Logitech just presented their first GoogleTV product, the Revue. I’ve written many times about how the TV is the next big device to get revolutionized. Unfortunately, I personally just don’t think that the Revue is “it.” Warning: an impulsive, reactionary, but also honest rant is following.
Basing my analysis on their presentation, specs, videos, current reporting of other sites, here are some of the things I disliked on the (over-priced) product. For starters, it has four different remote controls, a good indication that there’s confusion and hazy vision on Logitech’s part. Simply, none of these controllers is right. Let’s take them one by one:
– A full wireless keyboard? Really? Who wants such a massive thing on their lap while sitting on their living room? Except for a few geeks, this is a no-no.
– The mini-wireless keyboard is just a traditional keyboard, with smaller keys. No innovation there. Innovation would have been if that mini-controller was also a game controller, pushing GoogleTV into one more market (since Android is getting quite a few new games lately). Oh, and $129 is very steep.
– The IR blaster is taking me back to 1969. ‘nuf said. Kill it already.
– The Android/iOS app is the only one that I accept as a good, modern solution. Problem is, ONE look at it, and you realize that Logitech does not have the Apple touch. The app is FULL of buttons! Compare this app to Apple’s Remote app, and you would break down crying. When you have a remote control that it’s basing its abilities on individual buttons for every possible action, rather than a more simple *organic* UI design, it’s a tell-tell sign of a two-way problem:
1. The remote itself is overwhelming, and slow to operate.
2. The remote is overwhelming, simply because the UI design of the main device is badly done.
And this brings me to the main device’s UI design. Which has nothing new on it in terms of modern UI from what I can tell by watching their videos. Why does it have to be Apple the only company that knows how to design good, modern, organic UIs? From what I’ve seen from the GoogleTV videos so far, it’s just old school TV UI. No major innovation there.
Then, there’s the problem of the webcam. My main problem is that their video-chat is simply a closed system (“Logitech Vid”). No Gtalk, no Skype, no Fring, no Y!, no MSN, no iChat, no FaceTime (which are today’s most popular video chat systems). It’s just yet another video chat system, which is incompatible with everything else and only a handful of people use. There was no indication that their future SDK will include support for that webcam so third parties can write video-chat apps for the Revue. So why the heck would I buy and use that? My mom, who has an Ubuntu netbook with a webcam, has access to GTalk video chat, and Skype. Pretty standard stuff. But nooo… Logitech wanted to re-invent the wheel, essentially creating a useless service. And they ask for $129 for it.
Then, there’s no Android Market yet. Netflix is an old version (no “search” function). Hulu is not there yet (still under negotiations, Logitech said — which means that we’re probably at least a year away from it). RDIO/MOG/Spotify not there yet (Pandora is just radio rather than on-demand music, so it doesn’t cut it for me). Also, where’s LIVE TV of the 5 big TV US channels (FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, CW)? Instead of bending over to Dish Network, why not also have individual agreements with these 5 networked channels, which are the BASIC channels, and have them stream directly via Google’s servers? Basically, what I’m saying here is that GoogleTV could also have been a stand-alone TV device in its own right, if it could stream the live feed of the 5 most basic TV channels. Why? Because not everyone has cable/satellite, or want it. I’m personally considering unsubscribing from Comcast, in light of Netflix/HuluPlus on my PS3, and an aerial antenna for these 5 basic TV channels. These three solutions, can easily live inside GoogleTV. This could make GoogleTV (aside the sports channels and HBO), a complete TV solution for a major percentage of consumers in the US.
The good things: connected hard drives, voice search, DLNA support, Chrome. It stops right there for my needs.
What’s missing from this product is vision in terms of usability. Google seems to have the vision regarding revolutionizing the TV, but they don’t seem to have UI designers that can pop the cherry and give Apple a run for its money. And the lack of actual live TV streaming of the 5 basic channels is a thorn.
In many ways, this product reminds me the first versions of Android: sucky UI, no clear direction, missing features. Which means that I might look into a GoogleTV device in 1-2 years from now. Not today though.
PS. I find the AppleTV equally useless btw. Just not the kind of revolutionized TV I was looking for. Not enough “revolution” in it.
The real GTalk (not the @#%#$’d up “web” version) doesn’t support any cams at all, so … huh?
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.
agreed
That or you’re going to have to build your own TV.
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.
TV’s like that are on the market. They are called media center PC’s.
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
The article and this comment are misleading about app market. There is no market on launch, but they said it is coming in 2011.
The smartphone app has voice command, but I wonder if the mic in the camera may some day enable voice search and command.
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?
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
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.
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.
Logitech stated during the announcement today that apps can use the webcam. Nothing will prevent skype from creating an app which uses it.
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.
I actually doubt iChat has more users using video than Skype. I personally know not a single person using iChat whereas even those who have Macs prefer to use Skype. iChat is also limited to a single platform whereas Skype is available atleast for a few.
iChat?
I’m more interested to see what protocol Microsoft is going to throw at us for Video chat through Xbox 360 with Kinect.
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
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?
And here I thought the only problem was it required a HDTV to use.
I would agree with you if this was 2005. It isn’t even available today and you can get 720p TV’s with HDMI for under $300. The product is aimed at early adopters, not everyone else.
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
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
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
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.
This is really my quesion. Can any of them boot to what I want?
Wy would you want to boot an OS on your TV? Stop being a jackass.