27
Jun
nexusq

We heard about it earlier, and now it's official. The Nexus Q is a streaming media player that is designed to centralize your media streaming in the living room. The device connects to Google Music and allows  both you and your friends to add media and rearrange playlists as they feed directly to your home theater. The device will launch for $300 on the Play Store.

2012-06-27_13h35_15 2012-06-27_13h34_51 2012-06-27_13h35_05

The device includes support for optical audio out, as well as micro HDMI video and audio. The device can connect to the internet via WiFi or ethernet. The device connects and can be set up via NFC. The device also includes a micro USB port to "encourage general hackability." This line was, of course, met with thunderous applause.

Because it's social, the device allows anyone with access to your Nexus Q to share media from their Play Store accounts. The Google engineers demoed using the device to share one users movie on someone else's Nexus Q. It's unclear if users will have to be in the room or on the same network with a Nexus Q to allow this to work, or if friends from across the country can share movies and music. The latter seems unlikely due to licensing issues, but hey, we can hope, right?

The price seems prohibitively high, but the experience appears to be incredibly high quality. So, what do you think? Is it sexy enough to justify the price? Or are you going to wait until the price drops?

Source: Play Store

Eric Ravenscraft
Eric is a snarky technophile with a taste for the unusual. When he's not obsessing about Android, you can usually find him obsessing about movies, psychology, or the perfect energy drink. Eric weaves his own special blend of snark, satire, and comedy into all his articles.

  • Jonathan

    it should have googleTV built in. that would make it an actually usefull product

  • Jonathan

    it should have googleTV built in. that would make it an actually usefull product

  • Jonathan

    it should have googleTV built in. that would make it an actually usefull product

  • Todd Cissell

    I really thought this would have Google TV functionality included. Without it, I can't justify the price. (I probably couldn't justify it even with Google TV). 

  • Todd Cissell

    I really thought this would have Google TV functionality included. Without it, I can't justify the price. (I probably couldn't justify it even with Google TV). 

  • Todd Cissell

    I really thought this would have Google TV functionality included. Without it, I can't justify the price. (I probably couldn't justify it even with Google TV). 

  • Tib02

    It just costs way too much... Apple has Apple TV for $99 that has most of the functionality. If Google had priced it at $99, they would have something to rival Apple, but the price to play is too steep. 

  • Tib02

    It just costs way too much... Apple has Apple TV for $99 that has most of the functionality. If Google had priced it at $99, they would have something to rival Apple, but the price to play is too steep. 

  • Tib02

    It just costs way too much... Apple has Apple TV for $99 that has most of the functionality. If Google had priced it at $99, they would have something to rival Apple, but the price to play is too steep. 

  • 666

    Should have google tv

    should be way cheaper (vizio google tv box for 99bucks *ähem*)
    The real deal breaker here is the lack of offline streaming capability

  • http://www.facebook.com/archercc Ryan Stewart

    Nope.  I didnt get my Google TV box until they were discounted to $100 and that, to me, provides more functionality (although lacking the social aspect).

  • Tyler Chappell

    As really cool-looking as this is, I too think the $300 price is way too steep when I can get a Nexus 7 for at least $50 cheaper.

  • adi19956

    Compared to rival Sonos, this is a bargain and it looks good too. Who made it?

  • Andrew

    Is there anything to stop them from adding Google TV into this via firmware update at a later date?
    It's pricey, but I think I'm gonna get one anyway. May wait a few months and see if it drops a little. Don't watch TV, so I couldn't care less about that functionality, personally.

  • Jake

    I agree with everything that has been said regarding limited functionality compared to Google TV for triple the cost of the Vizio Co-Star. I also wonder why they chose to use microHDMI and microUSB rather than full-sized HDMI and USB. The micro variants of those ports are useful for mobile devices, but for something that will pretty much sit permanently on one's home, it should have the standard full-sized ports. I hope it at least comes with a microHDMI-to-HDMI cable or adapter.

  • Shawn

    This product will fail sure some techies and nerds will scoop them up but at $300 no way is the general public going to go for it. Nothing exciting here at all I have much of that functionality with my HTC media link which I picked up for $80. Where is the price coming from anyone?

  • skynet11

    Prices are set by the market and the competition. Roku, Boxee, Apple TV = $99 or thereabouts. Google must not be serious about competing in the living room. It doesn't matter how many more "features" it has. Bottom line is that Google has much, much less content than Apple and if they really want to make inroads into your living room, they'll have to drop the price to $99 at the very least.

  • jeffrey evans

    A bit pricey but huge kudos to Google for keeping this completely under raps and for making it so stylish and functional in design.  I think the biggest things we can take from this is Google is serious about their ecosystem and equally serious about hardware designs and purpose.  Google has come a long way, congrats on where they are and where they are going.

  • S Martin

    So... I can only play music and things I've downloaded from google play? This point isn't exactly clear. If anyone can play any media from their device, regardless of where it came from, THAT would be super cool. If it's limited to media I've downloaded from google play, this has zero appeal to me. 

  • http://codytoombs.wordpress.com/ Cody Toombs

    I still feel like I'm missing something on this product, why is it $300?

    I have trouble imagining the components are particularly expensive.  There's no screen or battery, two things that tend to be somewhat substantial parts.  I can't imagine the CPU/GPU combo would be unusually expensive since they only need to feed a single screen (at most) and a single primary process (with a very limited number of background processes), so a single core that's clocked decently high should be enough to be effective.  The board is obviously not using highly compact components, which means cheaper parts, cheaper heat management, and even the option to use a cheaper SoC that's just been overclocked.  The ONLY component I can envision being exceedingly costly would be a very high end audio processor (on par with those found in receivers), and even that shouldn't push the price anywhere near this high.

    I say again, I feel like there's got to be something else I'm missing.  I believe it's worth $99, and if development takes this thing far enough, it might justify a $149 price tag...  But double that price for something that might not see a ton of new features or expanded capability, I just can't see it yet.

    I do still want one, I just can't possibly consider putting this into the budget until the price goes way down.

  • GigiAUT

    Well I guess it does have a 25 Watt amplifier in it too. I wouldn't let anyone else "dj" at my parties though...not that I can anyway seeing as we only have access to apps in the play store right now.