Dan Frommer of Business Insider wrote an interesting article comparing Google TV to Apple’s recently announced TV product.  Let me give you a few quotes.

First his take on Apple…

Apple made it clear today that it's trying to complement the gadgets that are already in your living room and hooked up to your TV. Apple TV is an add-on -- it's basically there to provide a few extra streaming features, in addition to your cable box and videogame console.

And Now Google…

Meanwhile, Google is trying to invade the living room and take over. Google TV is a huge, ambitious attempt to make Google the focal point of your TV experience. It sits between your cable box and your TV, tells your DVR what to record, searches the web, and seems to add a lot of complexity to your entertainment experience.

He then quotes Michael Gartenberg (an industry analyst) who backs up this theory by saying…

Analyst Michael Gartenberg sums it up nicely on Twitter: "Apple and Google taking two different approaches. Google wants input one. Will never get it. Apple wants input two and might."

The reason this caught my attention is because I think it’s completely backwards.  Apple’s the one trying to take over while Google’s the one playing along.  Let me explain…

Apple TV

What Apple is trying to do is turn TV into a per unit consumer transaction.  Much like they did with the CD.  CDs used to be packaged in a way that forced the consumer to buy lackluster songs in order to get the songs you actually wanted.  In this way the music industry pumped up their profits by forcing you to pay the same price for each song no matter what the quality of the song was.

iTunes changed all that by giving consumers the ability to buy products on a per song basis and Apple reaped huge benefits (while the Music Industry saw huge losses)

Cable, with its $149 per month charge, is pulling the same trick on any household that doesn’t watch 149+ unique hours of Television per month.  They’re taking a bunch of lackluster shows and tying them together so you must buy them all to get the few you want (ever hear the phrase “1000 channels and still nothing good on TV?”).

That’s what Apple TV seems designed to change.  So Apple’s goal really is to take over the industry it’s just a long term strategy.

Google TV

Google on the other hand is latching on to the existing Cable experience.  They’re trying to enhance the experience in the same way a surround sound stereo would enhance a TV broadcast but they aren’t trying to change it.  More importantly they aren’t trying to deprive the existing players of revenue as much as they’re trying to use their own overlay to generate even more revenue from advertising. 

The Comparison

To conclude I’d put it this way.  In a future dominated by Google TV you still need a cable box while a future dominated by Apple would kill the Cable companies off completely (their Cable TV divisions at the very least).  So it’s really Apple that’s playing to rule the world.

As far as each product’s chances of success I’d say this…

Google’s success depends on their interface.  If they can make it compelling enough (and they aren’t anywhere near that yet) they could succeed in becoming another component of your average living room (like Surround Sound has in most households).

Apple has a much harder road ahead of them.  The fact that they could only snare one other TV network is not promising (ABC is owned by Disney whose largest share holder is Steve Jobs so it really doesn’t count). It shows that the TV Networks are aware of the power Apple now has in the music industry and are wary of making the same mistake.  That will be hard to overcome and I’m honestly not sure if Apple can do it or not. 

I’ll be honest here.  Through contacts of mine I knew that Apple was going to release an iPod Touch with a camera in it.  So I made the mistake of writing this post in advance.  Now the event has happened and this post requires some edits.

Why?  Because the camera sucks.  0.7 megapixels at 960x720 to be specific.  That stinks. 

But it’s a beginning.  A first step to the iPod Touch starting a revolution in Digital Cameras in the same way it’s doing with gaming now (Apple claims the iPod Touch ”outsells Nintendo and Sony portable game players combined” though I haven’t had time to look into those numbers).  

Because There's never been a fully programmable camera (much less a camcorder). One where the individual developer could write programs that actually incorporate the camera into applications and Web Sites.  Imagine being able to hand your Grandma an iPod Touch that allows her to upload photos to the web without touching a computer. 

This is big.

Of course there was already a camera on the iPhone but saying that misses the point.  The point here is how cheap the iPod Touch is as a solution.  It's bringing the software revolution that started on the PC to the Digital Camera with no contract required. 

Let me give you an example that demonstrates the impact of this…

A while back I had a consulting job with a construction company.  They had 37 foreman positions that monitored various projects and they wanted a way for those foreman to take onsite pictures, annotate them and then get them to the corporate office in real-time. Back then there was no easy way to do it.  We eventually used a netbook solution but it was inconvenient to carry around and required the company maintain a bunch of netbooks (viruses, malware, etc...). 

With the new iPod Touch we could create the same solution but it would fit easily in the pocket and would require no administration.  Not to mention being over $100k cheaper than buying each employee an iPhone ($118,511 to get each person an iPhone and pay for the contract vs $8,473 to get each person an iPod Touch).

See the point now?

So while the poor quality of the iPod Touch’s camera is disappointing I’m still excited.  I can’t imagine Apple leaving the camera untouched in the next generation.  Meaning 1 year from now we’ll be looking at an iPod Touch with a 5 megapixel camera and a boat load of applications to enhance it.  When that day comes Digital Cameras might just find themselves obsolete.