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.
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.
If anything, the market is oversaturated. Each brand is jumping on the bandwagon and offering nothing unique (and no, access to one proprietary media store over another is not unique). I am unfortunate enough to own more than one "cloud player". You know what this means? Media that can play in one room can't play in another. I have to choose between purchasing media from Amazon, iTunes, or Google because each company's device will exclude the others' content.
I don't understand the appeal of these devices anymore. They are so anti-consumer it's not even funny. Imagine if DVDs rented from Blockbuster would only play in Blockbuster-brand DVD players, while those from Hollywood video would only work in theirs.
In the end I settled on good old torrents and some weekly transcoding to mp4 on a powerful desktop which all of the players in my home are able to stream from, at least for now. Who knows what features future devices will gut.
You're simply not correct about all of the devices excluding each others' content. It's true for some, but take a look at the Nexus Player. Aside from Google's offering (Google Play Movies & TV), you also have Netflix and many more.
They all have netflix. I'm specifically referring to stores here. Each has its own store with its own proprietary media stream. Maybe you're right for Nexus Player, but as an owner of an Apple TV in one room and a Roku in another, there is no way for me to purchase something on either device and have it available on the other.
If I obtain on my desktop, however, it very easily streams to every device in my house.
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.
If I'm comparing side-by-side or even trying to decide if I should get rid of the player I have an get this new one, being exactly the same price does make a difference. I got my first streaming player, the Roku HD, because I was in the market for an Apple TV but didn't want to pay $99 for the Apple TV.
You realize that voice search means an open mic into your living room, right? Given recent intelligence/data-gathering abuses, do you really want that?
I've played games with a PS3 controller on my Nexus 4 hooked to a big screen before. It never worked, because mobile games are designed for a touch screen. Even Modern Combat, it was fantastic with a controller right up to the point where you needed to touch the screen for a quick time event.
You can run the entire back catalog, maybe. But no one will want to until the apps and games are designed for non-touch input.
How do I find them? Like I said, I have a Nexus 4 and a controller, and I found the experience lacking. How do I find the games that can be controlled exclusively with a controller?
That was a facetious comment. The point is, everyone got excited about the Nexus Q but it was too expensive. We got excited about Google TV, but it never caught on compared to the competition. The Apple TV has been $99 since forever, as has the Roku and recently Amazon's FireTV. Google discounts their phones massively over the competition, and that's a big draw for why people buy them. Why price this exactly the same as everyone else?
I assume they don't show the price for internationalization reasons, but I do wish they had some way to see what it is in your country. Rather than just going to look at the Verge.
Sure, but it hasn't been proven that people want to develop apps for these devices, and easier app development doesn't justify a high price to consumers. At the same price point, what is there enticing a consumer to pick one of these up for Christmas?
"It does all the most basic things that the competition does, at the same (or slightly higher) price, but maybe someday there will be apps made for it" hasn't worked very well for hardly anyone throughout history. Check with Palm, Microsoft, Ouya, Blackberry, and probably dozens of others that no one remembers.
What can I say :) ? You underestimate the android market. Maybe I am just excited about this because I am an android and iOS developer and don't develop for the other devices you mentioned.
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.
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.
Yeah but if you want to watch online stuff on your tv at this point you probably have about 6000 things that can run netflix etc, including the other google tv boxes, the amazon box, generic android boxes, the rokus, the apple tv, ps3/ps4, xbox360/xbox one, ps tv, chromecast, a hdmi cable or htpc etc.
i really like it. I use voice control for everything. at first you feel like a doofus but eventually it becomes second nature. I also plug the chromcast into the hdmi input, so i can swap and PIP all kinds of stuff (also with voice command), and the upnp (local media streaming) implementation is really good too (having frustratedly used the 360, ps3 versions for years)
