Back to Article

  • mevans336 - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    I'm pretty positive the AppleTV doesn't transcode any media, but only streams supported formats from a computer with iTunes. (Or directly via the web from authorized sources.)

    I love the fact that this has a local cache however, as that has seemed like a no-brainer to me for years. Why stream in "real-time" with a wimpy buffer and unreliable WiFi ... if the bandwidth is available, get the whole thing downloaded ASAP.

    Consequently, Slacker radio takes this same approach, which is why you'll rarely have "buffering" problems with them. The song either plays or doesn't.
  • GrizzledYoungMan - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    But what exactly are you getting for $300? Seriously. What? The ability to play back audio/video from 'Google Play Music, Movies, YouTube'? Reply
  • EnzoFX - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    It's definitely overpriced. Even if it offers a few things over streaming media players, it still has to compete with them. However other players offer basic things like netflix, which still means they're the better choice IMO. Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    One of the things they also mentioned is that much of this device is made in the USA. So that will inflate the costs some. Reply
  • GrizzledYoungMan - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    The whole "Made in USA" makes me sad, because those will be American workers who get fired when this thing inevitably tanks. Reply
  • Fleeb - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    As compared to the Americans who never gets work at all? Reply
  • HisDivineOrder - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link

    As compared to the Americans who work on a product that is priced to actually sell and continue to work indefinitely, I think... Reply
  • dagamer34 - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    Overpriced is the wrong word, as I wonder if people would really use it if it were free. It lacks functionality, simple as that, and REQUIRES an Android phone. Bonkers. Reply
  • reuthermonkey1 - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link

    I fail to see your point.
    While some people are locked into the iTunes ecosystem, many of us are not. Notably, about ~51% of the smartphone market. While I have little use for a $300 music and video player without DLNA support, I would happily have paid $150 for this if it had DLNA support (with full mkv playback) and support for competing services like Netflix and Amazon Prime videos.

    In essence, if this had been a GoogleTV + the Q's features for $200 or less, I would be throwing my cash at google.
  • softdrinkviking - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link

    Yeah, it is a little pricey, but it's made in the USA, that's huge in my opinion. Who says Google is going to fold the project and can a bunch of workers? That's an insane assumption. They have enough capital to keep it going long enough to improve it's marketability and usefulness with user feedback.
    Also, netflix, hulu plus, etc, are all available on TVs now. I think that Google knows this and is marketing this device to play back other content. It looks like the focus is on multiple device connectivity and ease of compatibility within the android ecosystem.
    Who needs yet another device that can play back netflix?
    The one big thing that I would want is to be able to playback from a cloud storage device in my home, like from my dvds or home movies. I can't really tell if that's possible, but it looks like no?
  • mevans336 - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    I have to agree. The AppleTV is almost as capable and sells for $99.

    What I don't see is any mention of local playback capability. With my AppleTV (v3) I have to convert everything to MP4 with AC3. However I can do that and then import to iTunes, then stream to my AppleTV without issue.

    Can this thing even play back anything local since Google Play cloud based?
  • GrizzledYoungMan - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    That's what I'm wondering. Personally, I went with the WDTV gen 3 SMP over the latest gen ATV, largely for the uniquely comprehensive local content playback capabilities. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it did a beautiful job with Netflix, Vudu and Hulu, too. All for about $90.

    By comparison, paying $300 for the privilege of playing out content from yet another audio video service, this time one that I don't use because it sucks? No thanks.
  • mevans336 - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    Looks like ExtremeTech answered our question. No local playback capability.

    "On the other hand, being dependent on the cloud for media is going to hold the Nexus Q back from its potential. While the Google Play Store is nice — and is where Google makes money selling media — it generally does not integrate personal media. The one exception seems to be music in that Google Play Music will stream tracks that you have uploaded to Google even if you did not buy them from Google itself. Movies are still very much locked to only those on Google Play which means no DVD or Blu-ray rips. It also means that you are not able to share personally recorded videos. Even if they are sitting on your Android phone, you will not be able to play them back on the Nexus Q — at least not yet."

    While some of the Q features are awesome ... for $299? I'm seriously laughing. You could build a Brazos platform for about that much and get much more functionality. (If you're technical.)
  • GrizzledYoungMan - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    Out of curiosity - and I'm not even being sarcastic here - what features does it have that impress you? Seems like the only stand out to me is the depth of control it offers from an Android device, but since both the WDTV and ATV options have pretty rich Android/iOS apps, that's a non-starter. Hell, controlling volume from the source isn't even a good idea, and usually compromises audio quality. Reply
  • Penti - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    AppleTV supports Airplay, does this thing support WiFi Direct or Intel WiDi or even DLNA? Probably not. If not it's certainly more useless then an AppleTV.

    I couldn't care less about Google Play services as a Swede the only thing we have and will get is the market so the branding is borked to begin with. They will never acquire the viewing rights for any major European nation either for any of their other services. They simply won't be here and I don't need a 300 dollar device to view youtube. The best we can do here is Flash Player streaming-content basically. And warez. But I suspect other solutions will be better for warez.

    If Google continues to build their own US only services and thinks Android is a way to promote those they will eventually fail in other markets and be forked or something.
  • Penti - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    Apple is going global on the other hand, they understand they need to say support local Chinese services, localization and so on. You can even buy apps in Zimbabwe now. Google seems to be going backwards or at least schizophrenic. Not that they will be displaced by Windows Phone or anything. Maintaining one persona must be easier though. You can't win on your services if they won't be available. Partners might not really want Googles new branding, but they need Google's Market. Or they might as well fork it as some Chinese vendors continues doing. As a media hub their device certainly fails by only being tied in into their own services and not extended by APIs that third parties can use. It's pretty much even designed to fail. At least the AppleTV is cheap even if using it only for Airplay. This device basically can't be used at all outside the US. Reply
  • Impulses - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    It should be $200 tops, nothing in that thing justifies a $300 price point unless the Nexus 7 is being sold at a loss... Even at $200 it'd be a tough sale tho. Why on earth is this functionality not being baked into Google TV devices? They couldn't get hardware partners to agree to a couple extra requirements? This was just someone's project? It seems even more doomed than GoogleTV, which had a ton of potential (being let down by price and lack of content partnerships). Reply
  • mcnabney - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    It is almost as capable as my ION-based HTPC that I bought/upgraded three years ago for $250.

    Except this thing has no local storage.
    Or can tune-in media.
    Or can be remotely accessed.
    Or can use Netflix, Hulu and other streaming sites.
    Or even play casual games.
    Or support fully featured wireless mice/keyboards.

    Why would anyone buy this thing again? About the only thing novel about it is the direct speaker connection, access to Google Play, and the queuing function.
  • fteoath64 - Sunday, July 01, 2012 - link

    "Why would anyone buy this thing again?"

    Oh, I know. A crazy rich audiophile who lack tech knowledge and wanted to connect the TOS link cable to his DAC and high priced stereo. That sourcing low-bit rate content from the cloud ?!. If the content is anything less than 320K bit-rate, a TOS link is really not doing anything to the music. And his friends like to queue a lot of loud music which really spoils the quality of the system.
  • dananski - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    I don't know about anyone else but it takes me about a day or two to download a bluray-sized file from a site with decent server bandwidth - and no one else can do big downloads / play online / make a Skype call at the same time. How are they expecting people to stream HD video content in real time from the cloud? Or did he mean from a fileserver? Reply
  • Zink - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    Same boat, HD Netflix or Youtube is enough to cause 1/2 second lag in games which is not fun. ISPs will improve eventually but I'm not living in the future yet. Public WiFi is also often throttled so streaming videos from the cloud means no HD on the go. Reply
  • xype - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link

    but for your living room! Product design win! \o/ Reply
  • p05esto - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link

    This visually looks stupid, i wouldn't buy it for that reason alone. The WDTV is by far the best streamer out there. It does playback via DLNA nad has tons of online services as well. The remote is amazing, plays any video format and has a cool UI. All that and under $100. Reply
  • HisDivineOrder - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link

    I don't think this is going to end well. The pricing reminds me way too much of the Logitech GoogleTV and that whole thing just left a foul taste all over the idea of Google and TV that really hasn't faded much... Reply
  • ekerazha - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link

    Stunning design for an useless product. Reply
  • steven75 - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link

    "What's different about Nexus Q from, say, Apple TV, is that media isn't transcoded and sent over to the playback device, but instead played back from the Nexus Q directly. That way, users can leave the WiFi network and media will continue playing back."

    Apple TV can play directly from your iTunes Match cloud-based library--No other device needed. It *also* has the airplay option, which is fantastic for sharing photos and videos from you and your friends devices as long as they are on your WiFi.

    This product is DOA not only on the crazy price, but the total lack of features vs the competition.
  • fteoath64 - Sunday, July 01, 2012 - link

    I bet even if they quickly reduce the price to $99, there would be very few takers. On the "hackability part, if developers quickly put USBhost storage on it so at least a disk can be attached, it might have some use. DLNA Cifs support is badly needed still. Will see what happens after a week of shipping. I bet there will be many returns for this product. Reply
  • andrewaggb - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link

    same as everybody else, I think this is useless. It'd be hard sell for $100 versus the western digital tv or apple tv or a xbox 360 4g. And I'm pretty sure my 360 will be getting smartglass. And Airplay is already pretty slick. At $300 get a ps3 if you want blu ray or spend half as much and get one of the devices I just listed. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now