Gregarius » BetaNews.Com

BetaNews.Com (7 non lus)

HP extends massive battery recall for overheating notebooks

Publié: mai 21, 2010, 11:03pm CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission put out a bulletin this afternoon extending last year's recall of HP and Compaq Li-Ion notebook batteries that were prone to overheating.
The recall in May of last year included 70,000 potentially defective batteries, and today that has been extended to approximately 54,000 more.
The extension of the recall is due in large part to consumer complaints of overheated and rupturing batteries. The commission said that HP has received 38 more reports of overheated batteries; with 31 resulting in minor property damage, and 11 resulting in minor human injury.
The following notebooks are affected in this battery recall:
HP Pavilion: dv2000, dv2500, dv2700 (body style pictured below), dv6000, dv6500, dv6700, dx6000, dx6500, dx6700, dv9000, dv9500, dv9700 Compaq Presario: A900, C700, F500, F700, V3000, V3500, V3700, V6000, V6500, V6700 HP: G6000, G7000 HP Compaq: 6510b, 6515b, 6710b, 6710s, 6715b, 6715s, 6270s.
Consumers with an affected battery should check out HP's Battery Replacement Program site for further information.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Google + AdMob may have reduced competition in 2009, but not today, says FTC

Publié: mai 21, 2010, 9:31pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Members of the US Federal Trade Commission said indeed, they were concerned that the acquisition of mobile ad platform AdMob by global Web advertising leader Google, announced last November, would result in the elimination of at least one competitive relationship in the marketplace.
But commissioners literally credited Apple with filling that gap, in a 5-0 decision today in favor of the acquisition that might not have ended up that way had Apple not decided to launch its own iAd platform last month.
"Google's proposed $750 million acquisition of AdMob necessitated close scrutiny because the transaction appeared likely to lead to a substantial lessening of competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act," reads this morning's statement from the FTC explaining the decision (PDF available here). "Those companies generate the most revenue among mobile advertising networks, and both companies are particularly strong in one segment of the market, namely performance ad networks. The Commission's six-month investigation yielded evidence that each of the merging parties viewed the other as its primary competitor, and that each firm made business decisions in direct response to this perceived competitive threat."
That should have wrapped the matter up, with Bloomberg News reporting FTC staff members were urging commissioners there to oppose the deal, and Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust Chairman Herb Kohl (D - Wisc.) urging FTC Chairman Jonathan Liebowitz last month to carefully scrutinize the deal before reaching a decision.
"The importance of this transaction is heightened because of the likely importance of the smart phone advertising market in the future. Sales of smart phones are undergoing explosive growth. Consumers are increasingly using these phones to search the Internet and to make use of the applications downloaded onto these devices. Smart phones are a uniquely powerful method for advertisers to reach consumers, because most consumers with smart phones carry them most of the day, and frequently use them to access and search the Internet," Sen. Kohl wrote. "It is therefore of vital importance to be wary of any transaction that would create undue market dominance of search or application-based advertising on mobile devices such as smart phones. Allowing any one firm to dominate this market could result in higher prices for mobile advertising on the Internet and with respect to smart phone applications, and also could result in lower revenues realized by applications developers."
But that was before Apple produced iAd, FTC commissioners said today, and that changed everything.
"During the investigation, Apple acquired the third largest mobile ad network, Quattro Wireless, in December 2009 and then introduced its own mobile advertising network, iAd, as part of its iPhone applications package," the FTC's decision reads. "The Commission has reason to believe that Apple quickly will become a strong mobile advertising network competitor. Apple not only has extensive relationships with application developers and users, but also is able to offer targeted ads (heretofore a strength of AdMob) by leveraging proprietary user data gleaned from users of Apple mobile devices. Furthermore, Apple's ownership of the iPhone software development tools, and its control over the developers' license agreement, gives Apple the unique ability to define how competition among ad networks on the iPhone will occur and evolve.
"As a result of Apple's entry," commissioners continued, "AdMob's success to date on the iPhone platform is unlikely to be an accurate predictor of AdMob's competitive significance going forward, whether AdMob is owned by Google or not. This is particularly important given that AdMob's revenue and market share are derived largely from the iPhone platform."
The very fact that there are now two likely principal competitors for iPhone advertising traffic -- iAd and AdMob -- is giving other investors reason to form even more competitive platforms, commissioners concluded. So just because the competition is getting bigger does not mean, in this case, that competitors are getting fewer. Thus the deal was given the FTC's blessing.
And in a statement this afternoon, Sen. Kohl gave the FTC's review his blessing as well: "While the FTC concluded that this merger would not harm competition, its review underscores the need for ensuring robust competition in markets of new and emerging technology so that consumers reap the full benefits of innovation."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Patent pool may be in the works for 'free' VP8 codec

Publié: mai 21, 2010, 8:32pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

A spokesperson for MPEG LA, the licensing provider for the H.264/AVC portfolio, confirmed to Betanews this afternoon that it is actively considering taking the first step in the process of collecting revenue from the distributors of the video codec that Google released under a free and open source license on Wednesday.
As MPEG LA CEO Larry Horn first told The Wall Street Journal's John Paczkowski, the licensor is open to the possibility of the creation of a patent pool for collecting royalties pertaining to the essential patents used by the VP8 codec, part of the open source multimedia technology that Google has dubbed WebM.
"We are looking into the prospect of offering such a patent pool license based on interest from the market," the spokesperson told us. "Therefore it is too early in the process to discuss how such a license might work."
The establishment of a patent pool, on the one hand, might be a friendlier and more open handed approach to handling the problem of VP8's patent encroachment, which independent video engineers including x264's Jason Garrett-Glaser believe will be a problem with respect to VP8. The alternative option, a video technology business source told Betanews last month, would be to seek legal action soon.
For Google to be open to the notion of a patent pool, it would have to be willing to lose all of the money it sinks into royalties. However, the "on the other hand" option is that the establishment of a VP8 patent pool, should MPEG LA choose to go that route, may be a necessary first step in order to demonstrate in a court of law Google's disregard for patent holders' rights, should Google choose to decline any invitation to pay royalties.
Even if Google were to accept the notion of a patent pool, it may not be able to address the question of the opening up of VP8's source code -- an affair with which MPEG LA may not have any involvement. Conceivably, individual patent holders may still seek legal action against Google for allegedly licensing the source code without authorization, even if Google were to pay royalties for the rights to license the actual codec.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Are you a Mac, or are you a PC?

Publié: mai 21, 2010, 8:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

The year 2006 will be remembered as transformative. Google bought the nearly year-old YouTube. Facebook opened to the general public, and Twitter launched. In May, Apple debuted the "Get a Mac" advertising campaign, which is one of the most memorable and quite possibly the most definitive for high-tech marketing -- at least in this century. "Get a Mac" is no more. Apple now redirects to Why You'll Love the Mac," which is merely informational. Four years of commercials are gone, too, although some will remain on YouTube until Apple demands they be pulled. That's already started.
As I've asserted before, most of the popular social media services taken for granted today started during or after 2006. Even the iPhone came later. Something else happened in 2006, which gave Apple unexpected tailwind for Mac sales: Microsoft bungled Windows Vista's launch. The company missed the holiday sales period, launching Vista for businesses at the end of November, but not for consumers until late January 2007. Apple's "Get a Mac" marketing would shift from generally knocking Windows PCs to direct attacks on Windows Vista.
For Apple, 2006 marked the beginning of a slow sales surge, bolstered by "Get a Mac" marketing and unencumbered by Windows; more Windows users stuck with XP than upgraded to Vista, with many of them switching to Macs -- or at least adding Apple computers alongside Windows PCs. In the quarter that "Get a Mac" debuted, Apple shipped 1.3 million Macs, with net revenue of $1.87 billion. Unit shipments rose 12 percent year over year and revenue by 19 percent. During its most recent quarter, Apple shipped 2.94 million Macs, up 33 percent year over year, generating $3.76 billion revenue for a 27 percent year-over-year increase.
I was working as a senior analyst for JupiterResearch when Apple launched the "Get a Mac" campaign. I blogged on May 2, 2006:
The appeal is the metaphor: People, one person a Mac and another a PC (presumably running Windows). Through their exchange, the two characters communicate the important presumed PC and Mac differences (crashes, viruses) and similarities (networking, Microsoft Office) in straightforward fashion. There is no complicated computer jargon, and the ads use the experiential to make concepts clear and meaningful. The approach is brilliant...
No doubt, big husky Microsoft must tire of listening to the barking of that scrappy dog Apple. After all, there's a huge market share gulf between Windows PCs and Macs. And Microsoft does develop one very important Mac product, Office. But there's some bite to that bark, too. In looking over JupiterResearch household surveys, Mac OS does appear to be eking upward. Caveat -- and it's a big one: Any possible gains are still fairly small and well within margin of error. But some trends are other evidence, such as the number of multi-computer households with Mac OS compared to Windows XP. I presume that Macs are snatching up second or third computer purchases that might otherwise have gone to Windows. High proportion of Mac OS households with notebooks compared to Windows counterparts is another fascinating snippet.
Apple has set up the "Get a Mac" Website with information for would-be switchers and the six TV commercials. Microsoft could learn a whole lot about Apple's marketing approach, particularly for the eventual release of Windows Vista. Other high-tech vendors should take notes, too. Communicating products' value is not easy -- otherwise why would high-tech companies spend millions hiring advertising agencies? Apple has taken one of the most recognizable metaphors--interaction between two people--and communicated something very big in a small way. The approach is compelling, to say the least.
The approach was so compelling that Microsoft responded with the "I'm a PC" campaign in September 2008. The first commercial began with Microsoft employee Sean Siler dressed like actor John Hodgman, who portrayed the geeky PC in Apple's "Get a Mac" ads. "Hello, I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype," Siler says. My initial reaction from Sept. 19, 2008:
Overall, the commercials are endearing. I like them more than I expected. But their shortcoming is the same as the Bill [Gates] and Jerry [Seinfeld] ads: The commercials don't say much about Windows. In that sense, Apple set the agenda by using PC to identify Windows.
The 'I'm a PC' commercials are sad Microsoft acknowledgment about how smaller rival Apple outmarketed the giant. But I still expect the 'I'm a PC' concept to embolden Apple to make even more aggressive 'Get a Mac' commercials and to rally the Mac minority to sound like a roaring majority, on blogs, in news stories, and among online and offline social circles. I see mixed benefit, therefore. Any debate is even more marketing for Microsoft, and free at that. So how bad can that be?
It could be plenty bad. Apple ramped up the Windows assaults, including repeated jabs at Windows 7. The ongoing attacks sucked much of the charm and creativity out of the "Get a Mac" ads and turned them into caricatures of their former greatness. The motif remains a great one, but "Get a Mac" became "get the fast-forward on the DVR button." Apple should have pulled the campaign sooner. The question to ask now: With what will Apple replace "Get a Mac?" Surely the iconic marketing is far from over.
It's Friday. Let's have some fun. I must ask: Are you a Mac? Or are you a PC? Please answer in comments.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Straight from Sony Chairman Sir Howard Stringer: Here's why Google TV is a huge deal for Sony

Publié: mai 21, 2010, 6:20pm CEST par the Betanews Staff

By the Betanews Staff, Betanews

Sony Corp. Chairman Sir Howard Stringer concluded a press conference about his company's forthcoming Android-based Internet TV yesterday with a widely quoted declaration: "This really is a very big deal." But it wasn't until his 50-minute sit down with an exclusive group of a dozen journalists and analysts did he get down to explaining why.
The alliance is one of strange bedfellows. Sony and Google are competitors in mobile phones and supporting services. In addition, consumer electronics companies have typically resisted the advances of high-tech companies. Sony also stands apart from many other consumer electronics companies, by pushing its own technologies and standards rather than embracing others. So Sony's Google embrace is surprising and foreshadowing: Sony is changing its ways.
With the planned fall debut of a standalone "Internet TV" and a set-top box that brings the functionality to existing displays, the TV, Stringer said, "is no longer dumb." By bringing the Internet and, more importantly, a cornucopia of apps to the TV, the same multimedia extravaganza that most people routinely enjoy alone on a PC or smartphone will finally make its way into the living room where they can enjoy it together.
What's so special about a Sony-Android TV? "It's who gets to experience it -- the whole family," Stringer said.
These announcements often come with a ton of hype. You won't be blamed if you believe the normally understated British exec is making too much of too little. The Internet has been moving onto the TV for quite some time. Sony has itself been making hay with its "internet-connected" TVs for two years now. Moreover, there are already platforms out there such as Apple TV and Boxee. Yahoo has been pressing its connected-TV "widgets." And Hulu certainly bridged the gap between PC and TV.
But the Sony-Google deal really does make for a King Kong -- a behemoth big enough and muscular enough to move IPTV from the fringes into the mainstream of modern life. The duo may be savvy enough to make Internet TV a reality. Google gets computers, search, and the Internet; Sony knows TVs.
But something on the Sony side makes the partnership potentially more potent: Stringer has put the finishing touches on a vast management change in Sony's TV group by turning its reins over to a group of managers who previously ran Sony's VAIO PC, PlayStation, networking, and mobile groups.
Stringer refers to these managers as his "musketeers," and they include Bob Ishida, senior vice president of Sony's home entertainment group who ran the VAIO business in the U.S. and Japan for years, and Kuni Suzuki, the SVP in charge of Sony's network products and services group. Stringer said their involvement was calculated: They don't just get TVs, they get processors, operating systems and applications, too. Plus, they bring a "much more combative" computer industry mentality to the once, but no longer, staid world of consumer electronics. They've managed in a highly price-competitive, innovation-driven segment.
The cultural revolution isn't underway just at Sony's Tokyo headquarters. It's also unfolding at its San Diego-based Sony Electronics Corp., which makes TVs, computers, MP3 players, cameras, and more for the U.S. market. Just two weeks ago, Sony named Mike Abary, who spent 10 years with the VAIO group, SVP of its Sony Electronics Home Division, which includes its American TV-manufacturing operation.
Thanks to the VAIO-connected execs, Sony got a jump at working with Google. It began shipping VAIO PCs with Google Chrome in January. And its Sony-Ericsson unit released an Android smartphone to the Japan market in January. As a result, Stringer believes he has a six-month advantage on his rivals.
Not be underestimated either is the fact that Google will be unleashing the thousands of independent developers already aboard the Android bandwagon, who will now be able to create apps for an OS that spans smartphones, PCs, netbooks, tablets, and now TVs.
In fact, Sony's Abary said Android will become the platform for apps that will turn the TV into an information device as utilitarian as other computing devices -- apps in numbers and in kinds we simply "can't imagine now."
Stringer paid homage to Google for its quick feet. When Sony called on Google to talk, it was the Google side that first proposed putting Android on Sony TVs -- and other gadgets in its portfolio later, he said. Stringer contends the relationship with Google is so far "unblemished" by any major disagreements. "It's refreshing, " he said, referring no doubt to the often contentious alliances Sony's long had with the likes of Microsoft and Intel.
By Stringer's own admission, partnerships like the one it has forged with Google often turn into love-hate affairs. In an aside before his sit-down began, he said that running a corporation in today's world of "coopitition" is like "jumping into a Viking boat where you might be handed an oar or you might be handed an axe." In short, you never know when you're friend, or when you're foe.
Today, Google has handed him an oar, he jokes. After this, though, he admits who knows.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Technological advances keep Intel's Atom a contender in handhelds

Publié: mai 21, 2010, 5:51pm CEST

By Charles King, E-Commerce Times

Intel's next-gen Atom processor-based platform (formerly "Moorestown") caused quite a stir in the news and among mobile computing aficionados. On the technical side, Intel seems to have delivered the goods. The platform includes Intel's Atom processor Z6xx Series Family (formerly "Lincroft"), the Platform Controller Hub MP20 (formerly "Langwell") and a dedicated Mixed Signal IC (MSIC) (formerly "Briertown").
It adds 3D graphics, video encode and decode, and memory and display controllers into the single system-on-chip (SoC) design. Also included are the MP20 Platform Controller Hub and a dedicated MSIC, integrating power delivery and battery charging, and consolidating a range of analog and digital components.
What does this mean in plain English? That the new Atom platform is simply the best performing solution for handheld computing devices Intel has ever developed.
How much better? Try >50x reduction in idle power, >20x reduction in audio power and 2-3x power reductions in browsing and video compared to the previous-generation Atom (a.k.a., "Menlow") processor. These efficiencies translate into >10 days of standby, up to two days of audio playback and four to five hours of browsing and video life with common 1500mAh batteries.
Along with power savings, Intel's new Atom platform offers highly enhanced audio/video features that are critical to consumer experience and satisfaction. How enhanced? Compared to "Menlow," the new platform delivers 1.5-3x higher compute performance, 2-4x richer graphics, >4x higher JavaScript performance and support for full HD 1080p high-profile video decoding and 720p HD video recording.
Compared to Menlow, Intel hit the ball out of the park with the new Atom, most analysts seemed to agree, but many were less impressed with the platform's commercial prospects. That was not particularly surprising given the turmoil in the mobile marketplace that began with Microsoft's February announcement of its Windows Phone 7 Series OS, followed by the weeks of hype leading up to Apple's April iPad launch and its acquisition of Intrinsity, and HP's purchase of Palm and the reported cancellation of its Windows 7-based Slate tablet.
Given those events, the conventional wisdom on Intel's new Atom platform appears to be that 1) Apple's dominant mindshare in all things mobile makes it the company to beat; 2) close relationships with Apple and smartphone market leader RIM make ARM-based microprocessors virtually unstoppable; and 3) despite impressive improvements, Intel's new Atom is simply too late to the mobile game to be a viable player.
So is the conventional wisdom particularly wise? I have my doubts. Certainly Apple, as well as leading smartphone vendor RIM, deserves applause for some terrific product and service offerings. Apple, in particular, has seized the public imagination regarding the smartphone and tablet experience to a remarkable extent. Plus, the company's App Store has defined the critical role a deep application portfolio plays in platform success.
However, recent APD Group research suggests first quarter sales of Android-based phones blew past iPhone sales. If Android's success continues, it could indicate that Apple's single-vendor development and manufacturing model faces significant barriers in the global market for handheld computing.
In addition, though the iPad has enjoyed extraordinary sales to date, it is the lone occupant of an essentially nascent market that will be crowded with enticing new products by the holidays. Some of these will almost assuredly be based on the new Intel Atom platform.
What about ARM? Can Intel really hope to prevail against so dominant a competitor? That's certainly problematic, especially given ARM's deep client roster. However, the sizable semiconductor investments of one of its most important customers -- Apple -- could mean future problems for ARM. More importantly, a core (no pun intended) Intel strength is its ability to play the long game, as was clear in the company's response to AMD's Opteron processor.
How so? AMD's singular pursuit of 64-bit x86 computing solutions allowed the company to develop a sizable market and mindshare lead. Though it initially dismissed Opteron, Intel eventually dove into the market with a vengeance and eventually left AMD in its wake. That point is worth remembering in still-evolving markets like mobile computing.
The new Atom platform demonstrates, yet again, Intel's ability to effectively adapt to changing circumstances by leveraging its considerable intellectual and human capital.
This is not to say that the new Atom platform will be a slam-dunk success. Mobile computing is far less homogeneous than the PC, laptop and server markets, with a technologically diverse vendor ecosystem and highly (some might say wildly) differentiated global customer groups. In other words, it's a world that will be harder to engage with and work within than the more predictable PC/server networks Intel is used to.
Yet that same world is also populated with dynamic, astute vendors and customers willing to embrace new innovations. Bottom line: Known and unknown challenges aside, I believe the potential opportunities for the new Atom platform are enormous, and worth every bit of Intel's time, effort and investment.
Charles King is principal analyst for Pund-IT, an IT industry consultancy that emphasizes understanding technology and product evolution, and interpreting the effects these changes will have on business customers and the greater IT marketplace.
This story was originally published on E-Commerce Times.
© 2010 ECT News Network. All rights reserved.
© 2010 BetaNews.com. All rights reserved.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

Intel Atom - Microsoft - Apple - IPad - IPhone
Google TV is all about blood sucking television ad spending

Publié: mai 21, 2010, 4:25am CEST par Joe Wilcox
By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Did you hear the news? The Internet is coming to your TV. It's going to be this big platform for which developers create applications. Pundits are saying the strategy is really impressive. Get this: Major television set manufacturers are going to support the platform, so you get the best of TV and the Internet. Oh you did hear about it. Google TV, right? Wrong! I just described variations of Microsoft's television strategy as announced over the years: Web TV, Windows Media Center, Mediaroom and Mediaroom for Xbox.
Did Google execs not hear about Microsoft's mostly failed living room strategy, which Google TV shockingly sounds like? Several former Microsofties are now Googlers. Surely somebody knew about Microsoft's past TV bungles. If Microsoft couldn't make Internet TV work, why should Google do any better? Google's strategy sounds so similar that I'm stunned by some pundit's early cooing over the strategy.
Early Google TV partners include Intel and Sony. Google claims that Google TV won't replace but augment cable or telco services. But that's really a load of bull. As I will better explain in a few paragraphs, Google is really launching a TV advertising platform -- and that sure as hell will compete with ads carried on cable and network television.
Google TV will run on Android 2.1, bringing along supporting apps and the Chrome browser, too. Much of the rest of the strategy -- the program guide, the DVR, the developer opportunity, the Web-meets-the-living-room mumbo jumbo -- is tried and tired. Companies from Dell to Microsoft to TiVo -- hell, even Apple -- have talked up that big settop box augmenting but not really replacing the programming experience consumers get today. Each strategy is stamped with a big "Fail." From software, services or platform development perspectives, Google isn't saying much new. Even the marketing tagline has a familiar ring: "TV meets Web. Web meets TV." Yeah, I'm just blowing my brains out with enthusiasm for this same old failed thing.
It's All About Advertising
What Google wants from the living room is very different from Microsoft, although the fundamental concept is the same: To extend and preserve the existing monopoly -- Windows for Microsoft and search/online advertising for Google. But Google is looking to cash in on a market with major players, who are likely to resist the informational giant's embrace. For all the buzz in recent years about the decline of newspaper, magazines and radio, TV has remained largely immune to declining ad dollars -- or at least massive shift online.
For years, television has been Google's holy grail. Company executives have talked, often privately, about the importance of TV ad dollars shifting online. Google had its search and ad platform bucket out to catch those dollars, but they never really came. Google scooped up some advertising moving from print or radio to online, while waiting for TV advertising to do the same. It came only in trickles. So if the ad dollars won't come to Google then, holy hell, the company will go get them. That's really what Google TV is all about, scooping up television advertising.
In January, Forrester Research forecast that US TV advertising spending would rise slightly in 2010 to $69.5 billion. A month later, the analyst firm warned that, based on a survey of 100 national advertisers, media buyers were showing increasing dissatisfaction with television:
- Sixty-two percent of advertisers complain there is too much clutter; they want fewer ads, and there is renewed interest in 30-second spots.
- Seventy-eight percent of advertisers want targeted ads, but only 59 percent want to pay for them.
- The majority of advertisers want new metrics; reach and frequency aren't enough.
Forrester's report might as well be a blueprint for Google TV. Google's advertising business is all about targeting and metrics and delivered for low cost. Google could offer national advertisers what they want and something more: Better flexibility integrating ad campaigns across media categories. Microsoft talks about a three-screen strategy. Google has one, too -- delivering search and advertising to mobile phones, PCs and TVs.
Who Will Give Up the Living Room to Google?
For comparison, US advertisers spent $22.7 billion online in 2009, down 3.4 percent year over year, according to IAB and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Online ad spending accounted for 17 percent of all US advertising in 2009. For this year, eMarketer forecasts US online spending will reach $25.1 billion -- while an 11 percent increase, revenue falls far behind TV.
To push into the living room, Google is going to have to push somebody out. As Microsoft learned -- and even TiVo -- that's not so easy. Cable and telco providers covet their subscription fees and local advertising revenues. Surely the big networks will fight against Google's free economy, which could reduce the value of their ad space. Why pay networks big bucks when Google will sell ad space for much less?
Networks and cable and teleco providers have reason to worry, given YouTube's popularity and some surprising data from the IAB and PricewaterhouseCoopers report. US online video ad revenues rose 39 percent to about $1 billion last year. YouTube may yet be a big revenue generator for Google, which already offers rental content.
Would you stop paying big bucks to a cable or telco provider if Google TV could bundle up a tidy subscription price for good programming? Say 30 bucks a month? I would, but Google will have to get Hollywood to cough up the content against network and cable and telco provider resistance. That all circles back to Microsoft's mostly failed attempts to conquer the living room, against less resistance. Can Google really do better? You tell me, please, in comments.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

Google - Apple - Sony - Microsoft - Television