
Logitech CEO: Google TV a 'gigantic mistake' - taylorbuley
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/11/logitech_googletv_gigantic_mistake/
======
science_police
Blaming their failure on Google is just Bullshit. Logitech's Support for the
Revue is abysmal. They are rude in the forums to their users and constantly
take the approach of "it's the software" and "that's google's responsibility"
however their system is closed and the don't allow developers to make
modifications if necessary. It's been three weeks and I still haven't had my
3.1 Honeycomb update appear as an option to upgrade. (something Logitech
should just have as a download on their site)

The revue/gtv was supposed to be the new (original) Xbox. The perfect media
device, not only will it play all your movies, you can browse the internet on
it. The Logitech Media player doesn't play particular formats, sucks at
search, needs to reconnect constantly over wifi and is generally just plagued
with issues.

Here is what they need to do to save the Revue.

1\. Samba & DLNA (no samba was an epic mistake, the original xbox had samba
ffs) 2\. Make it open so users can hack it and modify it for their needs. If
you hack it, no warranty or support from Logitech (just like Microsoft and the
Xbox). Make it near impossible to brick. If I fuck it up, I should be able to
restore easily. 3\. Update the Media Player and have it use VLC so it plays
all videos (or something of that nature)

Here is what they should be demanding from Google 1\. Don't assume I live in
America. 2\. Allow the community to help out in the development and testing of
the revue and have a release cycle similar to Chrome.

I use my Revue as a Media Centre and while I love it, it isn't perfect and I
think both Logitech and Google have made mistakes. But step up, admit it, fix
the issues, listen to the community.

/rant

~~~
jsz0
_Logitech's Support for the Revue is abysmal_

That would explain low customer satisfaction post-purchase but does not
explain the terrible sales. People just didn't buy the thing.

I think the problem is Google TV attempts to give you a more awkward interface
to things you would rather use a tablet or SmartPhone for. Who wants to browse
the web on their TV? Post to Twitter from their TV? It's absurd really. No one
wants to do that. People want to watch video on their TV and play games.
Google TV played video but you had to pay $300, or about $200-$250 more than
competing devices, and didn't play games. It cost as much as a modern gaming
console. If it was $100 and had good integration with SmartPhones and tablets
it would at least be a pretty good accessory for some people who didn't want a
gaming console. Google didn't learn from Apple & Microsoft's mistakes.

~~~
tdfx
Aside from the low sales (they never truly explained the benefit of it), my
friend from Best Buy also noted that it had an astronomical return rate. No
ordinary consumers made it past the setup phase. And, in certain Comcast
markets, Google TV isn't compatible (read: cannot be used with) the default
Comcast cable boxes.

------
rdl
The killer app for these things, I think, is porn. Unlike Apple, Google seems
fairly porn-friendly.

If I were a subscription porn service, I'd figure out how to bundle Google TV
boxes with a subscription. Add a webcam or something and there would be a huge
opportunity to upsell.

I'm actually pretty happy with my $99 Revue just as a Netflix box, but I think
with an AppleTV, Xbox 360, PS3, Macbook Pro, PC, and Revue, I'm kind of set
for Netflix playback options.

It might also be an interesting digital signage box, especially when built
into TV sets.

~~~
idspispopd
Porn isn't a killer app for anyone, it already has a saturated path to
consumers.

A killer app has to be something unique that demonstrates the devices unique
ability over other technology.

It's trivial to browse to a porn site on my phone, I can do it privately and
without the universal access of what is essentially bookmarked porn sites on a
machine located in arms reach of anyone who visits my home.

------
bickfordb
I don't have a Revue, but I really like my Sony Google TV. It's the best
television I have ever owned. It was probably a mistake releasing it without
finishing the SDK / App feature (which they just released a few weeks ago,
almost a year after the launch).

~~~
jessedhillon
I'll second this. Google TV was a must for me because it drastically reduces
the interaction I have with the abysmal set-top UIs (first Comcast, now Dish).
I briefly considered the Revue but passed, mainly because I don't want to
replace my remote with huge keyboard + trackpad -- on that basis alone one
could have predicted the failure of the Revue.

Who could seriously pitch a general consumer device which requires you to
replace your remote with a _full-sized keyboard_?

I have a Boxee Box as well, but Google TV and Boxee occupy distinct (if
somewhat overlapping) niches. I use Boxee primarily to playback media on my
network -- Boxee's UI is horrible for playing back web content, it frequently
fails either/both to get the content or to enlarge it to full screen. But for
presenting an organized view of your library and playing back a file on the
network it's perfect.

Google TV, on the other hand, handles Youtube and other web-based sources of
video very well. And as of the new update, it does a really good job of
presenting you with a comprehensive view of what's on TV. Not like the stale
program guide that all STBs have -- it actually segregates currently playing
shows and movies into genres. Supposedly it will be able to make
recommendations too.

TL;DR -- I'm not at all dissatisfied with my Google TV.

------
felipemnoa
I don't really like the idea of buying another external box. When I heard they
were building these boxes I scratched my head and said, why? That is so
1990's. I already have a computer for that and can hook it up to my flat
screen TV.

Now, Google TV embedded on a flat screen TV, that is interesting, no external
components/boxes to deal with. My next Flat screen TV will have Google TV. Is
like buying a computer and a TV. I will certainly be looking to build Apps for
it once I get one.

A huge market for this will be for people that just want to chat/interface (or
play games) with other people and for that they don't really need a computer.

~~~
devicenull
And then when the embedded Google TV becomes outdated, and there's no more
software updates being published for it? You get left with an expensive TV
that you have to buy the latest Google TV device for anyway.

I want my TV to do nothing else except display pictures. I can handle hooking
other devices up to it to get my content.

------
protomyth
Android got a good start because mobile phones are an established market that
customers have a need for. HTC and the other Android partners know how to make
phones with the polish needed. Android could start without all the software
ready to go.

Google TV is in a market with no breakout use case. It also had certain
players actively against it. The experience really needed to be polished and
desirable. The SDK needed to be complete and allow developers to build apps to
make customers go wow. It really needed a lot more refinement before
introduction.

------
jroseattle
This simply points out the difficulty in taking a half-baked system (like
Google TV) and marrying it with a not-so-competent partner (like Logitech.)

Plenty of blame to go around in this scenario.

------
i386
What I think was an absolutely fatal mistake with the Google TV was announcing
that it was going to be open to developers and not delivering on the SDK until
over a year later.

Fine, there was no hardware released to target it but they could have been
building their developer community since the announcement day. Perhaps then
they could have at least a chance proving to the networks and content
companies that their platform had a chance of being viable.

------
cldwalker
I understand why it wasn't popular with the public, they don't care about key
customization and expect a TV replacement not just a gateway to the internet.
But as a programmable, cheap and pretty interface to the web, I have only good
things to say about this box. Love the ability to customize any key, love the
$99 price tag and the UI is only getting better. This is a box for us, not the
hoi polloi.

------
antidaily
_But since the service isn’t supported by ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, or Viacom,
there’s not much to watch on it_

Sounds like Joost.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
Well, at least there's Netflix, Amazon VOD and Prime, and crackle; but _still_
no Hulu Plus, no Vudu, no {abc|cbs|nbc|fox}.com video. It's kinda dead in the
water without even _one_ of those above.

------
kbatten
I don't understand why you have to "develop hardware" for this. Unless you are
willing to produce hardware at a loss its already incredibly cheap to take off
the shelf parts and put together a media box. To me it sounds like a lot of
over engineering and blatant waste of resources.

------
toyg
I wonder if "operational miscues in EMEA" means "no marketing whatsoever".
This is the first time I hear about GoogleTV, and I live in the UK. If you
launch something as mainstream as this, you better have a marketing campaign
to go with it.

~~~
notatoad
do you use adblock? for a couple months, logitech revue was easily the most
frequently seen banner on the web for me.

~~~
toyg
I do use adblock, but i meant things like roadside advertising. I saw plenty
of those when they pushed Chrome, none for revue. I don't watch much tv, but
my friends do and they never mentioned it.

------
ethank
My consolation with my GoogleTV is that I didn't pay for it, and its
transparent enough in terms of day to day use of the TV where I don't usually
see it, and I'm too lazy to disconnect it.

Our one and only use of it has been to rent content on Amazon VOD.

------
athst
This is pretty funny. Reminds me of how Steve Jobs dismissed it at the D
conference when Google TV originally launched by saying something like "Google
will find out in 6 months" how difficult the TV market is.

~~~
idspispopd
Apple have had small success in coercing content providers to engage a la
carte digital distribution, often by leveraging Job's close ties with Disney
(he was the largest share holder, and sold them Pixar.) With Disney on board
the other networks would have to provide content or potentially face giving
Disney a head start in online.

The commercial failure of this device was predictable: The largest issue is
that consumers will reject the devices if they don't have a wide and reliable
range of content, this is something which google has less experience in, and
it's why Apple secured some serious content before launching. (Again those
Disney ties.)

The challenge Google face is that the video media industries are determined to
keep their existing business models and are fearful of what happened to the
music industry. (Where Apple/other digital distributors are now able to
dictate better terms for consumers.) For example the movie industry still
wants the consumer to go to the cinema, watch it in 3d, then later rent it,
then sell it to a TV network for viewing, sell it again to you on it's own as
a dvd, then later as a bluray disc, and then possibly 3D as well, finally
again as special editions/1&2&3 bundle pack/ or extended edition. A single
digital distribution takes away this ability to resell the exact same content
again and again, and this is why they're fighting these kinds of distribution
methods, they don't want a googleTV product which could become ubiquitous,
forcing out all of the other ways they can resell content to you.

------
methodin
They really need to get game makers on board. Having the ability to transfer
and play games from a phone to the tv would be a pretty awesome thing.

