategy is elegance over any and all costs, with Google I can get shit done. And that's all I care about at the end of the day, not how pretty my remote looks when I'm using it.
Its funny you say the answer is "Search" but of the 4 things you want to do when you fire up your tv, none of them are "Do a text based search for content".
1. Go to specific channel
2. Find if a program is playing right now
3. Browse a category of programs
4. Access an existing digital library.
Existing remotes actually do many of these pretty well. A keyboard based search only really helps with 2 and 4 and even then might actually be an ancillary experience unless you are looking for something specific. Text search only helps when you are looking for specific content it helps you find content you know exists. But I really don't think thats the main problem for people watching TV.
I think most people do what I do when I get home, sit down and try to find something interesting and new to watch. I think the problem is that most people have a hard time finding that cool new show or video. Now similar to the web, when I want to try to find something interesting I don't go to Google. I go to reddit or HN or fark or digg or some other source of curated content.
No, existing remotes do this horribly. Modern Cable subscriptions come with 300+ channels. I don't want to have to hold down an arrow key for minutes looking for something. I don't want to have to memorize what damn channel is AMC HD.
GoogleTV lets me type-in three letters: AMC. I get the channel. I get YouTube videos for snippets from their latest shows. I can type in House and immediately see if it's playing on any of the two dozen channels it's syndicated on, grab some episodes from my network, watch videos online of it, and read the Wikipedia page.
Try using a computer without being able to type actual words. You're only allowed to use the on-screen keyboard provided by your OS and the arrow keys to move around and confirm keys to press. I'll check back in when you're pulling your hair out trying to do anything in 5 minutes. The common computer experiences are merging with your TV. Apple's remote doesn't do anything to solve it. It's simple for the sake of being simple, and it's worthless as a modern computing remote because of it.
I've already conceded that if you know what you're looking for (A&E, House) a keyboard helps. I just don't think that's the primary issue which people have with their TV. 99% of the time I don't need Google on TV - I want reddit and I never use my keyboard on Reddit.
But you use a mouse on Reddit to select which story from a list to read, comment to expand, upvote etc which the Google remote has, and the Apple remote doesn't.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
Well, I never said that Google was responsible for the design of the remotes or hardware in the post, that's clearly on Sony and Logitech. But Google did design the interface that requires a keyboard and mouse to operate, so they have some of the blame. You can bet that in the unlikely event Apple had a product where other companies designed the hardware for their software, they'd have some pretty detailed specs to make sure stuff like those remotes didn't happen.
I haven't used a Google TV either, but I believe a keyboard is required for a lot of the use. I don't see how that is a bad thing. If a user needs to type something in, how are they to do that without a keyboard?
"I haven’t used a Google TV, but based on these remotes, I would bet the rest of the interface is just as clunky." - From the blog
I think that's an irrational assumption. Again, I haven't used one either so I cannot dispute the claim, but I think one should hold off their opinion until they try it.
I guess when it comes down to it, Google makes its money by search. For search on TVs to work, they need to get people typing search keywords. Hence keyboards.
I had a really good conversation yesterday at the Dev Lunch in Toronto about so-called Smart TVs. Here's a quick summary:
* TVs are about media consumption, not about interaction in the PC-sense of the word.
* When one wants extra content or information regarding the media they are consuming, they tend to use a secondary device (e.g. iPad, notebook)
* Most devs in the room merely wanted a device that would allow them to better manage and consume the media they wanted
* It's not clear what sort of apps (besides the aforementioned management tool) would be beneficial to write for a Smart TV platform. This is likely a function of not groking what a future with a Smart TV might be like.
* Over and over again, it was noted that the TV is a social device. You watch it with friends, be it in a bar, or a home. It's not clear that interacting with a Smart TV could be a social activity.
I'm interested to see what happens in this sphere, but I frankly can't shake the feeling that it's a dead end. Mostly dumb boxes that enable consumption, and management of media are probably the most likely thing to succeed, a la TiVo.
Yeah, I think the tech industry has consistently overestimated how much people want to interact with their television. TV is a fundamentally passive experience. Basic DVRs are probably pushing the limit of how much thought most people want to put into the viewing experience.
So I think you're going to see a few trends happening here which may change your mind.
One of the big gaps here is that most TV App platforms are independent of the video you are watching (they are not content aware). Take the Yahoo! platform which is (very well) designed to be used while watching TV, yet the apps don't know what is being watched. This adds some serious difficulty to app developers who want to enhance existing TV content which is kind of the current holy grail for TV apps (Actually most TV apps right now provide alternatives for delivering video content - and that is the killer app on TV right now. I'm going to try to focus this screed on TV apps whose main purpose is not to deliver video). This disconnect between app and video is currently being addressed. Early next year these apps will be able to be content aware and you will be able to have apps which are sync'd to the broadcast and this will add a lot of value to the chain. Unfortunately enhanced ads will likely be the first area where you'll see this functionality but someone needs to pay the bills.
The second trend is that a lot of TV interactivity will likely move from the TV to your tablet PC. We've already seen a first implementation of this with ABC's "My Generation" TV Show app (show's already canceled unfortunately). This app sync'd to broadcast using audio fingerprinting. I think that at some point these "second screen" apps will be the main type of TV Apps you see. Likely using the TV app platforms for some simple updates. Think a leaderboard or something while playing - or a twitter feed.
With respect to social. I think where the most interesting social aspects for TV aren't "Friend Feeds" via Twitter or Facebook. But using social networks for content discovery. I think we're going to be so inundated with video content that our primary method for content discovery won't be a guide (or search) but some sort of social recommendation system. Maybe a reddit for TV?
You're probably right with respect to using a secondary device as the medium with which interactivity and TV content are brought together.
Your last point is a pale shadow of a greater problem that PVRs are trying to solve. People are ipso facto inundated with too much content from all angles, period. I sometimes find myself wondering if we as a society are addicted to this constant influx of content and stimuli.
It's not really that astonishing. I've been sitting in product design meetings for over a decade for applications, and anything designed through that process almost inevitably ends up looking like that Sony remote.
When you have five product managers that have a stake in something and they care more about their little product rather than the larger picture, this is what you end up with.
Apple has the singular vision of Steve Jobs/Jony Ive to drive their products. You really need a (well-qualified and competent) dictator when it comes to product design.
The better question is "what will happen to Apple after Jobs and Ive are gone?"
The article misses the point - Apple is aiming for a particular niche market, and it achieves that very successfully. Its niche market will pay through the roof for devices which look nice and make it easy to do the most common things but very hard or difficult to do something outside a particular square.
However, this is only a small (albeit high paying) niche, and to suggest that other companies are making poor business decisions because they aren't targeting the same niche that Apple does is simply wrong. I'm sure entering a URL, for example, on the Sony-Google remote would be far easier and more obvious than on the Apple one - and so I'm sure the majority of consumers would prefer that one over the Apple one.
In summary, all the designs on the page are appropriate for a market segment the brands they are being marketed under target.
I have already implemented The Right Solution for my MythTV.
Two remotes.
One is a TiVo remote control. Fits nicely in my hand, has the important buttons laid out nicely. Good for watching and selecting and OK for most other tasks.
The other is a remote keyboard with built-in mouse, similar to the Logitech board. I pull it out when I want to search for something or manipulate the system in a more complex way (like firing up Firefox to play a Flash game). The rest of the time, it's propped next to the sofa.
There's no reason not to ship a simple remote and a complex one, and let people decide what they need when they need it.
As a nitpick, the Apple Remote has seven buttons: Four direction buttons, center button, Menu button, and play/pause.
This does not really detract from the central point of the argument, but then I believe the argument is flawed since the remotes are made for almost entirely different things. You cannot run searches using the Apple Remote, for example. Whether the solution picked by Sony and Logitech is the best solution remains to be seen (although I find it doubtful at best), but the article, IMO, makes a bad point.
Again, are you joking? Who the hell uses caps lock for just a few letters like that? Maybe you don't know how to type? Are you trying to say that people who can't touch type find caps lock useful while they hunt and peck or something? If you're looking at the keyboard anyway it seems easy to hold shift while you peck with the other hand. Do you realize it's pretty standard for people here to disable their caps lock key and replace it with something else?
Do you realize that adding hardware buttons that duplicate features b/c it's slightly convenient for some small group of people is bad design?
I'm really disappointed in the next generation of remotes. What I really want to know is why, when we have touchscreen phones and devices like the iPad, our remotes are still hunks of plastic with dozens of tiny rubber buttons?
Forget remotes, I want the whole UI for my TV to be on a dedicated touchscreen device. I want to read about what's on next, preview what's on other channels and schedule recordings without disrupting what's on the display screen.
The rest of the time, show me two big volume buttons.
Does anyone else think the recent release (and positive reviews) of Kinect might indicate that the Sony and Logitech solutions will quite soon be anachronisms? People seem to say the Kinect's voice recognition is still a bit dodgy, but for the solutions the monstrous remotes are meant to solve, I don't see why voice input wouldn't generally work? If I want to find the next showing of It's Always Sunny in Philadelpha, it's a heck of a lot easier to just say it than type it out, and since it's search-based, the voice recognition doesn't have to be perfect anyway.
The best remote for the TV products are touch screen phone apps with shifting UIs: a four-d pad when it needs to be, a keyboard when it needs to be. (A quick reference IMDB device when it needs to be).
I'm really not sure I agree. Remotes do their jobs best when one fully learns their layout and can operate every function while keeping their eyes on the content they're wanting to see, not looking down at a small screen to figure out where your tap target is at any given moment.
Apple's implementation solves this by allowing you to perform directional swipe gestures within a large area of the screen, with a tap proxying for the select button. It's quite nice.
Agree, however the box itself is another story. Aside from the needlessly wacky shape, isn't it obvious that it should fit in the ~2" high gap between the top of the table/stand and the bottom of the display? Apple has it right with the AppleTV, and it seems like they figured it out with the new Mac Mini, which is much thinner than the old one.
>"I can see the Apple designers starting from scratch, sitting down on their couches in their living rooms and imagining what they would want to use"
The result of imagining rather than testing is a tiny remote that easily falls between the cushions of said couch or gets buried under a magazine on the end table.
Apple TV is meant to be a media browsing and consumption device, whereas Google TV includes Chrome(with Flash).
You can use an Android phone to control Google TV anyway.
I would love to see Apple solving the problem with typing using a remote(especially things like URLs) without using resorting to an iPhone or iPod Touch.
Yes. "You aren't supposes to..." seems to be the subtext with apple. You get a great experience when you buy everything from them and color within the lines. That doesn't make it THE way to run a superior company, but it is A way to do so.
> without using resorting to an iPhone or iPod Touch
Why not? You have iPod/iPhone in your pocket, or iPad on your coffee table. They can be used to look something up, and with AirPlay you can send content to TV once you find it.
>Why not? You have iPod/iPhone in your pocket, or iPad on your coffee table. They can be used to look something up, and with AirPlay you can send content to TV once you find it.
It's difficult to articulate this properly because most people don't even have a good understanding of what it means to dissent. Being rebellious isn't thinking differently, it is merely fighting the imposition of someone else's will upon your own. Thinking differently is looking at something in the most honest way you possibly can and attempting to refine your vision without allowing undue external influences to distract from the pursuit.
Rarely can you find a single person, much less an organization, that can avoid tunnel vision and approach problems without the taint of past success spoiling new opportunities. It's kind of amazing to watch.