5 ms·

Logitech CEO: Google TV a 'gigantic mistake'

54 points by taylorbuley 15y ago

antidaily 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
science_police 15y ago
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
- r00fus 15y ago
  Though I agree with you, what's to say that Google (as a proxy for their content suppliers) didn't nix the idea of an open system?
  - science_police 15y ago
    If this is the case, then say so. Still doesn't excuse no Samba (build it in to Logitech Media Player) or Logitech Media player being so poor regarding playback.
- omfg 15y ago
  Sounds like you want a Boxee box.
  - science_police 15y ago
    I have Boxee through the Apple TV, however I want to be able to search the Internet at command, Picture in Picture out while changing settings etc. GoogleTV and Revue got so close, just never followed through.
- edge17 15y ago
  I have a revue (and it's a piece of shit in my opinion), to not partly blame Google is ridiculous. Sure, Logitech should be responsible for supporting their hardware however Google hasn't done much in the way of damage control. If they wanted to do Google TV justice, then they would have dealt with the problem whether or not it was their responsibility. Instead they let the Logitech Revue tarnish it. To build a successful brand up from its bootstraps, pulling only your own weight is simply not enough. Google did not do enough. I have done brand building for my companies, and there are times when I have had to put out fires that weren't directly responsible for creating.
- mturmon 15y ago
  Logitech's ability to develop solid software for other products hasn't been that strong. They bought Slim Devices, a Valley startup which developed a set of networked audio players. The Slim software and team seemed quite strong, but development of new players and software upgrades have really slowed down since the acquisition. And, there was a botched player release (I forget which unit it was, but it was the same deal as the Revue -- released before ready).
bickfordb 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
jroseattle 15y ago
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.
toyg 15y ago
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 15y ago
  do you use adblock? for a couple months, logitech revue was easily the most frequently seen banner on the web for me.
  - dman 15y ago
    ads are pretty contextual today. Its entirely possible that different people never see any ads in common.
  - toyg 15y ago
    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.
protomyth 15y ago
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.
rdl 15y ago
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.
- tdfx 15y ago
  Google TV tried to do too much too soon and failed at everything. They tried to beat TiVo without a built-in DVR. They tried to take on Apple without iTunes-enabled streaming from computers. They obviously can't touch XBox with what they've got. They tried to replace PC-based media centers and fell short with a clunky version of Chrome and a terrible app-based experience (HBO Go, the thing with the most promise, is horrific to use on Google TV). Some problems can be fixed with incremental software updates, but others are doomed by their lack of foresight. I'm all about releasing early and iterating, but at least understand the right time to pivot.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  The killer app for these things is some fucking content, and that's never going to happen. Copyright holders are lounging around trying to figure out the best way to gauge as much money as possible out of consumers and distributors, and every day they sit on their fat asses finding new ways to degrade service across the board is another day that many thousands of people get comfortable with distribution methods completely out of their control and through which they derive no revenue (i.e. piracy, of course). I wouldn't buy one of these things even if they did have content. Who knows if so-and-so would pull the plug after a year or two. The time for this kind of device was ten years ago. The ship has sailed because consumers have absolutely no trust in any of this shit, nor should they. And I'd be quite satisfied with the whole spectacle if they weren't also dismantling civil rights and ruining the internet in the process.
- idspispopd 15y ago
  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.
methodin 15y ago
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.
felipemnoa 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
kbatten 15y ago
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.
athst 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
cldwalker 15y ago
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.
ethank 15y ago
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.
i386 15y ago
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.

54 points by taylorbuley 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.

science_police 15y ago

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

r00fus 15y ago
Though I agree with you, what's to say that Google (as a proxy for their content suppliers) didn't nix the idea of an open system?
- science_police 15y ago
  If this is the case, then say so. Still doesn't excuse no Samba (build it in to Logitech Media Player) or Logitech Media player being so poor regarding playback.
omfg 15y ago
Sounds like you want a Boxee box.
- science_police 15y ago
  I have Boxee through the Apple TV, however I want to be able to search the Internet at command, Picture in Picture out while changing settings etc. GoogleTV and Revue got so close, just never followed through.
edge17 15y ago
I have a revue (and it's a piece of shit in my opinion), to not partly blame Google is ridiculous. Sure, Logitech should be responsible for supporting their hardware however Google hasn't done much in the way of damage control. If they wanted to do Google TV justice, then they would have dealt with the problem whether or not it was their responsibility. Instead they let the Logitech Revue tarnish it. To build a successful brand up from its bootstraps, pulling only your own weight is simply not enough. Google did not do enough. I have done brand building for my companies, and there are times when I have had to put out fires that weren't directly responsible for creating.
mturmon 15y ago
Logitech's ability to develop solid software for other products hasn't been that strong. They bought Slim Devices, a Valley startup which developed a set of networked audio players. The Slim software and team seemed quite strong, but development of new players and software upgrades have really slowed down since the acquisition. And, there was a botched player release (I forget which unit it was, but it was the same deal as the Revue -- released before ready).

bickfordb 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.

jroseattle 15y ago

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.

toyg 15y ago

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 15y ago
do you use adblock? for a couple months, logitech revue was easily the most frequently seen banner on the web for me.
- dman 15y ago
  ads are pretty contextual today. Its entirely possible that different people never see any ads in common.
- toyg 15y ago
  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.

protomyth 15y ago

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.

rdl 15y ago

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.

tdfx 15y ago
Google TV tried to do too much too soon and failed at everything. They tried to beat TiVo without a built-in DVR. They tried to take on Apple without iTunes-enabled streaming from computers. They obviously can't touch XBox with what they've got. They tried to replace PC-based media centers and fell short with a clunky version of Chrome and a terrible app-based experience (HBO Go, the thing with the most promise, is horrific to use on Google TV). Some problems can be fixed with incremental software updates, but others are doomed by their lack of foresight. I'm all about releasing early and iterating, but at least understand the right time to pivot.
bluedanieru 15y ago
The killer app for these things is some fucking content, and that's never going to happen. Copyright holders are lounging around trying to figure out the best way to gauge as much money as possible out of consumers and distributors, and every day they sit on their fat asses finding new ways to degrade service across the board is another day that many thousands of people get comfortable with distribution methods completely out of their control and through which they derive no revenue (i.e. piracy, of course). I wouldn't buy one of these things even if they did have content. Who knows if so-and-so would pull the plug after a year or two. The time for this kind of device was ten years ago. The ship has sailed because consumers have absolutely no trust in any of this shit, nor should they. And I'd be quite satisfied with the whole spectacle if they weren't also dismantling civil rights and ruining the internet in the process.
idspispopd 15y ago
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.

methodin 15y ago

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.

felipemnoa 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.

kbatten 15y ago

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.

athst 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.

cldwalker 15y ago

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.

ethank 15y ago

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.

i386 15y ago

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.