Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Nov 2011 22:17 UTC
Multimedia, AV "Yesterday, Logitech hosted an Analyst and Investor Day and during his remarks, CEO Guerrino De Luca pulled absolutely no punches in describing the 'mistakes' the company made with its Logitech Revue Google TV set top box. Calling the company's Christmas 2010 launch 'a mistake of implementation of a gigantic nature', De Luca told investors that the company had 'brought closure to the Logitech Revue saga' by making plans to let inventory run out this quarter and that there are 'no plans to introduce another box to replace Revue'."
Order by: Score:
Yet another dead Google product ...
by tomcat on Fri 11th Nov 2011 22:36 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

... not ready for prime time.

Reply Score: 4

v Only one flaw
by jefro on Fri 11th Nov 2011 22:43 UTC
RE: Only one flaw
by JAlexoid on Fri 11th Nov 2011 23:16 UTC in reply to "Only one flaw"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No, the first flaw was being convinced that an Intel based device can be cheap enough...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: RE: Only one flaw
by zima on Fri 18th Nov 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Only one flaw"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

By now, it's perhaps also the flawed expectation of people putting up with "yet another box" (also financially)

It's bizarre to me, overall: them pursuing with (essentially) "TV Android fork" some ~premium pricing, distancing themselves from the model which works so well for Android (aiming to be sort of everywhere, largely also via low price of the package).
While... consider how, say, the Raspberry-Pi (we know how inexpensive it is) essentially has all the power necessary by a ~set-top-box OS. Or how modern TVs, judging from the look and capabilities of their on-screen menus (of a ~year old, "typical"/inexpensive LED LCD LG, for example), already have internal HW which is not terribly far from R-Pi / from something which could run a platform derived from Android / from cheap (minus touchscreen, battery, and such) Chinese phones.

Maybe, by now, it's down to teaming up with several TV manufacturers, for something more like Sony Google TVs (but based on less ridiculous HW), less like Logitech Revue. Because the market of set-top-boxes seems to become cornered by more universal machines ( http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20110531222623_Micr... or http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20111006143107_Xbox... ).
Or, maybe Google TV will now be just pushed on Motorola Mobility set-top-boxes, however limited geographically their reach would be.

Edited 2011-11-19 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Only one flaw
by viton on Sat 12th Nov 2011 01:13 UTC in reply to "Only one flaw"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Intel aborted their consumer chipset division.
Pushing products without a future is not that "dummies at logitech" accept as healthy business plan.

and could be a great geek product
Oh well, this is a real game changer.

Edited 2011-11-12 01:26 UTC

Reply Score: 3

GoogleTV sucks
by Eugenia on Sat 12th Nov 2011 00:16 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

As an owner of a Google TV who paid money to get this buggy product (bugs even on the Blu-ray player part of the Sony combo GoogleTV/BD device, not just in the Android part), I can only say that it's a sucky product. I always said that, from the moment this stupid box arrived in my home and tried it, and will continue to say it unless they fix it. Their recent OS upgrade made things better look-wise, but the user experience is still bad, because the remote control is... uncontrollable and confusing.

As I also wrote at ArsTechnica's comments, the only thing that could save this product is new hardware with a simplified remote control (I wrote about it here: http://eugenia.queru.com/2011/01/28/googletv-nightmare-on-a-remote-... ), better more organic UI, a webcam for kinect-type usage and web chat, a Siri-like assistant, and a price of no more than $100 for a small box (no need for Intel CPUs and huge boxes as in the current GoogleTVs).

Regarding content, it requires an app by default like REDUX is, which it does curated videos from youtube and vimeo (not random crap). Unfortunately, REDUX's UI sucks, but their idea is sound. There are some gems out there, short films, documentaries, indie music videos, that can fully satisfy cord cutters (check the recent "Mobius" short film for example: http://vimeo.com/30215350 ). Then, Netflix and Hulu should be offered for free for 3 months (like an extended trial). And because some people don't want on-demand TV (e.g. http://vimeo.com/19300498 ), carry by default the top-6 US broadcasting TV channels (ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS, CW, PBS). Instead of expecting from cord cutters to buy an external antenna, stream these channels by making some deals with them. Make the cord-cutting or switch less painful! Also, they should make deals with other providers and TVs from all over the world.

Anyways, there ARE ways to make a TV device useful, and the above are only some of my ideas about how to better this system. But so far, neither GoogleTV does it right for the reasons I mentioned above, neither Roku (too small to make a peep, no youtube, but otherwise nice TV experience), or AppleTV (no apps, their youtube app is censored).

From all three devices, the Roku remains my favorite: http://eugenia.queru.com/2011/03/28/six-months-with-the-roku/ And this is how it should be done in my opinion, to fix all these issues: http://eugenia.queru.com/2010/11/18/why-web-tv-hasnt-taken-off/

Edited 2011-11-12 00:31 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: GoogleTV sucks
by clasqm on Sat 12th Nov 2011 10:01 UTC in reply to "GoogleTV sucks"
clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

Interesting blog post, Eugenia, and sadly, the passage of a year has not improved the situation. But the most important point you made is buried right at the end:

"Stop the per-country madness"

There are around 6.6 billion of us NOT living in the US. In South Africa, for example the only way I can get full functionality on iTunes and the AppleTV is to break the law and set up a fake US iTunes account. It happens, people quite openly admit it on the discussion forums around here.

Fire up the Hulu or Netflix websites and you get vague excuses for not being available in your country. Meanwhile, I can email and tweet with people all over the planet. The first content provider that truly goes global will be raking in the money.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: GoogleTV sucks
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 12th Nov 2011 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE: GoogleTV sucks"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You are assuming that content companies are financially disadvantaged by having regional licensing deals. As large for profit enterprises, I don't think they would share your opinion on how to maximize their profits.

I think they realize that while advertisers in the untied states may be wiling to pay X us dollars per 1000 views by Us residents, in other countries they want to pay nothing for Non us residents that would be unlikely to buy their products. Meanwhile, Advertisers in other countries may be willing to pay a smaller amount for viewers in their region.

So you have a system whereby the revenues are variable, but the costs ( to provide the service) are fixed.

Is it "fair" to average consumers, no not really. Even though I'm in the US, I have never ever bought anything after clicking on a web ad of any kind. So I'm as useful an individual for advertising as anyone elsewhere.

Summary: Its more complex than " let everyone view everything anytime and you'll be rich", Or at least the analysis that would lead to that conclusion would be more complex. Answers without the logic that leads to them are often worthless.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: GoogleTV sucks
by Fergy on Sat 12th Nov 2011 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GoogleTV sucks"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I think they realize that while advertisers in the untied states may be wiling to pay X us dollars per 1000 views by Us residents, in other countries they want to pay nothing for Non us residents that would be unlikely to buy their products. Meanwhile, Advertisers in other countries may be willing to pay a smaller amount for viewers in their region.

Who said anything about advertising? We would like to buy the content. And it should be available to anyone that is willing to pay. Otherwise can you really blame us for torrenting?

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: GoogleTV sucks
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 13th Nov 2011 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GoogleTV sucks"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Hulu is ad supported. It is one of the services mentioned. A simular problem also exists for straight up buying. I know this isn't a popular answer for people who just want to pay for media at a fair price, but maximizing revenue isn't a s simple as letting everyone buy it at the same price.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: GoogleTV sucks
by zima on Fri 18th Nov 2011 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: GoogleTV sucks"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They're really doing great (for example http://www.kyon.pl/img/18611,piracy,linux,torrent,.html ) with that "maximizing revenue" approach...

Reply Score: 2

RE: GoogleTV sucks
by emerson999 on Wed 16th Nov 2011 01:04 UTC in reply to "GoogleTV sucks"
emerson999 Member since:
2007-12-08

Roku (too small to make a peep, no youtube, but otherwise nice TV experience)


I know there's a good chance you just discounted it for not being part of the default setup, as I would as well, but I thought I'd add that one can add an unofficial youtube app to roku. I've mostly just used it to play back playlists from my youtube account rather than searching for new content, but all in all it's been pretty solid. Though a bit of a pain for most people to set up at this point.

It's really a pity the roku has never really caught on. I've been pretty happy with it for the good amount of years I've carried the thing around from move to move.

Reply Score: 1

lots of blame to go around
by TechGeek on Sat 12th Nov 2011 01:03 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

There is lots of blame to go around. No one held a gun to logitech's head to make them ship the product. I am sure they also had some say over the remote since that was specific to their product. we can also blame the studios for not allowing their content to be easily accessible at ANY price. Your best option? Stop watching TV. Really, vote with your dollar that this situation is not going to be tolerated.

Reply Score: 4

Can't Argue...
by galvanash on Sat 12th Nov 2011 03:11 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Had one. Spent an hour or two trying to do something useful with it and gave up after realizing how braindead it was. I really don't have a clue what they were thinking. A (jailbroken) Apple TV or a Boxee or Roku are all infinitely more useful.

I will say one thing though. The keyboard was _very_ nice, but the mouse pad was horrible. If that keyboard had a solid pointing device I would have wanted it for my Media Computer (light, small, had a nice feel, etc.).

But for the Revue? I don't get it - designing such a device with a full keyboard for a remote doesn't make sense to me. And from my understanding that was Google's call - not Logitech's. I mean I get having a keyboard as an option for some people who really want one - but you should be able to operate it 95% of the time with a simple remote...

I use jailbroken Apple TVs now on every TV in my house. Apple TV + XBMC = $99 Nirvana

Edited 2011-11-12 03:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

*TV = Failed product
by Neolander on Sat 12th Nov 2011 08:29 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Apple has failed, Google has failed... Maybe it's time to consider the idea that people are not interested in a crippled mac mini to plug in their TV. That the functionality is simply not worth the financial cost, encumbrance, and setup time.

The idea of extra TV features may have potential, though, but only if people don't buy an expensive product just for them. That is, if the features are integrated in another product or service : a good TV set, a video game console, or an ADSL plan.

Just saying...

Reply Score: 2

RE: *TV = Failed product
by ricegf on Sat 12th Nov 2011 13:14 UTC in reply to "*TV = Failed product"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Yes, it's almost as if TV and computing are divergent product categories.

I was rather enthused about the concept of MeeGo on both TV and mobile platforms, mostly due to expectations that they would interact at least somewhat seamlessly. But not much progress was made before it faded into the sunset.

Perhaps the vision just fundamentally clashes with reality. Haven't thought it through yet, but still disappointed. Oh, well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: *TV = Failed product
by Neolander on Sat 12th Nov 2011 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: *TV = Failed product"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I'm not sure they are fundamentally incompatible, but I think that there is one remote and AUX channel too much in current solutions, where you have a TV and a separate box connected to it.

The AUX channel problem would be addressed by bringing back a very useful feature of the analog days. In the past, it was possible to make TVs switch to any connected SCART device (VCR, paid television decoder) simply by turning said device on. Why was that functionality removed in the HDMI successor ? I have no idea.

As for inconsistent remote workflow, I have seen IP TV setups which use a handful of dedicated remote buttons (channel grid, enter, exit, and arrows) to great effect. Guess other "smart TV" devices should take inspiration from that.

And then there is again the issue of convenience. The core reason why my parents use TV over ADSL and not a better-working satellite setup, to the best of my knowledge, is that with ADSL, you subscribe to a monthly plan with the ISP, they give you a white box to connect to your router and TV, and it (mostly) works. Satellite is far from beating this setup simplicity and low initial cost.

If so many video game consoles have managed to deal well with TV sets, it proves that computer-TV interaction is possible, if done properly ;)

Edited 2011-11-12 14:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: *TV = Failed product
by ricegf on Sat 12th Nov 2011 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: *TV = Failed product"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

You're probably right. I wonder if the concern is the possibility that convergence would simplify copying?

And Big Media is so focused on protecting their share of the pie from copyright infringers that they are artificially limiting the size of the pie. Penny wise but pound foolish, as they say.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: *TV = Failed product
by ElCabri2 on Sun 13th Nov 2011 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: *TV = Failed product"
ElCabri2 Member since:
2009-03-11

HDMI does have a feature called "CEC" that allows mutual control between the TV and devices. Unfortunately it really only works when both are the same brand. Each brands has its own name for the implementation. Sony is "BRAVIA Sync", Samsung is "Anynet+" for example. I used to have a Sony BD player on a BRAVIA TV and it worked wonderfully. Turning on, switching to the correct AUX, turning off. And either remote could cover 100% of the control of the other without any setup. Also a BRAVIA TV remote can control the BD playing functions of a PS3 slim.

I replaced the TV with a Samusung one and now the only thing that works is the TV turning on when the BD player does. I'm seriously considering changing the BD player just for that reason. Maybe I'll find a person who's in the reverse situation and would like to trade.

Reply Score: 2

RE: *TV = Failed product
by tomcat on Mon 14th Nov 2011 23:30 UTC in reply to "*TV = Failed product"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Apple has failed, Google has failed... Maybe it's time to consider the idea that people are not interested in a crippled mac mini to plug in their TV. That the functionality is simply not worth the financial cost, encumbrance, and setup time.

The idea of extra TV features may have potential, though, but only if people don't buy an expensive product just for them. That is, if the features are integrated in another product or service : a good TV set, a video game console, or an ADSL plan.

Just saying...


Here's a really bad bit of news for Apple and Google.

Gamebeat: Game consoles most popular device for watching online content on a TV screen

http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/07/report-game-consoles-most-popular...

Jobs didn't "crack TV" at all. I don't think he really ever understood it. There is a convergence device, but it's probably the same one being used to play videogames every day: the game console.

Reply Score: 2

You are using the wrong OS on this then
by jefro on Sat 12th Nov 2011 15:47 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

Look, this is a better design than my small Lenovo Q150. The Q150 is just enough to be useful but it runs windows 7 and that means media center and the ability to use silicondust receiver. I prefer an antenna as it gets me additional channels that I can't get anywhere else.

If this box would just the single option to have a usb boot then it would have sold. All you guys are saying is that it sucks because the OS. I agree that some people seems to have a poor unit (after all prisoners in China make them).

This little box if opened would have been a great linux setup for tv. I don't want to run the latest games on it, just want to watch normal tv and record some shows and play some internet. This box is both energy efficient and powerful enough to do what most people would want.

Edited 2011-11-12 15:48 UTC

Reply Score: 0

A Change Is Waiting
by tony on Sun 13th Nov 2011 12:53 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

Like a small but growing number of people, I've abandoned cable for an Internet-only setup. With Internet, Cable/HDDVR, Phone (I need a land line), it was approaching $200 a month, and that's without HBO/Showtime, and 98% of the channels I never watch (seriously, Cartoon Network, SciFI, BBC America, Comedy Central is 95% of what I watch).

AppleTV is my current choice, because it works well with the content I already have and it's super easy. I don't rip anything (I haven't bought a DVD or Bluray in a long time), and I'm not interested in searching around for Torrents. Between that and Netflix (super easy interface for Netflix on the AppleTV) I barely noticed I don't have cable.

Youtube support could be better (not everything shows up in search), but it's way better than my Samsung BluRay player's interface.

It's clear this is the way content will be viewed in the future, but the future is being held up by cable companies and traditional TV models. It'll be a while before it happens unfortunately. I give up quite a bit (not everything is available via iTunes or Amazon).

Amazon, not Google, is the company in the best position to pull something like this off. Given Netflix's current troubles, I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon bought them.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by robojerk
by robojerk on Sun 13th Nov 2011 20:15 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

I don't get why Logitech is bashing the product they partnered with Google on here. Unless they recently partnered with Apple, or plan to roll out their own device to compete with Google TV, this seems like unneeded, and unprofessional drama. I get there's issues with Google TV, namely that it's an unfinished product that they were charging $300 for.

I think Google should just finally open source it (if not already in ICS). Let the homebrew crowd tweak it to something more useful. I'm sure the content owners will slowly roll out ways to get TV on AndroidOS either through apps, Flash or HTML5. HTML5, when the spec is finalized, seems like it would be the choice considering iOS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by robojerk
by tomcat on Mon 14th Nov 2011 23:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by robojerk"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I don't get why Logitech is bashing the product they partnered with Google on here. Unless they recently partnered with Apple, or plan to roll out their own device to compete with Google TV, this seems like unneeded, and unprofessional drama. I get there's issues with Google TV, namely that it's an unfinished product that they were charging $300 for


Because Logitech has shareholders, and they have to explain their poor performance. It wasn't optional.

Reply Score: 2