Google's I/O is going on and they've released a pretty slick tablet called the Google Nexus 7 for $200. They also released a social media streamer, the [url]Google Nexus Q[/url], for $300. It's this spherical ball that your Android devices can connect to and send music to your TV & home theatre system.

Google Nexus 7
• 8GB
• Nvidia Tegra Quad Core
• 8 Hour Battery
• 1GB RAM
• ~220DPI screen

Google Nexus Q
• 32RGB Perimeter LED's
• 16GB NAND Flash Memory
• 25W Amp
• Rotating Top Dome for Volume
• Die-cast, precision machined zinc bottom housing and Injection-molded, interactive balanced top dome with precision bearing and satin touch coating

Now, mind if you will, I'm switching topics.

The Nexus Q is a superb piece of hardware, built to last and endure and the hardware features alone likely warrant the hefty price tag of $300. But from a software stand point, I just don't get it. The Q does absolutely nothing. I can by a $70 Roku box and get Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video, Pandora, HBO Go and so much more. But, the Google Q just sits there and takes content from other Android devices. It doesn't seem to store a local library that's accessed via an on TV menu, get Netflix or anything else for that matter.

Google is likely competing with Sonos more than Apple or Roku with the Nexus Q but with a company often compared to Apple, what's stopping someone like me comparing it to a $100 Apple TV? Where I can stream the content from my iOS device, or if someone doesn't have an iOS device they can still watch Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video and other video streaming content as well as view Flickr directly from the Apple TV.

The thing that most interested me as a potential buyer today was the $50 price drop on the Galaxy Nexus.

I don't know if they actually said it, but I got the impression from their demo that it wasn't pulling from the local devices, but instead from the almighty cloud. I'd hope it can also pull from the connected devices, but not sure.

At least part of the cost difference comes from the fact that it's not made in China. Beyond that, the hardware is pretty significant overkill for just pushing media around. I'd guess that's partially that they don't have a lot of hardware engineers so they stuck with something they've used before (they made a point of saying it uses the same OMAP chip as the Galaxy Nexus).

More interestingly, I'd guess that they hope to do more with the thing. With a foothold in people's homes, how far out is Google-run home automation (for example)? With the thing running Android and having a not insignificant amount of processing power, there's a lot of room for them to add functionality.

The Google Q looks really like a piece of art. A sexy bearing and volume control, subtle led lighting, high-end audio equipment, pulls from the cloud, and is controlled by my tablet and phone? Heck yes. I've been looking for something like this, and I just may spring on it.

Nope - only from your Play locker/store.

For this crowd the more interesting bit is actually the USB port - from which you can enable debugging and push your own apps and such (for example: https://plus.google.com/117676109445965905583/posts/9gNdrSZxjaF ). I assume it also supports "fastboot oem unlock" and can have custom builds flashed to it (all the other Nexus devices can), but I don't know for sure.

The hardware is pretty fantastic as well, which I'm assuming contributes a lot to the cost. For example, the volume spinner has that little LED in the middle - which is actually a touch-sensitive mute button. And, of course, it has an internal app that sounds pretty good.

This is pretty obnoxious. Both because you have to be online to listen to your music, and because the tools to get your music into the locker are bad network citizens.

Er, does your home network regularly lose network access? I don't think too many people will be attempting to use a Nexus Q in the subway...



The tool they want you to use is the store, which is not a bad network citizen at all (the uploader itself isn't a bad citizen, either - it has throttles to limit uploading speed)

I don't think it's that, I think it's the fact that all songs would have to of been bought on Google Play. It'd be much more efficient if it used the phone's library and a WiFi (AdHoc) connection rather than the purchased through Play and a connection to an offsite network.

I'm assuming it works how Play Music works now, and you can upload music from your computer to it.

How come you don't complain when Apple foists those sorts of restricted ecosystems onto you?

The thing I care the most about from Google I/O is Google Glass. Holy hell do I want a pair of those right the hell now.

Keeping relations on-topic, we don't need connection to a server to play our music. As our music is streamed from our devices rather than an off-site server. Through "Home Sharing" I can set up a "DJ Playlist" where connected iOS devices can vote for and request music to be played. Again, all locally. My modem can go offline and I can still foster a party over the network the router is broadcasting. The only thing I need an outside connection for would be Pandora. While there's a bit less restricted overall with AirPlay, we're still locked into Apple at the moment.

Yes. Welcome to rural America. A hard rainstorm will regularly knock out our internet access for a couple hours (probably crap insulation on the copper), and consumer ADSL modems are crap to begin with, so you can expect the network to crap out and need a reboot every couple of days anyway. And 1.5Mb/s connection has a hard enough time keeping up with a handle of Youtube users, throwing music on top of that isn't going to help things.




It's not my uploading that I worry about, it's anyone else on the same network.


Because
a) Apple computers really aren't restricted ecosystems.
b) You can do whatever you want to your Apple hardware, and while it may void your warranty, they can't rescind your ownership of the hardware
c) I don't have to deal with a subscription model or data caps for things I own.
d) When they actually foist a restricted ecosystem on me, I complain, or avoid that (for example the DRM'd movie purchases from iTunes) when possible while recognizing who's actually at fault (the MPAA).


Too bad you didn't file a patent after developing Scouter

It's very obviously heading that way, and they've already taken steps to make it even more restricted.

But that's also only for Apple computers. For Apple phones and TV boxes, they are extremely restricted ecosystems.



Google gives you the source and the tools needed to build and flash your own devices - Apple tries to sue you. Take your pick :p



Too bad there's a ton of prior art for that



Even for $1,500? If so, you should have gone to I/O - could have preordered one then

However, I think THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUaKSs3utrs&feature=plcp is what you guys might be the most interested in. Coolest alarm clock ever.

And I pretty much don't use those things.



Google's a software company. Apple's a hardware + media company with some pretty software to make the hardware more appealing. Obviously they don't want you building your own devices.




Sidebar, crappy rural internet isn't the only reason why trusting everything to the cloud is a bad idea: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/real-clouds-crush-amazon/

Apparently a hard rain storm is also enough to knock out Amazon and Netflix.

Google's infrastructure is a *tad* better

Which says more about Google than it does about Amazon, since Amazon is usually cited as an example of unbreakable infrastructure (remember the DDoS protests over the wikileaks stuff?).

I only really trust cloud storage as a secondary backup ala dropbox.

Around here, I have a fiber optic line (really low bandwidth cap though) but when people run over the little green post outside my house, my internet is cut off for a few days or weeks. (It's happened twice in the last 6 months) but other than that the only thing that shuts off my internet is power surges. (Those happen all the time here.)

On a side note: Since when are sidebar LEDs a specification?

@Kerm I want a Google Glass too! maybe adjust it so that it doesn't just project into the corner of your eye, like I heard it does, and figure out how to push your own code in.....*drool*

Yes, you would have a total nerdgasm if you saw Google's infrastructure.

Although I've actually never seen Amazon referenced as unbreakable infrastructure - then again, the real big names tend to not be all that well known (like Akamai)

I think I might be able to get my hands on one of those new ADKs - anyone have any great ideas on what to do with it?

I would think most people familiar with Internet infrastructure sorts of things know about Akamai? If you asked me to name companies with awesome CDN/"cloud" infrastructure, I would probably list off Level-3, Akamai, Google, and Amazon in about that order (which is why I was shocked to hear that a storm took a bunch of Amazon hosted services offline). From reading post-event coverage, it sounds as if the services which were offline were services which weren't paying Amazon extra to split their hosting across multiple data centers.


Turn your Droid into a gCn hub?

As you guys know, I really want a Google Glass prototype (hint hint, Google?), but I noticed a competitor that looks reasonably intriguing:
http://techbeat.com/2013/01/can-vuzix-smart-glasses-steal-the-scene-from-google/
I'm not crazy about the 2-hour battery life with the display on, though.

Yeah, that battery life makes me sad. I do prefer the modular design though. Of course, I'd rather build something myself because I don't care about looking like a cyborg.