Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Logitech Calls Google TV a 'Big Mistake'

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the easy-for-you-to-say dept.

Google 195

An anonymous reader writes "Logitech CEO Guerrino De Luca spoke bluntly about Google TV yesterday, referring to it as a 'beta' product and saying that relying on it for the Revue set-top boxes was a mistake. Logitech will stop production of the Revue, and plans to implement significant price cuts to get rid of their remaining inventory. 'He said there are "no plans to introduce another box to replace Revue." Further, he predicted that the "grandchild of Google TV" might succeed but not the current product. For now, that leaves Sony televisions with the Google software for people looking for the Google TV experience.'"

cancel ×

195 comments

Well, duh! (5, Funny)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027418)

Google products are in perpetual beta!

Re:Well, duh! (3, Insightful)

MichaelKristopeitDad (2488356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028594)

Why is this modded funny? It is dead on!

Google products are - to almost no exception - all born unfinished and unpolished. Look at Android! The only reason for its success is that the iPhone created such a gap in 2007 between current OSes and the "target" (iPhone) that they were at the right place at the right time. They adapted quickly to an iPhone-like UI and that was all that was needed. Really, there was no competition, except Apple, but their one phone and closed garden policy made them an outsider by default. It's just that they were there so long before the rest of the pack...

But man! The first few versions of Android were just shameful. It was in all fairness barely useable. Really barely. Performance, UI, bugs, functionnality, everything was half assed!

So yeah, there was a HUGE opportunity, and they were the ONLY player. So it caught on. But Google TV? Come on, nobody wants a QWERTY keyboard in their living room. There is barely a tiny market, it is overcrowded with competition... No chance at all, really.

Re:Well, duh! (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029032)

I had a tmob G1, it was a fine phone.

Sure, the current phones are better but the G1 is very old now (in mobile phone years).

Too bad (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027422)

It would really be great if someone with financial muscle, like Google, could provide an easy alternative for the masses to watch streaming TV from an easy set-top box kind of platform, with decent live broadcasts.

Perhaps Google plans their own set top box?

Re:Too bad (4, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027548)

Well, Microsoft is doing something like that with 360 [microsoft.com] . And they if someone have the financial muscle, and content providers don't look at them at such a bad light that they do Google.

Re:Too bad (5, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027602)

In my opinion, this will all work itself out. Technology is going to evolve on its own to beat the cable companies.

The core problem is cable monopolies. Consumers can't fight back against the bandwidth cappers if government continues to say you have no choices.

Re:Too bad (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028352)

How can it, though? We all want to watch what we want when we want, but those controlling the content will not allow this. We get limited, mostly old stuff, on the likes of Netflix, adverts in pay for access on Hulu and chums. Some channels will stream the programming top browsers, but in poor quality, and then go out of their way to block viewing on HDTVs.

Most of us do not want to buy episodes. We may buy a complete season, or even series, but per episodes costs are bad value. Digital movies are dearer the DVDs and sometimes blu-rays, come over compressed and with poor audio, plus crippled with DRM preventing us from playing it where we desire.

And now we have usage caps creeping in, and cannot change services due to the oligopolies you refer to.

Other that torrents, how can technology give the consumer what they want, when everyone in the content industry is working against this desire?

Re:Too bad (2)

everett (154868) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028858)

If you have to exclude a solution to the problem in your statement of the problem, then you may be doing it wrong. "Torrents" is a valid technical solution to your problem...

Re:Too bad (1)

gladbach (527602) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029128)

google tv, plex, sickbeard, sabnzbd, and a $11 newsgroup account.

Re:Too bad (2)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029146)

I think that eventually there will enough pressure on cable companies from the likes of online video rentals, Hulu, etc, that we will either end up with an 'online' cable company, with more of an Ala Carte selection, or something new will evolve similar to that evolve from one of the bigger partners now. There are already rumors of an entry from Apple TV and Sony is also vying for the next generation TV. It's only a matter of time as people realize that the value provided by cable TV is not much of a value at all. It's overpriced with 90% of the content you have to buy going unwatched for just the 10% that you do.

Re:Too bad (0)

fortfive (1582005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028414)

How is the government telling us to do this?

Re:Too bad (4, Informative)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028570)

they are the ones that grant the local monopolies to the cable companies

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028742)

Cable companies are more of a natural monopoly due to the capital investment required.

AT&T has approval to build out UVerse in my town ... it will still be years before I receive service, assuming it ever comes. And that's building on top of their existing copper network.

Eventually there will be some wireless technology that provides TV service, although it will probably be crappy quality targeted at iPads. (ATSC actually could be a cable competitor, but it's been crippled by the networks who own the stations.)

Re:Too bad (3, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028984)

Eventually there will be some wireless technology that provides TV service

There has been, for decades.

That said, government granted monopolies is what cripples the game in the US. In France, virtually EVERY DSL provider provides 100+ channels. And you have lots of DSL companies. Plus cable (one player) and Satellite (2 players)

In France, the local loop was paid off by the government, so they took it back from France Telecom and rent it to anyone willing. Result: 100+ channels, 20mbps DSL, free phone for €30/month.

Why? Because the market has competition. There are 4 major players in the DSL business and at least 6 small ones.

Re:Too bad (4, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028908)

In my opinion, this will all work itself out. Technology is going to evolve on its own to beat the cable companies.

The core problem is cable monopolies. Consumers can't fight back against the bandwidth cappers if government continues to say you have no choices.

It's the corporations saying we don't have choices. Government isn't saying anything at all, which allows these corporations to develop local monopolies. When competitive markets have failed in this manner we rely on government to be the only remaining cudgel to browbeat these corporations into serving the public good rather than their own pocketbooks.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38027678)

The Microsoft options are a crappy bolt-on. Even worse, the uverse one is an expensive option. The xbox is a poor STB. It's a gaming console with some media add-ons, not a cable killer.

There are rumors that both Google and Apple are looking to start doing real content distribution to the TV. Unsurprisingly, Google just started getting into original content produced for YouTube, and has names like Disney on board.

Honestly, I hope they both release good solutions, because devices like the Roku and Boxee are bandaids. The existing Google TV is shitty. Someone needs to break that system, just like Napster, Apple, etc. did to music.

Re:Too bad (4, Interesting)

SlappyMcgee (1364419) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027872)

You mean like the ones that SageTV used to make before Google bought them? http://www.sagetv.com/index.html [sagetv.com]

Re:Too bad (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028994)

A pain, really. I mean, it was the perfect setup.

Really, I've been angry at Google for month for that, and I still am.

Re:Too bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028064)

Perhaps Google plans their own set top box?

Considering they just spent $12b on Motorola Mobility who already makes set-top boxes, it seems pretty likely. There was a lot of speculation when that story broke that we'd start to see GTV on those boxes.

I wonder whether Logitech getting out of the GTV game has to do with Google envisioning GTV as the actual cable box rather than just a pass-through, which wouldn't leave much room for a product like the Revue.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028294)

Motorola Home and Networks makes the STBs, not Mobility.

Re:Too bad (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028398)

Just wait for Apple's television, which will be met by the usual derision from Apple critics on Slashdot followed by success in the market anyway.

Re:Too bad (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028710)

Since they have yet to put DVR capabilities into the existing 'AppleTV' product, nor allowed any way to add them on, I wouldn't bet on that right at this point in time.

No DVR == No Go

Re:Too bad (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029010)

Just wait for Apple's television, which will be met by the usual derision from Apple critics on Slashdot followed by success in the market anyway.

Until the Apple TV can receive TV, I wouldn't bet on it though.

Re:Too bad (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028526)

Perhaps Google plans their own set top box?

No, but they have already announced an Android 3.1 implementation, and screenshots released so far [engadget.com] look like they've taken on board the complaints about the older version. Might be worth buying up one of Logitech's cheap Revues if they decide to dump them at bargain bucket prices.

Re:Too bad (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028578)

Any content provider can provide streaming content to Roku boxes if they'd like. It already offers live streams of sports and some news programming. HBO is coming on board. Blame content providers and local, incumbent cable companies for holding things back.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028790)

You mean, something like Roku sells for less than $60 through Target and online?

FAIL (3, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027430)

Google needs to put more wood behind fewer arrows. Instead of releasing half-assed beta products, how about polishing them, subjecting them to real user tests(not just dogfooding by geeks) ?

Is this what you expect people to use control the TV? http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sonygtv1.jpeg?w=588&h=332 [wordpress.com]

Really? That looks more like a cockpit than a remote control, and doesn't fit comfortably, or at all, in one hand.

Re:FAIL (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027522)

I kind of like that remote
Wish other devices had such remotes as well, saves you from the cursor based typing on many STB's/TV's

Re:FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38027600)

I kind of like that remote

Wish other devices had such remotes as well, saves you from the cursor based typing on many STB's/TV's

IMHO, it is all wrong if my TV wants me to type at it.

Re:FAIL (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027654)

ok, maybe not TV, but still useful for STB's (Searching by program name,etc)

Re:FAIL (1)

pburghdoom (1892490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028004)

Maybe with the increase intrest in voice on mobile devices you will get TVs where you can just speak to it. TV find food network or some such shit.

Re:FAIL (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027556)

Is this what you expect people to use control the TV? http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sonygtv1.jpeg?w=588&h=332 [wordpress.com] [wordpress.com]

have you used one? it's actually a good remote- provides easy access to common things and have a full kb that doesn't get in the way of the common things.

Re:FAIL (0)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027596)

I'm kind of torn, it is rather big looking and a pain in the *ss to use. On the other hand, I can see that kb coming in handy from time to time.

Re:FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38027862)

Uh, if you want to make full internet available to a user on their TV, how do you want them to input data? Cell-phone style with the number buttons? No thanks. With a mouse or wii-mote style device, pointing and clicking individual letters? No thanks on that one either. I'd like a full keyboard to use for that, thank you.

Re:FAIL (3, Interesting)

peter hoffman (2017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028512)

When I started watching TV there were two dials with fine-tuning rings and an on/off/volume knob. Today I have 56 buttons on just one of my remote controls, not to mention that some buttons have multiple functions depending on the history of button presses.

I think the Google remote is a reasonably good design; it's one of the features I like.

Re:FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028680)

Then they would have to support them.

I wanted one (3)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027432)

I might have gotten a Google TV, but between the price and the only ones requiring HDMI on both sides I was looking at $500 or so to get up and running with it. I did want one, but I could have bought a laptop for that and just hooked it up to my TV for not much more.

Re:I wanted one (1)

Dice (109560) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027940)

Well, good news! Now you can get a Revue for cheap!

Re:I wanted one (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028058)

Yeah, but I still need to pay for an HDMI converter or a new TV as they don't provide composite outs.

Re:I wanted one (1)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028362)

Google TVs only support HD output so you'll need a new TV then as composite only supports 480i.

Re:I wanted one (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028674)

Right, which was a really dumb idea on their part. If they're trying to get marketshare against Apple I don't see why they aren't providing for those that still have serviceable analog sets. The digital switch over itself was only a couple years ago.

Re:I wanted one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028768)

Google [Earth] couldn't see you under that rock.

BAD TITLE (5, Insightful)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027456)

No, he called the particular implementation of Google TV a mistake. It was too expensive due to the required Intel hardware, and the software was essentially a half-baked beta. That doesn't mean "Google TV a 'Big Mistake'"

Re:BAD TITLE (5, Insightful)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027512)

It was too expensive due to the required Intel hardware, and the software was essentially a half-baked beta. That doesn't mean "Google TV a 'Big Mistake'"

So the software and hardware where bad, but otherwise it was a great idea?

Re:BAD TITLE (5, Funny)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027770)

It was too expensive due to the required Intel hardware, and the software was essentially a half-baked beta. That doesn't mean "Google TV a 'Big Mistake'"

So the software and hardware where bad, but otherwise it was a great idea?

Yes, the firmware was awesome.

Re:BAD TITLE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028118)

Don't forget the salesgirls!

Re:BAD TITLE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38027520)

Half-baked beta software equals BIG MISTAKE in my book.

AOLTV all over again (1)

kriston (7886) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027474)

It's AOLTV all over again. Something not done right that nobody wanted, anyway.

Re:AOLTV all over again (5, Insightful)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028592)

that nobody wanted, anyway.

I have mixed feelings about this. The status quo for television is kind of a screwed up experience. I don't think Google TV was going to improve the situation -- it would have been just-another-set-top-box -- but it'd be nice if something were done to make TV-watching more seamless, especially for older people.

For instance, how many people can't work their own DVD player? "THIS needs to be ON, and set to THIS input, and then the TV needs to be a Channel X, but it isn't really Channel X, because THAT is set to 'DVD,' and..." I've had to explain things too many times to older family members, and still they forget. They're afraid they'll "break" the TV. I've even met people young enough that you'd think they'd know better who were unable to play DVDs in their own house ("Oh, my husband knows how that works."). In the year 2011, it's ridiculous. A setting gets changed and then the TV is "broken" for six months until I come visit.

Somebody needs to make a good, consistent, universal user interface for this stuff. Sometimes I wonder if the thing I should do is set up a super-simple media center PC for my parents, running something like Windows Media Center, that handles absolutely everything, so they don't need to understand three remotes and related input settings. You can imagine it being very simple. But I'm not so naive. Sadly, I think it'd end in tears.

It's also possible that the emergence of HDMI commands will fix things -- turning DVD players and the like into extensions of the television, operated by the same remote. But somehow I don't see the kind of strong interoperability needed to make this happen actually occurring either.

Google everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38027538)

I already use google for search and e-mail. I'll probably be getting an andriod phone eventually too. That is enough google for me.

As Predicted... (4, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027626)

Steve Jobs discussed the problems of the TV market for high tech at D8 in 2010 [youtube.com] (fast forward to 1:31:06). Essentially, no one will pay for more innovative product because everyone already gets near-free, subsidized hardware that's good enough and there's not enough room to make money doing something more interesting.

"Ask Tivo, ask ReplayTV...ask Google in a few months."

Re:As Predicted... (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027704)

Then how does that fit in with AppleTV?

Re:As Predicted... (2)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027796)

Perfectly. AppleTV isn't much of a product for Apple.

The rumored "Apple is going to revolutionize TV" product doesn't exist. It's just a rumor so far. I submit that it will stay that way. I already have a TV that does what TVs do. It doesn't need a slick new GUI.

Re:As Predicted... (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027868)

I'd love for a tv to come out that doesn't have more buttons on it's remote than a nuclear submarine's control panel.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027984)

You can get a third-party remote with fewer buttons for $5 or something. You want to pay Apple $2000 for a TV instead?

Just don't press the buttons that make you sad.

On a less snarky note: Yes, TV remotes have human interface issues. It doesn't stop people from watching and enjoying TV in general. They're not going to pay $2000 (or any other large price premium) for a TV with a better remote control.

Re:As Predicted... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028218)

They're not going to pay $2000 (or any other large price premium) for a TV with a better remote control.

I don't think you understand what sort of people you're talking about here. This is the crowd that ate up MacBook Air. And that lame media player they had in the early 2000's with no wireless, less space than a nomad, and it turned out to build an empire? $2000 for a TV is a bargain, if Apple price premiums are any measure to judge by.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028832)

You can get a third-party remote with fewer buttons for $5 or something. You want to pay Apple $2000 for a TV instead?

Yes, because for some reasons Apple seems to be the only company that can make things functional without 65 buttons to do the job.

Its cute that you're trying to be snarky and show your superiority over others, but all you're actually doing is show that you really just don't fucking get it.

It doesn't stop people from watching and enjoying TV in general.

Actually, it does, often, and if you didn't have your head so far up your own ass sniffing your own farts you'd know this.

Many people don't do things their existing television/cable box setup allows them to do because they are intimidated by the choices in front of them and are afraid of getting the devices into a state which they can't get out of and which is unproductive for them (i.e. no watching TV). As has been stated in multiple other posts in this thread, TV interfaces suck ass.

Just because you're too arrogant and ignorant to realize how shitty the interface is, that doesn't make it any less shitty, it just makes you an ass. Most other people have more important things in their lives than spending a fair amount of effort understanding their television control interfaces ... JUST like they don't want to fuck around learning Linux because YOU think its king shit. The entire world doesn't revolve around how you.

Re:As Predicted... (3, Interesting)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029164)

You are simply wrong. People don't do what their cable boxes allow because they just don't really care. And if they do care, then they can make it work. It's not crazy difficult. It's imperfect and slightly annoying.

The guy who can't spent 2 minutes to set a DVR recording isn't going to buy a $2000 TV from Apple to do DVR recordings for him. The guy who is "intimidated" by buttons isn't going to buy a $2000 TV from Apple or anyone else.

Apple could improve TV human interfaces. But they can't do it enough to make it worthwhile because no one is going to pay a large premium for a small improvement. TVs just aren't fundamentally interactive.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028098)

Have you used the newer Comcast GUI? I moved from a rural area to an area where I could get cable and cable broadband. The pink GUI that comes with Comcast was a severe step down from Dish. There's no way to get the guide to just show the channels you've subscribed to, instead you get the whole shooting match with the guide, and your not exactly cheap "Digital Starter Package" doesn't really come with much. The HD DVR receiver costs $16/month rent, so after 7 months you've paid for a $100 GoogleTV device provided it has the content that you need. All I'm really interested in is something with a keyboard and a d-pad that my 3 year old can use to play games or watch a few age appropriate shows on the TV. I was just looking at the Logitec device last week. Looks like I'll need to buy one soon, before they're no longer available.

If I can get this thing and replace my cable box with it, and it's able to find the content that I want when I want it, then I really can't resist it at the lower price point. I know it doesn't have Hulu, but I'm betting that my 3 year old daughter won't care about hulu.

Re:As Predicted... (4, Insightful)

Oliver Wendell Jones (158103) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028484)

But, but, but... if you can't see ALL of the channels available, then you can't see all of the "Fantastic, Premium Programming" that is available on all of the channels you're not currently (but soon will be!) subscribing to...

I agree, being able to display only the channels you can actually choose from is one of many great features I love about my Tivo Premiere - not only can I block channels I don't get from the guide, I can block channels I don't ever want to watch (Bloomfield TV, Oprah TV, Lifetime, Lifetime Movies, Univision, HSN, QVC, etc.) from the guide so it's much easier to find the programming I do enjoy. Combined with a HD Roku box and a Netflix streaming-only subscription, I have more TV choices than I really need.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028590)

If I'm frustrated in my pursuit of entertainment then I will find other sources. If I find I'm paying for sources of entertainment that I don't use, I'll reduce my costs. It's still simple economics of good customer service. Before we had kids, we lived without cable or Dish for 6 years. Those were some of the best reading years of my life.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028864)

You want Windows Media Center with TV capture cards and XBox 360s as extenders. Its simply the best setup you can find at this point in time. Of course, it'll take you a few years of not paying for a shitty comcast DVR, but if you already have a PC capable of running it and some Xbox 360s, its not that bad.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028872)

I've only ever purchased mice that were made by Microsoft, and I'm not about to change that now.

Re:As Predicted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028228)

The first version of AppleTV was retarded. But at $99 it's priced about the same as Best Buy's HDMI cables. It can be a useful little accessory, even though it's pretty limited.

Re:As Predicted... (0, Troll)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027964)

Apple TV is an apple product. It dosn't have to be better then the competition, nor does it need to be cheaper, or functional. They just have to say "Steve jobs thought of this before he died", and it will sell millions.

Re:As Predicted... (2)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028404)

Steve Jobs has his own share of failures.

Unless the Apple TV has some revolutionary wow features, it isn't going to be any different than a Sony.

Re:As Predicted... (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028876)

Except, in your snarky ignorance, you forgot to point out that it isnt' selling millions and they treat it more or less like its going away sometime in the near future.

If you're going to play the 'reality distortion field' card, you need to at least consider how well the product sells before doing so. You just look like an idiot in this case.

Re:As Predicted... (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028006)

The first gen AppleTV used more expensive hardware like a Pentium M but had storage. It suffers from the same problem as Jobs outlined in that it tried to be like a TiVo but not quite. The 2nd gen AppleTV launched after D8 2010 takes on a slightly different purpose and acknowledges that Apple made mistakes. It's more of an add-on to connect your TV to the rest of your computing devices. It has less functionality but is cheaper.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028174)

I actually was referring to the rumor that Apple was actually going into the TV business - not just the add-on. I think the add-on business is the way to go. I already have 2 large hi-def TV's that I have no intention of replacing anytime soon.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028270)

Until Apple actually launches it, I won't hold my breath. There have been Apple rumors for ages. Like the iPad 3 was supposed to launch Fall 2011 just 6 months after iPad2. It would have be 2560x1600 and do your taxes for you. The new rumor is that anyone who bought an iPhone 4S is a sucker because the iPhone 5 launching in January will have 1080p and NFC. The bio says Jobs made a breakthrough but that doesn't mean it will actually make it into a product or prototype. From what I know about the iPad they spent years working on it and the original plans had it using Intel Atom and not ARM. But Atom was too power hungry and they had to change a great deal about the design.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028552)

Apple TV (and the competing Roku box...I own both and they're both great) are very-focused devices for on-demand video and 21st century content distribution. Google TV tried to bolt on a new interface to the "push model" of video that most people associate with television.

Re:As Predicted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028282)

That's not the exact quote.

"ask TiVo, Roku, us, Google in a few months."

Steve was including Apple in his quote. They don't (at least at the time of this typing) have the right answer either.

Re:As Predicted... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028370)

Near free subsidized hardware? How do I get in on this. Last I looked televisions were expensive.

obvious mistake is obvious (4, Insightful)

atarione (601740) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027652)

seems to me the moment this thing launched and content providers (hulu..etc) started blocking it..

I thought..well this thing is boned... and then also ..who the hell thought it was a good idea to launch before getting content guys onboard?

stupid... just stupid..they should have worked something out with hulu..etc before launching this thing.

Re:obvious mistake is obvious (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027754)

who's blocking it besides hulu? you have crackle, amazon instant video, netflix, youtube, for movies.

Re:obvious mistake is obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38027938)

ABC, NBC, & CBS, for a start...

price cuts? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027664)

Great, now where and when will I find these price cuts? They already dropped it to $99 back in July. A "significant" price cut might make it $49, which would be irresistible. To me, anyway.

All I want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38027690)

All I want is a way to change the channel by call sign. I want to type in "SYFY" for 180 and then prompt me for to go HD if the channel is also available in HD. That's all I need with FIOS.

And to have the android apps for FIOS work without Google's Andriod Market.

Re:All I want (4, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027806)

Actually one of the features that got me to switch from U-Verse to DirecTV (besides it was cheaper) was the fact that the SD and HD channels are the same channel. If your TV is HD capable the HD channel decodes and if not the SD content decodes. What a CRAZY idea huh?

Re:All I want (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028002)

It's kind of sad that I'm really impressed by what seems like such an obvious and easy to implement feature... but I am. That's an awesome idea. If I wasn't living in an apartment right now, it might almost be enough to get me to switch by itself. Satellite in an apartment is a pain though.

Re:All I want (1)

PoopMonkey (932637) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028814)

Which one gets recorded by the DVR? Is DVR even an option? My TV can do HD, but I set most everything to record on the DVR as SD because HD eats disk space very quickly

Re:All I want (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029092)

The other thing is that often for me the SD channel has perfect reception while the HD channel is stuttering or outright dead. (Time Warner Cable, western PA)

google apps? (2)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027694)

i have one (the sony version), and while the new software is much cleaner and consistent, it's seriously lacking applications. it has the standard stuff like netflix and pandora, but it doesn't have *any* google applications ... like gmail, maps, calendar, google music. how can it not have google music? combine this with the overall lack of really *any* compelling 3rd party applications, and it really hurts the overall package.

maybe they figure you can go to the browser to get all the apps, but that gives you more of a desktop / laptop experience that expects you to be 20-30cm from the display.

Re:google apps? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028942)

Because all of those things suck on a TV? Even in HD. No one listens to music on their TV, we have other devices far better at it than that. Mail, Calendar? To hard to read. Maps? No practical usefulness beyond settling an argument over what is how far from someplace on a big display. You're going to use your PC and print it or use your phone/GPS on the road.

A TV is good for watching motion video, thats it.

Re:google apps? (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029166)

we have other devices far better at it than that.

yes, and if it was up to you, i'd still be carrying around an MP3 player, a dedicated cell phone, a laptop, a portable DVD player, and a dedicated GPS every where i go.

No one listens to music on their TV,

did you know, that modern TVs have audio out? my google TV even has optical out.

if your TV's hooked into your home ent system, which of course it will be, why not? pretty slick to have pandora, iheartradio, pandora, podcasts, your google music collection, and every other streaming audio source available from android.

Mail, Calendar? To hard to read.

they are not if you provide a TV-optimized interface. there are quite a few TV-optimized web pages and they work well. check out http://www.google.com/tv/spotlight-gallery.html [google.com] to see what i mean.

if it has a keyboard, there's no reason it can't function as well as and in place of a PC for general purpose computing tasks. there's nothing about the display being bigger that makes it unsuitable ... but you do need a TV optimized interface.

Sony Google TV vs Logitech Device (1)

rearless (1694444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027742)

I like my Sony Google TV. Netflix, Pandora, YouTube all built in and my decorator wife can't bitch about ugly settop devices and wires cluttering her living room. I could see where the Logitech box is expensive for what you get.

Customizing? (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027764)

If they're gonna sell off these things on the cheap (not that they seem to sell them over here in Sweden at all, though), could it be any good for a more generic GNU/Linux box?

Anyone put Debian on this thing? (Wasn't apparently so from a quick glance at the first search results, at least.)

Cheap PC or streamer (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027838)

The Logitech Revue has an Intel CE4100 SOC, which is about on par with the Atom processor in terms of CPU power, but can also do the full monte of 1080p hardware video decoding (and I think HDMI 1.3 audio bitstreaming as well). It was already down to $99 last time I checked, and if it drops further it could be a very attractive platform to play around with. (I believe someone has already rooted it.) It could serve as a very nice media streamer if someone ported XBMC to it, or with a streamlined Linux distro it might make an acceptable and extremely cheap PC for someone whose needs are limited to browsing, email, and watching videos.

Re:Cheap PC or streamer (1)

bendilts (1902562) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028036)

I have the latest Sony Google TV set-top box, and it's actually a pretty great setup. It'll even stream automatically re-encoded video streams from my Windows 7 video library over wifi, including totally automatic discovery of my Windows 7 machine. This is the perfect setup--I have my machine set up far away from my TV, but all the content I have there is available on my TV.

SageTV (2)

RoccamOccam (953524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027876)

Google acquired SageTV several months back. Has anyone heard about Google's plans for the SageTV technology and developers?

An Internet device that can't play content (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028052)

I figured out it was a big mistake as soon as I found it wouldn't play content like Hulu or the networks. I'll go with a multi-media PC. Others here responded to me that it was great because it didn't have a noisy fan. I can't imagine buying this at any price, even a fire sale going out of business price. With a multi-media PC I can actually watch stuff on my TV, and play graphic intensive games on my big HD screen.

Curiously, the fix is rather simple, but they just don't do it: Let the browser ID itself as any stock PC browser rather than reveal that it is Google TV. Then the user could play the content that they want on it. Treating this as different than any other computer is stupid.

Of course, I would still avoid it because of the high price and the lock-in for even higher prices for accessories (anyone notice how expensive it is if you want to attach a web-cam to this? It doesn't take most inexpensive Logitech web-cams, just the overpriced Review web-cam.)

Re:An Internet device that can't play content (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028334)

Curiously, the fix is rather simple, but they just don't do it: Let the browser ID itself as any stock PC browser rather than reveal that it is Google TV. Then the user could play the content that they want on it. Treating this as different than any other computer is stupid.

you can set the user agent in the android browser. i don't know the issue, but i recall that this was not enough to fool hulu et al. i have no idea what else would be required though, either.

Re:An Internet device that can't play content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028502)

I believe it was that they were detecting it based on the user agent of the flash component, which you can't change.

Re:An Internet device that can't play content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028532)

The fix is rather simple, but they just don't do it: Let the browser ID itself as any stock PC browser rather than reveal that it is Google TV.

Holy shit, i can't imagine we missed that!!
wow, i suppose you should patent this idea and sell it to Google! you just saved their product!

Unfortunately the Browser Agent is really just ONE of about a bazillion parameters you can use to block a site, and - trying to use technical tricks to circumvent a business problem usually work out great.

now back to the basement!

Voice control and better remote control (1)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028090)

The future of TV user interfaces MUST include great voice control .. also the non voice UIs really suck .. I mean it's really difficult to do things that ought to be extremely simple.

What is the google TV experience, exactly? (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028202)

For people to desire the product, they have to fit a niche, and for that to happen, they have to raise awareness to attract potential users. I haven't heard anything about the "Google TV experience", I just know that it exists and have no desire to pursue it because I'm happy with my own xbmc-PC based solution, not to mention my TV and PS3 which both store and play media from USB devices and memory cards, and netflix on PS3 as well (which I don't subscribe to, I primarily just rip my own media and use xbmc as a jukebox). I don't even want Apple TV and I know what that is, and to me, Google TV sounds like something similar because of the branding (i.e. being locked in to a single vendor's DRM format), but I have no idea. I am attracted to DRM-free and commercial-free solutions, with permanent ownership and unlimited format shifting. Right now, ripping my own media seems like the best route.

Samsung SmartTV is not any better (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38028250)

Just in case anybody is wondering, after having my Samsung Smart-TV for a week, I concluded that it is not any better than google-tv. The TV is awesome and I am glad a purchased it, but the Smart-TV experience is cheap, slow, and full of bugs. Don't get me started on the half attempt at a web browser. I am guessing that all of these companies think they can put a half baked product together and sell millions just by entering the market first. My expectations is that the first company to dump money, research, time, and usabilty testing at this will become the leader. Apple, I am guessing, will be this company, but the verdict is still out.

Does not compute! (1)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028720)

You only get one shot with a hardware vendor like this. Most people *besides Microsoft* can't get away with burning hardware vendors.

These guys at Google live in a Google world, they think Google, breath Google, live Google and can't possibly imagine why people outside the Google Sphere aren't as excited about what they are doing as they are.

Someday Google may learn about Memetics and it's not about matching technical specifications and requirments.
You'd think they would because they are in a key position and have no idea how to capitalize on it.

BUY TIVO! (1)

jj00 (599158) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028868)

Just buy Tivo already! You want a stable platform, they need an app store, it's a match made in heaven!

Misstep (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38029016)

Logitech realizes jumping into TV market was a really strange and ill-planned leap for them, tries to blame failure on supplier. News at 11.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...