Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Set-Top TV Device Market Domination For Google

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the when-purchase-means-traction dept.

Google 133

itwbennett writes "According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, returns of the Logitech Revue (Google's set-top box) exceeded sales in the first quarter. Explaining why sales were so poor, Logitech Chairman Guerrino De Luca went way out on a limb, saying: 'There was a significant gap between our price and the value perceived by the consumer.' So significant that 'Logitech must take a $34 million charge in the first quarter, which more than comprises the company's Q1 net loss of $30 million,' writes blogger Chris Nerney. 'In other words, Google TV is pushing Logitech into the red!'"

cancel ×

133 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

duh.. it was worthless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36930882)

duh.. it was worthless

Obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36930926)

It was a logitech device.
Not a google device.
And i learned a LONG time ago not to buy anything more complex than a mouse from logitech. And even that is hit or miss on quality.

250 is little much (2)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 3 years ago | (#36930930)

I haven't used it so can't say how much streaming options it has but being new and late to the game they should put it at 200 or even 150. to try to fight popcorn hour and boxee box that have been out for a while

Re:250 is little much (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 years ago | (#36930964)

I'm not sure what Google and Logitech were thinking. They both seemed to assume the content providers wouldn't mind providing it for, well, free so these guys could sell hardware to display it to consumers.

Once these devices were released, it was, yeah, no. You can't display our content. Try licensing it from us first.

Re:250 is little much (1)

mister_dave (1613441) | about 3 years ago | (#36931006)

Google didn't ask publishers/writers before moving ahead with Google Books.

Re:250 is little much (3, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#36931572)

Then Google got sued and had to settle with the publishers for quite a bit of money.
Some publishers that didn't want to settle forced Google to remove their content.
What was the point you were trying to make?

Re:250 is little much (2)

twidarkling (1537077) | about 3 years ago | (#36932216)

Probably the point was "Google fucking hates asking for permission." Or maybe that it's a pattern.

Re:250 is little much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36932376)

It's easier to ask forgiveness (or pay a fine) then to ask permission. And legally, if you ask first and they say No you don't have much of a leg to stand on in the courts later....

Re:250 is little much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36932246)

Then Google got sued and had to settle with the publishers for quite a bit of money. Some publishers that didn't want to settle forced Google to remove their content. What was the point you were trying to make?

Google does no evil?

Re:250 is little much (1)

the_bard17 (626642) | about 3 years ago | (#36931986)

The content providers (I'm thinking of Hulu, NBC, etc. that explicitly block GoogleTV) were already providing the content for free to PCs. Hook the PC to the TV, and you've got the same result as GoogleTV. Google TV just made it a lot simpler for the average Joe to plug a box in and view the content on his big screen TV, instead of the PC.

Since the content providers made their decision to block GoogleTV, I've considered them to be little more than hypocrites and their action a petty grab for cash.

Re:250 is little much (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | about 3 years ago | (#36932232)

Except did the Google TV interface block ads? Or even some ads? Because I'm willing to bet that a lot of that stuff is ad supported on PC, and Google was blocking their ads, either accidentally or on purpose. Thus it's completely different. It's like how if everyone started running ad-block software on their PC, you'd start seeing a lot more paywall sites.

Re:250 is little much (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36932706)

??? IOW, you are talking completely out your ass and engaging in lopsided assumptions like some Fox News "commentator".

Re:250 is little much (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 3 years ago | (#36932868)

??? IOW, you are talking completely out your ass and engaging in lopsided assumptions like ANY current News "commentator".

FTFY

Re:250 is little much (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36933464)

There's one in particular who's name unfortunately escapes me at the moment that likes to throw around absurd (more like slanderous) accusations. Even inspired himself some similarly crafted domain names giving him a taste of his own medicine.

Not even all Fox troll baiters are as bad as him, nevermind the industry at large.

Re:250 is little much (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 3 years ago | (#36931040)

Moreover, for a device catered to the mass market, it lacks many layers of polish. Android started also like that, and went from horribly unusable to great in a few years. Google TV will do the same, if given the opportunity. The problem is, far less people are likely to spend $$$ in a set top box than on a phone. The market is far less volatile (look at the number of vendors) and they are paying the price now of a rev 1 product unfinished and rushed to the market.

Re:250 is little much (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#36931182)

Well if you read TFA (I know, but I got bored) it says they are slashing the price from the original $299 to $99. So if you don't mind not getting support when they end up bailing out it might be a pretty sweet deal. Anybody know what the specs on the thing are? How hackable is it?

Re:250 is little much (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#36931308)

Apple TV is only $99. It's not android, but you can hack at it anyway if you're so inclined.

Re:250 is little much (1)

qwertyatwork (668720) | about 3 years ago | (#36931726)

They dropped the price of the logitech device to $99.

Re:250 is little much (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 3 years ago | (#36932610)

I believe that's what hairyfeet wrote. So?

Given the choice, would you buy an Apple TV of a Logitech Revue?

* Price - same
* Support - probably *very* short term for the revue. Apple TV wins.
* Media Availability when not rooted - Apple wins in my view. Plenty of legit online content, plus the stuff you have at home.
* Hackability - on par. You have to root the box in both cases.
* Mmmmm, what else now?

Re:250 is little much (1)

qwertyatwork (668720) | about 3 years ago | (#36932638)

I would get the Apple TV over it. I was just pointing out that there was a price drop. If the $99 price was mentioned, I missed it.

Re:250 is little much (0)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36932742)

The Apple TV wins based on price and that's about it. That's what this is really about.

This is why Netflix is doing so well. It is considered the cheap option and is often "bundled for free". That is why pretty much any new streamer device includes it.

"being cheap" is what really wins the market. Droning from Lemmings or Fanboys is really quite irrelevant.

Re:250 is little much (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36932732)

"Stuff you have at home"? Are you kidding.

AppleTV is simply full of fail when it comes to this sort of thing. It's the device that you have to adapt to rather than the other way around as it should be.

"support" is a highly artificial issue that depends on the product being broken to begin with before you really benefit from it. This includes faulty hardware, bugs, and missing features. An appliance should not ever need any "support". If you are ever engaging "support" then then vendor did something terribly wrong.

Also, being able to "root" the device isn't a terribly compelling argument. It's like "support". Its far better if you don't have to hack it to begin with. Either it's built with better features to begin with or more open to those features being added afterwards.

Ultimately all of these factors make neither option terribly compelling really.

Although the Android based product might have an edge with "things you already have".

No brainer (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36930944)

$78 Roku box with a ton of channels, and new ones being added all the time; or Logitech Revue With Google TV for $199.00 and a more controlled selection. Easy choice...

Re:No brainer (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 3 years ago | (#36931350)

amazon has it for 250 minus 25$ so 225, logitech has it on their store for 250 so not sure where you see 200. Roku is straight online only, it last i checked only supported mp4 and avi for local media. Which i have ton's of mkv files that roku won't play I mean terabytes of them. As for apple tv, i straight up dislike apple for to many reasons to list on any webpage, but fact their machine less they upgraded it since i last seen was 720p max and you have to rent what ever you wanted to watch and that rental was daily only better off with getting a media player with netflix or something.

Re:No brainer (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 years ago | (#36931634)

You can hack up your ATV to run XBMC. Not sure if ATV2 has enough hardware to do it in 1080p.

Re:No brainer (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 3 years ago | (#36931846)

The ATV2 will play Main Profile 3.1 which is 720P. It will do Netflix rentals and iTunes rentals although I've never tried the iTunes rental bit. It also streams from iTunes installed on any PC or Mac but it must be 3.1 compliant. I'm wondering how long before they add a streaming server to various streaming platforms to convert other formats like MKV and whatnot.

Re:No brainer (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 years ago | (#36931862)

If the ATV2 would browse DLNA then you could do it right now with ps3mediaserver.

Re:No brainer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36932072)

Right now if you jailbreak and install xbmc. Works great!

Re:No brainer (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36932758)

The ATV2 has a limited ability to play back content. So do most other "appliances".

It doesn't matter how much you "hack" it. It's cheap crappy hardware.

Ouch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36930946)

I predict that google's going to have a much tougher time finding hardware providers the next time they want to ship a half-baked idea like that.

Aside of the price (4, Interesting)

phoebe (196531) | about 3 years ago | (#36930952)

The more significant concern should be how complicated the device is. The Logitech Revue has the hallmarks of being rushed to market by a furiously masterbating manager in the corner of an office somewhere, refusing to listen to anything anyone is saying.

Just look at the Revue website [logitech.com] and find anywhere mentioning how simple or easy the device is to use, no just a very daunting picture of a gargantuan remote that is some nerd's wet dream.

A lot of effort has been put into the product launch, the Logitech website is larger than any other product they ship and it also extends onto the support side. It is nice to see that they have a series of support videos [logitech.com] until you actually view one. Oh dear. I'm wincing at these poor actors having to drive through an overly technical and obtuse script which spends far too much time discussing "HDMI capable AV systems" and optional components which only serve to make it look more complicated than it needs to be.

Re:Aside of the price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931066)

How about for $99 worth it now? http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/logitech-looses-big-on-google-tv-revue-price-cut-from-250-to-99/2011/07/28/gIQAQoqBfI_story.html

At $99 you it must be as good as the Apple TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931082)

and/or Roku. It is not even close to either.

GoogleTV is garbage with almost negligible support and features. It is nothing more than a logo.

Logitech bet the house on a crappy cards and lost. Now they are paying the price.

Re:At $99 you it must be as good as the Apple TV (2)

cHiphead (17854) | about 3 years ago | (#36932434)

Apple TV is garbage. Roku is decent. Logitech priced themselves out of it. nothing to do with Google TV.

Re:Aside of the price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931090)

I think your point is valid.

If instead a keyboard they use a tablet or something like the new wiiU controller and a interface "apple like" the "easy curve" will be achieved no matter the price.

People likes Tivo because it is easy.

Regards
Ronan
Criação de Sites [criacaodesitesrj.com]

Do everything on the tablet (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36931902)

If instead a keyboard they use a tablet

...then they won't even need a set-top box, as they could just do everything on the tablet and connect it to the TV with the tablet's mini-HDMI output.

How long are those cables? (1)

brokeninside (34168) | about 3 years ago | (#36931954)

I don't know about your setup but if I connected my tablet to my TV, I'd have a hard time using my tablet as a remote while sitting on my couch.

Not to mention the whole multi-tasking issue. How many tablets have the horsepower to display HD streaming content to the TV while browsing the web? Or, if one of my kids is playing angry birds on the tablet, I have to interupt everytime I want to change the channel.

Re:How long are those cables? (0)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36932014)

I'd have a hard time using my tablet as a remote while sitting on my couch.

HDMI cables can be up to 50 feet long. Buy one as long as needed for your living room.

Or, if one of my kids is playing angry birds on the tablet, I have to interupt everytime I want to change the channel.

You'd still have to even with a set-top box if the tablet is used as a remote. Besides, the standard practice among Slashdot commenters appears to involve buying a separate PC and/or tablet for each member of the household. They're called personal computers [slashdot.org] .

Re:How long are those cables? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | about 3 years ago | (#36932264)

I'd have a hard time using my tablet as a remote while sitting on my couch.

HDMI cables can be up to 50 feet long. Buy one as long as needed for your living room.

Point missed, ease of using isn't simply being able to have it close to hand, it's also not having to deal with a big fucking cable coming off the end of the device, and not having a cable trailing across the room for people to trip on. Remember, GP mentioned kids, so people not being cautious is a concern.

Re:How long are those cables? (1)

Deadguy2322 (761832) | about 3 years ago | (#36932654)

Tepples is a fucking retard, don't bother with him.

Re:How long are those cables? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36932804)

Watch the slur against persons with disabilities there buddy, now if you had said he has Aspergers that couldn't be disputed, because it's true.

Re:Aside of the price (1)

DrTime (838124) | about 3 years ago | (#36932058)

In the unmentioned decades of my work with computers, most products are "rushed to market by a furiously masterbating manager in the corner of an office". Bugs, HMI problems, hardware faults, failure to meet requirements, and even being of any use to humanity do not matter once money is committed by a company to build something on which someone's career rests. In my defense and that of SOME companies and SOME managers I have been associated with, I have been a part of teams building useful things or software that were successful. I hope to continue that tradition and given my current situation, I don't have to tolerate the "furiously masterbating" manager anymore nor will I. I have known some doozies!

Re:Aside of the price (2)

MikeURL (890801) | about 3 years ago | (#36932650)

I have one (it was an impulse buy). It isn't hard to use it is just semi-pointless.

I use a laptop for the most part when I want to surf so Google TV isn't helping much there. If I want to watch Netflix on a big screen I can use my Xbox.

Where this thing should have value is in its integration with my cable box. But that integration is horrible. In fact there is no integration at all. And it isn't like I'm using some obscure box from a cableco no one ever heard of.

When I bought it I actually assumed that the Logi box was going to integrate so seamlessly that I would not even have to go into my cable box menus (which are painfully slow and badly played out). But I was wrong and even something fairly simple like setting the DVR has to be done from my cable box. In fact, Google TV doesn't even have an accurate list of the channels that I have.

I can see why people are returning them. To make it worthwhile it has to recognize the cable box and then act as a competent front-end for it. As far as I can tell they are no where near that (I think it is a bit better for DishTV).

TEH GOOGLE SAYS, BEND OVER FRENCHIE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36930954)

No respect for the french. Still !!

Wait. Is Canada under french or british rule toady ??

Re:TEH GOOGLE SAYS, BEND OVER FRENCHIE !! (1)

Nikker (749551) | about 3 years ago | (#36931016)

British, nothing to see here move along!

Re:TEH GOOGLE SAYS, BEND OVER FRENCHIE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931022)

Non-sequencer since Logitek is German.

rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931132)

It is wrong to be french.

More than one way to skin a cat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36930960)

I guess when Google can't destroy the business plan of another company by giving away a competing product for free then they revert to other methods.

Why does it need a cable TV or satellite input? (1)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#36930990)

According to the Logitech web site, the thing needs both an Ethernet connection to the outside world, and "Cable or Satellite set top box with HDMI out". What does it need a video input for? Over the air digital TV plus streaming over the Internet for anything else should suffice. None of the other video-over-the-Internet boxes seem to need that.

Re:Why does it need a cable TV or satellite input? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931042)

I have one of these and I've wondered the same thing. Since I don't have a set-top box I never got it to work with TV. It is reasonably effective as a Netflix interface and as a DLNA adapter, allowing me to stream movies from an Ubuntu box to my TV. I was anxiously awaiting the GoogleTV SDK when I got the Revue last Fall. Google was still promising that at the IO conference in May but nothing yet...

Re:Why does it need a cable TV or satellite input? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 years ago | (#36932332)

Because it's like a DVR without the R... it provides a program guide and has an IR blaster and can control your cable box.

No, I can't find this [complete] information explicitly stated anywhere on Logitech's site, but why else?

It's nice to not have to change your inputs.

I can't see paying $250. Maybe $150. It has a pretty nice controller.

Returns exceeding sales? (1)

mozumder (178398) | about 3 years ago | (#36930998)

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

my first response seems attached to the wrong post (2)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 years ago | (#36931058)

the key concept is for the quarter. It seem likely a few saps bought them the previous quarter and finally got around to returning them.

Re:my first response seems attached to the wrong p (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 3 years ago | (#36931832)

So a bunch of people bought them in the quarter preceding the first quarter? That seems unlikely :-)

Re:my first response seems attached to the wrong p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931968)

First quarter refers to time of year, not first quarter in which it was released.

Re:Returns exceeding sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931068)

It's simple, the device is so bad even shoplifters return it!

Re:Returns exceeding sales? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 3 years ago | (#36931154)

It's simple, the device is so bad even shoplifters return it!

Amateurs are ruining everything.

Re:Returns exceeding sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931720)

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

I thought this at first as well. What I think they actually mean is that a return doesn't count as a sale. Therefore, if 1,000,000 were purchased and 600,000 were returned, the returns exceeded the sales.

Re:Returns exceeding sales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931828)

This is quite common and absolutely computes.

Let's take the most common case. You buy a product and you return it. That's one return and zero sales. Your neighbor buys one and returns it. That's two returns and zero sales. You don't count a product as sold that was returned. The goal is to have more NET sales than returns.

Now, the more complex case:

Customer A buys a Revue. They take it home and find it's not to their liking and return it. The retailer then re-packages it and re-sells it (if you think every single package everyone buys is brand-new then you're living in Fantasy Land) and that then gets returned again. Now you have two returns and still zero sales from a single product. Back in the 90's Electronic Boutique (remember them?) had a product I advocated against that represented its worst ratio at that time at 4-1. That meant every single product of that item it sold was returned 4 times on average. That was a sound card product. This happens a ton at major places as well. Many items at places like Home Depot are repackaged and re-sold as new.

who could have seen that coming? (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 years ago | (#36931010)

Gee, a PC like device that costs about as much as a basic function PC, but doesn't have the power for running on-line gaming and can't even watch Hulu or most network programs. And the consumer somehow preceived it wasn't worth the price? Imagine that! Who wouldn't want to buy this and hook it up to their TV rather than use the cash for a real multi-media PC?

for the quarter (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 years ago | (#36931034)

It seem likely a few saps bought them the previous quarter and finally got around to returning them.

Re:who could have seen that coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931686)

Who wouldn't want to buy this and hook it up to their TV rather than use the cash for a real multi-media PC

Uh, if you think you're going to get a 'real' multimedia PC for $250, I'd like to a) buy what you're on and b) sell you a bridge in New York.

Perhaps we could work out some sort of trade?

Statistically nobody sets up an HTPC (2)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36931940)

Gee, a PC like device that costs about as much as a basic function PC

But "a basic function PC" comes in a much bigger case and lacks any sort of SDTV-compatible output without an obscure VGA-to-TV scan converter [sewelldirect.com] .

Who wouldn't want to buy this and hook it up to their TV rather than use the cash for a real multi-media PC?

People who don't want a big, ugly, noisy tower in the living room. People who don't know how to build a small-form-factor PC from parts. People who have an SDTV and don't know that scan converters exist. People who have the mental set [wikipedia.org] that PCs are for the desk and TVs are for the living room and never the twain shall meet. In other words, the majority. I've been told [slashdot.org] that statistically nobody sets up an HTPC.

Re:Statistically nobody sets up an HTPC (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36932788)

> But "a basic function PC" comes in a much bigger case and lacks any sort of SDTV-compatible output

      SDTV? This is 2011. What rock have you been hiding under?

      TVs use different inputs and most PCs these days come with such inputs. Also even generic non-HTPCs come in smaller and quieter cases even without considering the use case of putting it next to your TV.

        The problem with the Logitech Revue is that you could buy a low profile PC for about the same price.

> People who don't want a big, ugly, noisy tower in the living room.

          Sounds like a classic Apple fanboy arguing against a 10 year old view of the competition.

> statistically nobody sets up an HTPC.

          Actually according to Nielson, the lion's share of people that do "Internet streaming" of content do it from a PC. If you are talking about a device like a Revue or AppleTV or Roku, a PC is still the dominant option by far. Perhaps the whole idea in general is "too geeky".

Google's war against Apple (0, Troll)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 3 years ago | (#36931014)

It seems like Google's taken it upon itself to wage war against Apple, M$, Facebook et alia on a lot of fronts.

As a little guy, I appreciate what Google's doing because it reduces the would-be monopoly power of the others. Google's thinking, insofar as I can ascertain, is: A closed monopolized tech environment will make it difficult for Google's open Internet approach of serving up free stuff and putting ads on it. Which is great.

But the question is: Can they succeed in holding the line on all these fronts?

Consider:
* A huge% of people want to buy the iPhone5 sight unseen
* No Android tablets are a match for
* No one seems to be able to come up with hardware better than last year's iPhone
* The Nortel patents were lost to an Apple-funded cartel, and they may be used to beat up on Android makers
* Facebook competes for being the #1 website, and wins in the amount of time people spend on it
* Nokia was lost to the dark $ide.
* The anti-WebM patents cartel, announced yesterday.
* Apple has scary amounts of money, only a little bit less than Ben Bernanke

Google wants to fight using toy weapons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931102)

The problem is that all Google products are nothing but rushed out pre-beta quality software.

Even today, Android is sluggish. Honeycomb is pretty much unstable garbage with nothing to show. GoogleTV is a dead product and Google+ is a Facebook wannabe with a worst privacy policy.

In other words, Google produces nothing but pre-beta software which are nothing more than clones of other products. Nothing original, only copycats.

Re:Google wants to fight using toy weapons (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#36931120)

The problem is that all Google products are nothing but rushed out pre-beta quality software.

But... people LIKE beta software when it's from Google! They think the little "beta" label is cute! There's even a Gmail lab extension to put that label back!

Haven't you been reading Slashdot? Google can do no wrong. At least you were smart enough to post anonymously...

Re:Google wants to fight using toy weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931464)

Google can do no wrong.

No evil. They can do no evil. That means they can do wrong. So it follows logically that sometimes doing the right thing is doing evil.

Re:Google's war against Apple (0)

epine (68316) | about 3 years ago | (#36931156)

The people who want to buy the iPhone sight unseen are the same people who would have secretly been happy to attend a school with a school uniform so they didn't have dress themselves in the morning using their own discretion, only some kind of miracle school where the uniforms are insanely fashionable with only a sarcastic trim of grey flannel.

Back when Microsoft had a similar pile of money, they gave I think it was $40B back to investors in a massive stock dividend. The money doesn't do Apple any good at all if they have no enormous strategic investments on the horizon. But maybe people who own Apple stock also like the idea of someone else managing their investment portfolio. Is Apple a good fund manager? What ROI are they getting on their $80B these days?

Re:Google's war against Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931220)

Resorting to insults instead of valid arguments just makes you look like a whining kid not getting what you want.

Apple is doing the exactly the right thing with their cash hoard. Your ad hominem proves just that.

Surgically buying companies where it benefits them, obtaining crazy-good pricing on components for their products which the other players cannot obtain, and more importantly, used as an economic shock-absorber for rough times. Apple is efficiency at its finest.

Paying a stock dividend is not needed in Apple's case. Had you even remotely had a clue, you would have scooped up AAPL when the market crashed and benefitted handsomely as many people did.

Keep on whining, it will just continue proving Apple is doing right.

Re:Google's war against Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931222)

No. The people who are ready to buy an iPhone 5 sight unseen are those of us who are extremely happy with each iPhone we've had from the beginning and have confidence that each succeeding model is going to be even better. Apple might slip up and screw one of the updates up, but despite yelping from people dying to find something wrong with them, the vast majority of us actually using them like our iPhones very much. Despite your smug and ignorant condescension, the truth is that nothing on the market yet comes close to matching the user experience of the iPhone 4 -- unless you want to turn your phone into a hobby the way many in the Android crowd do. (I won't be upgrading to the iPhone 5 until I'm eligible for a subsidy again, so I'll be skipping this new model.)

Re:Google's war against Apple (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 3 years ago | (#36931272)

Despite your smug and ignorant condescension

That's iRonic.

Re:Google's war against Apple (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#36931328)

That's iRonic.

Really? Where? I'll buy one!

Re:Google's war against Apple (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 3 years ago | (#36931294)

Exactly. Not to mention that the choice of iPhone to get is very simple. Black or White, 16/32GB (or 32/64GB this time hopefully).

There is such a thing as too much choice. It is why games consoles are popular as you buy a console, buy a game and it is guaranteed to work with no hassle.

Re:Google's war against Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931624)

There is such a thing as too much choice. It is why games consoles are popular as you buy a console, buy a game and it is guaranteed to work with no hassle.

It's also why men's fashion is still dominated by a 18th century garment, suit and a tie, with only minor modifications. It makes it easy. Time is better spent wooing the women. (Note that gays dress more freely because they don't woo women.)

Re:Google's war against Apple (2)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 3 years ago | (#36931276)

Google are not the little guy. They are like Microsoft in that they have a couple of highly profitable revenue streams which they use to try to expand their product range.

But they simply haven't a clue on producing a product that people want or will want (after all, technology companies are supposed to think ahead).

Their successes are fairly obvious things, online email, search engine, online office suite and mobile phone OS. Nothing ground breaking are they? they are all things Microsoft has done or is doing.

If I want a net-TV box I want everything I can get now on TV with some extras for less money. There needs to be a large advantage to it.

Re:Google's war against Apple (2)

Anarchduke (1551707) | about 3 years ago | (#36931916)

No one has come up with hardware better than last year's iPhone? You might want to check your facts on that one. It took me all of five seconds to google a phone with superior hardware specs [techradar.com] .

Re:Google's war against Apple (0)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | about 3 years ago | (#36932250)

Not that I like apple, but the Iphone 4's screen is currently the best on the market. There are others that come close, but sadly I'm not seeing other high-res, small-form-factor displays. Maby one or two devices above ~800x480 in the 7" form factor.

So, yes, thinking purely about the screen, there *isn't* anything better. But thinking about everything... well, I'd argue that my 2008-vintage N900 is far better, along with just about any other phone with a hardware keyboard, 800x480 screen and unlocked bootloader.
 

Re:Google's war against Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36932322)

The iphone 4 has the worst reception of any phone on the market.

Re:Google's war against Apple (1)

edmicman (830206) | about 3 years ago | (#36933380)

This. I have an original Droid, which beat the graphics specs of the 3GS. Then the 4 comes out with their retina display crap, and we're still seeing Android phones with the same screen specs of the first Droid X! Are manufacturers just that blind or are there limitations on the Android software that don't support higher resolutions? Seems like one of the selling points of Ice Cream Sandwich was the HD resolution...maybe that's the fix? Just seems like 2 years after the Droid debut we should have much better hardware. Motorola, HTC, Samsung...you want to have a compelling selling point over the iPhone? Give me an HD screen, great battery life, and fast and quality camera hardware. Not a 6.5" screen on a phone with 2 year old resolution and a 50 megapixel piece of crap camera that's slow.

Re:Google's war against Apple (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36933500)

A 1994 PC can handle this "retina display" nonsense. That doesn't mean that you actually would want to use it for anything. Being able to output at a certain resolution and being able to actually do anything with it are entirely orthogonal to each other.

I'd much rather have the "underlying horsepower" so content has to be "adapted" less or not at all.

Re:Google's war against Apple (0)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36932812)

Your entire screed is Fanboy nonsense. You're like an ostrich with it's head stuck in a hole.

If your views reflect Apple management, they are trebly doomed.

Anyone in this space is going to be by definition "at war" with Apple since Apple is a single vendor integrated monopoly. There is just no "peaceful coexistence" with something like that. It's like trying to "just get along" with Microsoft.

The Revue may have bombed but the rest of the onslaught continues.

Many of us are happy for this being the sorts marginalized by Apple and it's devout followers.

google users (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931108)

faggots.

Why $250? (3, Interesting)

Rix (54095) | about 3 years ago | (#36931160)

There are lots of devices that do the same thing going for significantly less than a hundred.

Also, it's puzzling that Google cooperated with the content blocking schemes. They should have just set the browser ID to Internet Explorer and told the networks to go fuck themselves.

Re:Why $250? (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 3 years ago | (#36931206)

I can't explain the absurd cost, except greed. But as to the browser info, an even better choice might be to look like Chrome on a PC, which can play Hulu content just fine. Or even better, just let the user configure all of those settings, so that Google isn't being deceptive and the user isn't forced to report info that they don't wish to. But returning IE or any other info doesn't resolve the basic problem of it being an over priced under powered device.

Re:Why $250? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36932818)

The "absurd cost" is pretty easy to explain if you don't have blinders on.

Devices that aren't terribly limited cost more. It's as simple as that.

Far too many people are willing to declare that cheap crap is a suitable alternative when it really isn't. It's certainly not a complete replacement. You are left with considerable compromises that any discriminating consumer should be able to recognize and acknowledge.

Re:Why $250? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931242)

This is anything but new with Logitech. They used to be a decent peripherals company, but everything they sell these days is overpriced and of appalling quality.

Re:Why $250? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 years ago | (#36931288)

**Also, it's puzzling that Google cooperated with the content blocking schemes**

it's not puzzling. that's what you do if you're straight out of university and have a too large budget and think that you have to do that. consequently, it gets fucking expensive to even just start debating those issues(as they never lead to anything actually working if you don't cripple the product very badly very expensively, they can burn money indefinitely, it's also why you need the tuner(s) in, because you consulted with cable companies and isp's.. who wouldn't like to serve bandwidth to just any service. it's total do evil bullshit, which actually needs more effort to do, so it's more expensive than just providing the working solution, so it's more expensive, and the teams implementing things will not care about burning money and time as they know in their hearts what they're doing, so they're just burning money and looking for an exit).

Re:Why $250? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 years ago | (#36931612)

Then the content producers would just add some VBScript to the website instead of some key Javascript parts. Should work just fine with any actual IE versions. I don't think anything besides IE supports VBS. And if Google hacks around that, the content producers will have a whole lot of other tricks up their sleeves.
Google could only play catch-up but would never win.

failzo8s... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931200)

FreeBSD show3d [goat.cx]

So what happens to SageTV? (4, Interesting)

jbarr (2233) | about 3 years ago | (#36931604)

With Google's acquisition of sageTV [sagetv.com] , it was speculated that SageTV would either become or become part of a revised platform for GoogleTV. What will happen to this fine company? Their DVR software was fantastic, and their "media extender" hardware was very useful. Many companies that get assimilated by Google become integral parts of a greater whole. But what will happen here? I seriously doubt that Google will shelve the set-top box concept. They may transform GoogleTV into something different, but I doubt they'll abandon it.

Re:So what happens to SageTV? (1)

kidgenius (704962) | about 3 years ago | (#36932130)

I doubt it's over. The Logitech Revue was the very first device to market. I completely dismissed the Revue as a half-assed attempt to beat apple. After seeing the SageTV/Google screenshots, I have no doubts the second iteration will be where it's at. Maybe something that combines the GoogleTV2.0 with Android@Home...that would be sweet. I also think that Amazon may enter the fray in a few years.

Re:So what happens to SageTV? (1)

edmicman (830206) | about 3 years ago | (#36933412)

It would be nice if they'd take bits of sageTV and package it into a GoogleTV software package that I could install myself. I would love to put together a quiet SFF PC for the living room with my own specs, OTA tuners, and be able to use Android DVR and Media Center apps to have everything all in once nice web-enabled box.

DOLL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36931806)

handy, you are free troubled OS. Now AT LEAST.' NOBODY for succeesful by simple fucking Fate. Let's not be charnel house. The

what about sonys? (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | about 3 years ago | (#36931844)

Now granted the one I got to play with was a pre-public release a developer at my friends company was given that he setup in the company's theator room... but the remote was ugly and looked like a label maker mated with an Xbox 360 remote. I don't think it had any more functionality than the logictech, but I believe its price tag was $100 *more* than the logictech unit

logitech will be fine (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 3 years ago | (#36931880)

they still have $120.00 keyboards and $90.00 rats they can sell.

CEO dumped because of this? (1)

guidryp (702488) | about 3 years ago | (#36932316)

I think I read elsewhere the CEO is "stepping down". AKA being fired.

Seriously, didn't this product look like a total failure the moment it was announced. I am sure we had a story on the announcement, and I am sure most of stated: WTF??? This was the most obvious DOA product since the JooJoo.

It is bad enough to launch an obvious stinker but it sounds like they also put so much money behind it as to put the company in jeopardy. Seriously how out of touch and clueless was the CEO.

CEO get 7 figure salaries for what again??

sorely disappointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36932352)

I was sorely disappointed in the device. I was expecting maybe too much.

Intel is the reason - Atom (Sodaville) is costly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36932860)

If they had used ARM in the first place, the price who have been significantly cheaper. But instead they went with expensive Intel Atom silicon.

Where's the DVR and network media center? (1)

edmicman (830206) | about 3 years ago | (#36933304)

So if I got a GTV at $99 now, it will be able to be upgraded to Honeycomb when it comes out? It was a nonstarter at 250 for something with unknown value, but I’d consider it at 99. Can I play media that is on my network via the GoogleTV, too?

You know what I want out of GoogleTV?

I want the media center capabilities of a Boxee or XBMC. I want the android market and internet prowess and ability to browse with a full-on browser a la the current GoogleTV.

And I want it in a box with a Cablecard where I can hook up an external or NAS drive and use it for a DVR. Or at least an OTA tuner. Android DVR app anyone?

*That* I would pay $250 for. A living room Youtube player? No.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>