By Remember that Android-based media box Samsung introduced earlier this year? It’s the Samsung HomeSync, and it’s a set-top box that will go in your living room, and will help you make the most of your content by enabling a smart TV experience for any panel with an HDMI port. The company had us in the dark in regards to a release date for quite some time, but they have finally announced availability and pricing details.
We should be seeing the HomeSync begin to populate retail channels on October 6th, and it’ll cost you just $300 to walk away with one. “HomeSync is a powerful platform that we envision to be the center of a household’s connected life,”said a Samsung vice president in a press release.
What it does
The user interface powering HomeSync is quite similar to what you’d find on, say, a Galaxy Note 3 or a Galaxy Note 10.1. With 1TB of cloud storage that can be divvied up between 8 different accounts you’ll have a ton of room to store all your favorite content. The sync operation is a two-way street, giving you and your family members the ability to share content with each other seamlessly.
You’ll also be able to access various online video and music services, and control playback of said services using a compatible Galaxy smartphone. Here’s the full list of compatible Samsung devices:
- Samsung Galaxy S4
- Samsung Galaxy Note 3
- Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014
- Samsung Galaxy S3
- Samsung Galaxy S2
- Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0
- Samsung Galaxy Camera
And any other device that uses Samsung Link will also be compatible out of the box. Here’s a full look at all the different features you’ll be getting should you decide to part ways with $300 to take a HomeSync home:
– Perfect Companion for Your Galaxy Device: HomeSync is the ideal companion for the Galaxy S® 4 or Galaxy Note® 3. It is also compatible with other devices within the Samsung ecosystem, including the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy Note 8.0, Galaxy Note 10.1 – 2014 Edition, Galaxy Camera™, and other devices that use Samsung Link™.
– Storage Solution: HomeSync is a storage solution with an expansive 1TB drive that offers both shared and private storage options for an entire household’s core mobile content, such as photo albums, videos, and music libraries, in one secure location.
– Real-Time Sharing: Provides access for up to eight separate accounts and allows each user the option to quickly sync and share mobile content in real time, or select specific content to share. Register up to six devices per account so you can access your personal library no matter where you are, no matter what device you’re using.
– Access Anywhere: HomeSync provides secure access to your files, photos, music and home videos no matter where you are.
– Intuitive Control: Seamlessly control your content on TV with your mobile device – control what’s on screen using your Galaxy smartphone as a remote mouse and use your phone’s keyboard for easy searching, or mirror the HomeSync screen directly on your Galaxy device.
– Real Time Streaming: Stream content from a Galaxy device wirelessly to a TV – experience your created content, such as photos and videos, on the big screen then explore your favorite apps and play mobile games in a whole new way on your TV.
Developers and Content
There is support for wired or wireless keyboards and mice, and there will be a collection of apps (including YouTube) and games you can download and essentially turn any dumb TV into a smart one. Samsung’s press release mentioned developers can make their apps compatible with HomeSync in the Google Play Store with as little as one line of code. More details can be had here if you want to make sure your application can be downloaded on HomeSync.
To top all of that off, Samsung is also ponying up $50 in Samsung Media Hub credits to anyone who buys one, giving you a bit of spending money to buy music, TV shows, movies and more through Samsung’s own digital storefront. Not bad at all. We’re not sure which retail outlets to expect this to show up at, but we’ll definitely be keeping an eye out and will bring that info to you as soon as we get it.
A major blow to Google TV?
That Samsung has decided to create its own set-top box experience built on top of Android is a bit troubling for the future of Google TV. It’s already stagnant in terms of available devices, developer support and — increasingly — new software features. Our friends over at GTVSource.com would tell you that much.
A major player like Samsung could have helped things along tremendously, but the South Korean company continues to show that they want to create their own ecosystem. They are willing to piggyback the core of Android to create said ecosystem instead of adopting an entire platform based on the same foundation.
Such an act could have undoubedly helped move the Google TV ecosystem along, but alas we’ll have to wait for another knight in shining armor to save a platform that just isn’t getting nearly as much love as it deserves.
Chromecast: $35
Chromecast: compatible with 5 apps.
I love my Chromecast, but let’s be realistic here.
Chromecast + Samsung Smart Blu-Ray player = <$150, and pretty much all of this functionality.
yea thats the down side to chromecast. I just hope they get it rolling soon.
Control it from any Android or iOS device too. Not just Samsung’s Galaxy line.
on Android you could just edit the build.prop and rename your device to be read as a galaxy device. Cant do it on iOS though with all those restrictions.
It’s just stupid of Samsung to bring something like this out that isn’t Google TV compliant and that restricts feature access to specific Samsung Galaxy devices. This won’t sell and will die quickly. Anybody interested, and I’m not sure why you would be, should wait for the clearance fire sale.
Google TV is a dead weight at the moment. GTV will do nothing but drag down Samsung’s vision.
and what exactly is samsung offering that isnt available with GTV?
I like the idea of essentially creating my own cloud with this. Though, I am a bit worried about Samsung making it too Samsung app proprietary.
With all the NSA stuff going on, it is nice to see any company coming out with low power personal cloud solutions. God knows Google is not going to do it with any of their hardware products. They are too invested in their own ad-based cloud infrastructure.
Pogoplug adapter.
Google doesn’t give two sh*ts about Google TV. Please stop deluding yourself.
Samsung has already been advertising this. One of their SmartTV ads has a lady hooking up a box to her TV. They are really just pushing the SmartTV experience, but now it makes sense as to what she was doing.
Stinks that this is only compatile with Galaxy devices…
Damn, forgot about this.
Way over priced and too narrow of an offering. Needs to work with every android phone, and iphone and be a lot cheaper. When people catch on your can do most of this with a modern home router and a usb hard drive plugged into it it will be game over. This leaves the abililty to turn any tv into a smart tv, which chromecast is well on its way to doing. Additionally gaming consoles can do most of this as well. I’m sure it will sell to a few “techy dads” with money but it will be forgotten about in less than a year and they will be selling these on onesaleaday.com for 39.99 trying to liquidate inventory.
It shouldn’t need *any* phone to operate. A good remote would make more sense. I agree with the rest of what you said.
too expensive for me, and I’m not sure how long I’ll have a samsung phone
Do you know when Samsung’s keyboard got iOS tweak “SwipeSelect” called “Cursor Control” on the Note 3? I made a video for a friend of mine who knows the head designer of the Note 3 because I wanted the “swipeselect” feature. I was really happy to see Cursor Control but not sure if it was there before I made the vid. Never asked my friend about it
I am not that well informed on the Note 3 (don’t have one), sorry
Seems overpriced for something people can accomplish with other products that wouldn’t be limited to Samsung’s ecosystem. What I’m still trying to figure out is, when Google purchased Motorola (including the home DVR systems, prior to selling off that portion), I still don’t understand why they didn’t look into incorporating Google TV into the Motorola DVR’s and then set a deal with all of the Cable providers to help support. I think that would’ve brought Google TV to the forefront of usage and would actually benefit the providers from losing customers wanting to cut out a cable bill. I’m sure they could’ve also added a functionality that would block Google TV, unless customers subscribed. For an additional 5-10 dollars per month, I would’ve paid to have Google TV integration with the Motorola DVR’s that I’m renting from Time Warner Cable. Oh well, it’s moot now, since they already sold, but seems to me like Google missed an opportunity to make Google TV more prominent.
Because Internet TV (Google or not) is the biggest cable companies nightmare.
Shouldn’t be. The first company that tries to make it complimentary w/ cable/satellite providers will be the first to win, IMHO. Internet TV doesn’t have to be a “nightmare,” if it’s approached properly and with benefits to both the consumers and the providers. It’s a matter of figuring out who will take the leap to change the perception that it’s one against the other.
The cable format is going to be replaced by online tv. Cable companies know that. Why would I pay big money for a package of channels from which I only watch a few? My approach to Google tv is different, I think everybody should have a “pc” connected to their tv and the best ones out there are: game consoles. They are the ones that should and will turn your TV smart, stream record and share 4K content and be in control of watch shows on the big screen. If the new play station or X box came with Google TV in it I think the competition would be over. Cable TV is entering final stage.
You do realize that the general consumer still doesn’t appeal to that concept yet, right? Not everybody understands how to do that. The general consumer typically doesn’t grasp the whole idea of watching TV via internet. I disagree, regarding the PS4 or XBox changing that demographic. If we’re talking about the US alone, the percentage of people across the entire US having TV connection (especially just getting down to a digital antenna, not even cable/satellite), far exceeds the amount of people that have internet connection (that’s not through their phone). Until internet media devices, such as Chromecast, Google TV, Apple TV, Roku, etc…are made to the point that people could just have a provider do it for them, I can’t see this happening until Generation X is in the senior citizen demographic, which is still 25-40 years away. The Baby Boomers and generations prior won’t have a propensity to switch over to the new technologies, since they’re just “too complicated.”
Do I believe that the Cable providers could be a little concerned? Of course. Do I think they’re going to be taken over by Internet media devices? Not until a manufacturer comes out with a product that makes internet TV as “easy” to use as a simple plug in TV antenna. Of course, Generation X and younger (I’m from Gen X) is more inclined to take the leap, but the general consumers are not there yet. Not even close, actually.
You are right, Internet TV is not mainstream yet and that’s exactly why a cable company will never help them get to mainstream level as you suggested in your first comment. They are the ones with everything to lose.
Why not, if they are benefiting from it in the form of additional “add on” services? What better way to integrate something like Google TV into the mainstream, then from a delivery system that people ARE familiar with? Let me put it this way…if you take the every day, non-tech consumer that has their DVR box that their cable/satellite provider gives them to use and sets their DVR recordings accordingly, based on “standard” ways that people know how to watch TV. But, let’s say Google had kept the Motorola hardware (non-mobile) arm that are pretty much the standard devices distributed to cable/satellite subscribers and they somehow integrated Google TV into those Motorola DVR boxes. All of a sudden, they would open up possibilities to the demographics that typically wouldn’t know anything about Google TV. And even though there are many, like us and like others of younger generations that wouldn’t pay extra money for something like this, I can imagine how many people this could’ve expanded to in the bigger picture, for a “small” extra fee. That older demographic can almost feel “hip” to the new age knowing that, “Hey, I can get that internet thingy on my TV now, because of my cable provider.” Do you see what I’m getting at? At least, that’s better than where Google TV’s current state is (which is fading extremely fast). The problem isn’t in the concept of Google TV, it’s in the execution of delivery. The concept of Google TV is fantastic, but delivery was as poor as the concept of their Q or whatever that orb media device was called, that didn’t sell well…at all. Again, this is all a moot point, since Google sold off that arm of Motorola. Had they truly thought it over, I think Google could’ve turned Google TV around from where it’s current status is. And on top of that, imagine the possibilities of combining, Google TV DVR’s in conjunction with the chromecast? Man, if someone at Google is watching…I hope they see the bigger picture for what Google TV could be, if they really focused on integration, rather than separation.
You’re missing the point here with the cable company. Yes, everything you said is right, Google TV would be brought to mainstream for, as u said, a small fee. And maybe the cable company would get, lets say, half of this small fee… now after all that is done, people would realize that internet TV is limitless just like the internet itself and costs uh…. a small fee!!!! Don’t you think the majority of people would just dump the expensive cable service and keep just the internet TV for a small fee? Or even free? What would stop Google or any other company from releasing many other versions of your magic Motorola DVR box, providing everything the cable was providing to you for a small fee… uh this time for free, or pay per view or selling adds, personal info, whatever way, other than charging you hundreds of dollars every month? You can say that most people just barely use TV with an antenna in it and you are right but they absolutely don’t matter for the big cable companies and pretty much to any other big company other than basic things because they just dont have the income enough to pay for high tech products and services and chances are they will never have. The world is changing fast… your provision of 25-40 years is absurd. Just look how the world changed in the last 15 years, gps, celphones, smart phones, internet, mobile gadgets and so many other things in every industry…. I might just say that ANYONE trying to predict ANYTHING 40 years from now will have near 0% chance to be fairly accurate… cable companies know their fate and they are already moving to adjust and the only thing they don’t want is to speed up this process even further.
No, I think you’re missing the point! The general consumer is going to pay for convenience and not having to think about troubleshooting. Sure, they can say to themselves, I’ll drop cable and just use internet TV…but, how many of those general consumers would prefer troubleshooting issues on their own vs. being able to just call a Time Warner Cable or DirectTV and talk to a rep to “fix” whatever issue they might be having? I can guarantee you, the majority of the general consumer would pay for the convenience of having that option, rather than something not working right and their not having anybody to contact.
What demographic do you fall under? And nothing would stop any companies from “trying” to come up with a DVR tuner…but again, somebody has to host the programming and content. There’s a reason that internet TV doesn’t have ALL the live programming (not including illegal websites). I work in entertainment, so I’m telling you that, internet TV will not take over the cable/satellite providers, until it can guarantee the same returns for ad revenue to both the providers and the TV Networks.
Seems like Samsung has a new product every week, ugh I can’t keep up.
The price is crazy, until you search for a 1TB hard drive with wireless capabilities. Those still are pretty pricy. So that part is pretty cool, especially that you can accesss the content there from anywhere. The downside is that this only works with Samsung products. If it worked for all devices, then, I might have set up a savings account for this.
Not really. You can get a WD tv live hub with a 1tb Hard drive for around 150 with all the same functionality.
Not true. With the Samsung one you can use the galaxy device as a remote and also live stream anything from phone to screen including games. Im really interested in the performance of this feature.
You can do that on the WD tv live hub as well. The games streaming I’m not sure about though.
Lol, you guys do not get it. You still think the TV experience has to be in the TV or in a connected smart box. It is clear that Google’s strategy isn’t the box or TV, you device is the box connected to Chromecast as a delivery channel. This is a MUCH CHEAPER solution than buying a $300 box. Google is the innovation leader here, not Samsung!
Just like the Galaxy Gear, only allowing Galaxy devices to be compatible with it will lower sales and eventually doom each product. Lately Samsung is looking alot like Apple.
This is just as stupid as the nexus Q. Although the Q at least looked very cool. We all know the end nevertheless.
this combines a few interesting things from different services and samsung should be commended for it and as a marketing move it make senses to create an ecosystem around the galaxy brand lock customers in for future generations.
but seriously we need to be supporting chromecast, smart tv needs a standard format and google is the ONLY one willing to even try to make that happen. I don’t want every app to have to include code for 20 different os/devices bloating app size and updates and complicatedness for no good reason.