> If you were hoping to use your new [Google TV device](http://www.pcworld.com/article/207643/sony_debuts_hdtvs_with_google_tv_baked_in.html) to stream full episodes of shows such as NBC’s *The Office*, CBS’ *$h*! My Dad Says*, and ABC’s *Modern Family*, you may be out of luck. The three major U.S. television networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—are reportedly blocking full episode video streaming from their Websites to Google TV devices. The three networks now join [Hulu as holdouts](http://www.pcworld.com/article/207182/google_tv_gets_hulu_snub_revue_cant_deliver_full_web.html) for providing content to Google’s new set-top box. News Corp’s Fox and Viacom are not currently blocking access to Google TV, although Fox says it may still do so, according to [The Wall Street Journal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566572021412854.html) . Anyone who is surprised by this isn’t paying attention. As I’ve said about a million times, the problem is with CONTENT availability. And the studios aren’t about to give it to Google any more than they were willing to give it to Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc.

The Cable companies have way too much to lose. And the Cable companies are making the networks way too much money in advertising. Real advertising. Not crappy web ads that go for a few pennies.

Until the tech companies can make the studios enough money to fund huge budget sci-fi shows, the Cable companies aren’t going anywhere. Very simple.

So Google TV, as predicted, becomes another overpriced box sucking up power and getting you limited content. But least your remote has 45,000 buttons now.

Now, the last time the Powers That Be whined about Google trying to create a revolution (Remember the Nexus One?), Google ended up caving to their (carrier’s) whims. It’ll be interesting if Google can come up with something that will appease the TV studios, like maybe charging a ridiculously high price for episodes, or some other form of forced commercial content that makes the whole experience unbearable.

> Mean­while, on the Mac end, I think I’ve bought less than five pro­grams all year, mostly due to a long, bor­ing dance between down­load and payment: > > 1. Have a need, decide to find an app. I usu­ally [start here](http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/), but also do a Google Search. > 2. After find­ing sev­eral apps, search for reviews and rat­ings about that app before decid­ing which to download. > 3. Down­load the app. Fig­ure out how this app is installed, ide­ally drag­ging and drop­ping the app to the Appli­ca­tions folder, but might also need to run an installer and type in a password. > 4. Then the hoops of “trial soft­ware” vs. “paid app” begin. Usu­ally there’s a demo mode, or trial period with hob­bled functionality. If in demo mode, reminders to pay might start pop­ping up. Sometimes the demo mode reminders get annoy­ing, and I decide to find a free ver­sion of the same soft­ware — return to step 1. > 5. Demo mode expires. I want to pay. Have to fig­ure out how the devel­oper han­dles this; some­times must cre­ate an account on their web­site, Pay­Pal, credit card, hand over my email to cre­ate a license key. Often this is too much of a has­sle; I decide to find a free ver­sion; return to step 1. > 6. If I decide to delete the soft­ware, have to fig­ure out the best way to do that, toss in the trash, run an installer, look for all the asso­ci­ated files, etc. > 7. If I keep the soft­ware, have to deal with updates (pop ups when­ever you launch the pro­gram or annoy­ing peri­odic reminders), the dif­fer­ent ways devel­op­ers han­dle them (some down­load in the app, some want to be paid for each update), and installs on mul­ti­ple machines (fam­ily packs, license keys). As usual, my friend [Webomatica](http://www.webomatica.com/wordpress/2010/10/21/os-x-app-store-vacuum-hose-i-the-wallet/ "Webomatica") nails it. The Mac App Store is all about the users. It doesn’t matter if some indie Mac developers complain, or if the big-name developers, like Adobe and Microsoft, don’t sell through the App Store. What matters is that users are going to find the convenience addictive, and they will immediately look at software downloaded any other way as barbaric.

Take a look at those steps he laid out above. Then compare it to 1) Click the buy button. 2) there is no step 2.

Flocks of iOS developers are now already planning on jumping on the Mac bandwagon, creating more competition. I know my friends at BombingBrain are already considering it, as we discussed it mere minutes after the presentation was over yesterday. This means a boatload more apps will be available for the Mac than we have now. So even if a few disgruntled Mac shareware developers decide to give it up (and I seriously hope they don’t), it’ll still be a net gain in developer interest for Apple.

> Along with having the same look, feel, and features as its mobile counterpart, the Mac App Store will also have the same revenue-sharing model; 70% of revenue will go to developers, 30% of revenue will go to Apple. This got us thinking: will developers pay? Boy Genius Report asks a legitimate question about whether or not the Mac App Store will appeal to developers. The big factor they mention is exposure: Apple is basically giving you free advertising by listing you on the App Store. But as any iOS developer knows, that exposure is actually pretty limited, once there are hundreds of thousands of apps in the store. Apple features some apps, but they are few and far between. So if you want to succeed as a developer, you won’t be able to just list it on the Mac App Store and do nothing for marketing. You still need to hustle to get noticed.

There are many important factors left out of BGR’s story that I believe make the Mac App Store very appealing, though.

1. Piracy controls – it won’t be impossible to pirate Mac Store apps. But piracy in general will be greatly reduced compared to the current state of Mac Software. And you get it for free. You won’t need to build in authorization/serial numbers/locks of any kind. That saves tons of coding time. What you lose in paying Apple 30% you’ll more than make up for in people actually paying for your app.

2. No credit card fees/merchant accounts. Apple pays these for you.

3. Support. While you will be responsible for supporting the features of the app, you won’t need to support customers who have lost serial codes, had broken downloads, don’t know how to install, etc.

4. Bandwidth. You don’t pay to store your app somewhere, or for users to download it. Apple does.

5. Convenience for your customers, which leads to increased sales for you. Impulse buys are much more likely to happen when a user doesn’t need to enter a card number or shipping information. One-click purchasing is popular for a reason.

And the downside? Well, Apple will have to approve of your app. Which is not ideal for a lot of people, I understand. But that’s the price you pay for all of the above.

Will this appeal to all developers? Of course not. But it’s going to appeal to tons of iOS developers, so get ready for the competition. And it will appeal to most users, as well.

The bottom line is that the more successful this Mac App Store gets, the harder it’s going to be for small shareware developers to resist being placed in the store. Because users are going to end up doing ALL of their shopping there.

> The Samsung Galaxy Tab will available contract-free for $599.99. Special 3G data plans start at $20 per month for 1GB, though information about additional plans and pricing was not available this morning. Now we get to see how Android actually competes with iOS. Both devices, side-by-side, at the same store.

The smaller form factor of the Tab will no doubt appeal to some, but I have to say I’m still not convinced of the utility of a 7-inch screen. As I said even before Steve Jobs did this week, 7 inches is too small to replace a laptop, too big to fit into any pocket, unless you’re a super-nerd who doesn’t mind giant bulges in his Cargo pants. Factor in that it’s no cheaper than the iPad and probably won’t have access to Android Market (who writes apps for Verizon’s V-Cast, anyway?), and it seems like a no-brainer to go with the iPad + MiFi.

This thing may have had a chance if Apple hadn’t been smart enough to get the iPad into Verizon Stores, but now that they are side-by-side, I can’t see the Tab selling too well.

> On Tuesday night, Sony took the wraps off its “Internet TV” line of products which integrate [Google TV](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/10/google-tv-to-finally-get-tv-right-in-the-online-video-age.ars "Ars Technica: Google TV may finally get TV right in the online video age") software. The good news, at least for those considering an HDTV with integrated Google TV, is that the pricing is much lower than [previously rumored](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/10/google-tv-launch-hardware-to-be-expensive-clunky.ars "Ars Technica: Google TV launch hardware looks to be expensive, clunky"). However, the set-top box with integrated Blu-ray player is still a little on the pricey side. Many people are focusing on mocking that ridiculous remote control, suggesting that people don’t want to complicate their lives with a computer for a TV. They are all correct, of course, but my bigger concern is that integrating Google TV into a TV or a Blu-ray player will make it far easier for Google to claim more market share than they actually have.

When someone buys the Logitech Revue units, Google can rightfully claim it as a sale for Google TV. When someone buys a TV that happens to have Google TV integrated, is that a TV sale, or a Google TV sale? How do we know whether the user ever intends to use the Google TV part?

It’s a smart strategy for Google, but I fear it will lead people to false impressions.