Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-10
It’s all about the money. It’s companies doing backroom deals with each other trying to wrangle the biggest slice of the pie and gain a monopoly. Why did Google allow Logitech’s proprietary and useless webcam software? Money. Why did they omit basic TV features? Money. (cable networks fearing change)
None of the companies involved here are in it to give you a good TV experience. They are in it to extract as much cash from you, and each other. There is simply no changing this.
Some big companies are going to have to fold before you get the perfect TV experience you want.
Member since:2007-03-26
Member since:
2006-01-04
Just give me a good CPU, enough RAM and fast network connection in an open package and I will do the rest.
I just want the whole shebang integrated into the TV (same wall plug and just a overlay over the normal TV)
Once TVs like that are on the market a whole explosion of useful programs/hacks will appear.
Member since:2006-05-12
Member since:
2006-01-10
The price bothers me. I blame Intel's involvement for being at least $100 overpriced.
I also have some questions about how it interfaces with DVR's like, do I have to use the IR Blasters?
No Hulu is bothersome, but there are other websites for the shows I watch. I think it's shame HBOgo requires a cable subscription. Short sightedness on their part. Where's Showtime?
No Market is damn near criminal if you ask me. If Logitech will allow other apps (Gtalk, Facetime, etc.) access to the webcam then I can see a lot of people putting it to good use (video porn?) to it. Still, no Market means it's not available.
I kind of like the UI. It's setup to be navigated with a remote. Both the OP and I haven't actually gotten a chance to use the UI so I'm still waiting to see before I really give it praise or ridicule it.
Edited 2010-10-06 23:00 UTC
Member since:2009-07-07
Member since:
2005-09-21
I like how you hold up Logitech Vid as a closed and new network, while at the same time mentioning Facetime as a big popular network along the likes of Skype.
Logitech Vid has been around longer than Facetime. If you're going to lambast Logitech for not interfacing with a popular network that's fine, but Facetime is even worse. Why couldn't Apple just hook into Skype?
Member since:2005-06-28
Practically speaking, Facetime is more popular than Logitech Vid. The vast majority of people who buy Logitech cams don't use the chat software installed. They use their cams with Skype instead.
Besides, Facetime is supposed to be an open standard.
Edited 2010-10-06 23:22 UTC
Member since:2009-07-07
Facetime is based on SIP (new and improved you could say):
http://blog.imtc.org/index.php/2010/06/09/the-technology-behind-app...
But so is Logitech Vid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SightSpeed
So, there is a chance these products will converge towards interoperability.
Member since:2005-07-06
Logitech Vid has been around longer than Facetime. If you're going to lambast Logitech for not interfacing with a popular network that's fine, but Facetime is even worse. Why couldn't Apple just hook into Skype?
Skype is a closed proprietary protocol and Facetime is a technology that utilised open standard technology - doesn't it therefore sound fucking ridiculous to rant on about Facetime whilst ignoring the proprietary nature of Skype? I certainly think it sounds fucking ridiculous.
Member since:
2005-12-13
Member since:2005-06-28
This is good to hear. However, this does not bail out Logitech from blame. It will be at least a full year before Skype offers a video chat ability for Google TV. They still haven't even done it for the iPhone, which is their main non-desktop market.
Logitech should have gone with the current defaults: iChat first and foremost (it has the most video chat users than any other protocol), and then they should have had a Skype deal too. These are things that had to be worked on before this presentation today, not awaiting third parties to do the job for them -- many, many months later.
Member since:2006-02-15
Member since:2006-01-10
Member since:2005-09-21
I don't believe that for a minute. First of all, the only people that could possibly be using Facetime are iPhone 4 users, and while sales are strong, just owning an iPhone does not make you a Facetime user, just like owning a mac does not make you an iChat user even though it comes with the program. Heck I own a mac and an iphone 4 and have never used either iChat or Facetime. Logitech Vid has been out for over a year at least and comes with every Logitech webcam. Neither of them are what you might call popular, but I'd pitch them about even in unpopularity.
And iChat having more users than Skype? Ha! Where's the numbers? Skype has over 500 million accounts and over 45 million daily users.
The real WTF is that Facetime doesn't work with iChat.
Edited 2010-10-07 01:14 UTC
Member since:2006-05-12
The only way to have a subset of 3rd party apps available on release day is to work with those vendors before the release. Based on what criteria are 3rd party vendors chosen for this early access?
Why not just launch a platform, and then when /everyone/ gets access to that platform they can start developing apps on it.
Let the early adopters well, adopt early, and the 2nd generation product will address most the launch day criticisms of the first one.
Why not?
Member since:
2010-05-14
Member since:2006-05-12
Member since:
2005-07-12
Is that for $100 less you can get a ION+Atom powered NetTop like the Acer Revo or Lenovo Ideacenter with Win7 on it that will do everything that does and MORE.
or for $50 more you can get a ION backed 1.8ghz dual core Atom that blows it completely out of the water.
Sure in both cases you might have to drop $10-$20 on a remote (like the Diamond All in Wonder USB), but I guarantee it will be a better rig overall.
More than anything, it's the price-point on what is basically a total joke for hardware and capabilities that spells the doom of these toys. If it was price pointed at $100 we'd be cheering it from the rooftops. At $300 it's a case of "mother ***** you out of your god ***** mind?!?"
Happy owner of a Acer Revo as his media center PC checking in while watching "Burn Notice" in 1080P on it!
Edited 2010-10-07 01:12 UTC
Member since:
2010-03-08
Why should the TV change as much as dropping the remote ? It would alienate current TV users ("Look ! It's a computer ! Complicated, unreliable, inefficient junk, burn it !") and it would not magically make people who hate this passive video media come back.
Edited 2010-10-07 05:43 UTC
Member since:
2010-10-07
The only 'real' innovation I have seen lately, is the inclusion of Plex on LG TV's in 2011. All the media apps you can throw a stick at (netflix, hulu etc etc), and will also stream your local media (up to 1080p) in almost any format, without a hitch. One remote, and one device to rule them all. The logitech announcement is just one big fail so far..in comparision. Even though it technically provides more 'features'.
http://www.plexapp.com/press_LG.php
Edited 2010-10-07 07:17 UTC
Member since:
2006-01-26
Or maybe I am missing is the fact that this is a box that sits between your TV and your cable/DSS receiver. So look at it like this:
Cable/DSS ($60/month, basic+ channels worth having)
Internet ($60/month for a speed worth having)
$300 for Logitech Revue
I cant ditch my Cable/DSS for this thing. It will be ad supported in the coming year (Yes, Google has said as much). So not only will I have to deal with the ads on broadcast channels, but also ads showing up somewhere in the UI for the appliance itself whenever I access it. And my cost for entertainment has gone up, not down.
Why do I want apps on my TV? I want to watch TV. If apps can supplement my viewing experience they shouldn't relegate my TV viewing to a small corner of my 65" screen. The presentations Google and Logitech have provided show the device overwhelming the TV experience, not enhancing it.
Im not seeing a reason for broadcast networks supporting it either. If they make their money from ad placement via commercials and charge based on viewership, Google will supplant them since they'll be acting as middle man (where the box sits) during content delivery. No advertiser is going to pay ABC, and then Google to show the same ad during the same show.
For right now, its an answer with no discernible problem.
Member since:
2007-04-13
Member since:2006-01-26