Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Logitech Acknowledges Google TV Set-Top Box a 'Big Mistake'

ThanksSteve said:
Nobody wants another box on their tv. Google or Apple should come up with technology that is integrated into the television set. An Apple television set for example. Plenty of money to be made with downloading movies right to your tv instead of having to buy an Apple TV box.

That said, I'm not sure that's where I'd like to see Apple spend their resources. Better to improve their other line of products, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Disagreed.
I think most people look for one single box/remote to handle everything seemlesly . AIO solution on tv sets do not seem very smart because people keep their sets for long time and the hardware on an AIO solution would be outdated in couple years while the display still generating beautiful images for years to come.
 
A la carte, please

I really enjoy my :apple: TV 2, the only thing missing is subscriptions to specific channels or cheap single-show rentals. I only want to watch a few channels - Discovery, History, Nat Geog, etc. I don't even watch tv right now or use cable because 85% of the content in the packages is useless to me.
 
Nosadge said:
I really enjoy my :apple: TV 2, the only thing missing is subscriptions to specific channels or cheap single-show rentals. I only want to watch a few channels - Discovery, History, Nat Geog, etc. I don't even watch tv right now or use cable because 85% of the content in the packages is useless to me.
Click to expand...

It would be great to just purchase a few channels like that at a reasonable price instead of paying $100+ for 200 channels you will never watch.
 
Ease of use is just the tip of the iceberg

theBigD23 said:
You're 100% right. He even admitted that it's a Beta product AND too complex. I used it, minus the crashing, and it was very confusing to use.
Click to expand...

Google TV, with its existing feature set, would have failed even if it were simple to use. The basic problem is that big-screen living room TVs are communal screens. (Unless, of course, you're single or family members have their own TVs in their rooms.) Much of the time, the big-screen TV experience is shared between family members.

Medium-screen computers and small-screen mobile devices are personal screens. They're mostly used for individual surfing, tweeting, texting, emailing, gaming, and even phone calls and doing work. And Google TV simply transferred all those personal internet tasks onto the communal big-screen TV in the living room.

So little Billy has to wait for Mom to finish checking her Twitter account before he can surf SpongeBob.Nick.com. Then Dad has to wait for Billy to finish surfing SpongeBob.Nick.com before he can work in Google Docs. And nobody is allowed to interrupt Toy Story 3 while the whole family is watching it together.

The problem is that the big-screen TV is a shared resource. Doing personalized internet tasks on Google TV causes resource contention among family members. They're forced to serialize their internet tasks, or to not perform those tasks at all when the whole family is simply watching content.

The concept of internet complexity and personalization on a big screen loses its novelty immediately. It's a bad computing experience and it offers nothing new in terms of the good old TV viewing experience. Google TV is just a 21st-century iteration of WebTV. WebTV failed. Google TV, as it stands now, will fail too.
 
I always felt the problem with google tv is it didn't offer anything new. that and google is now synonymous with aggregating user habits, not for aggregating content. We love our two Rokus, use them both every day. I've looked in to getting an AppleTV but its just not robust enough. if they supported MKVs and dvd ISOs then it would be killer hardware. For now we're stuck with a home theater windows 7 PC and a roku and a PS3. Doesn't seem like it would be tough to merge all those.
 
baryon said:
Honestly I think TV as it is today is crap. I have no need to watch TV or shows or anything like that, and I know that many people feel the same. The internet for me satisfies all my previously TV-related needs. I can watch anything online without commercials in much higher quality, I can watch DVDs on my computer, and the only drawback is the small screen. There is no need for a TV, only a big screen that mirrors your computer's video output.

I think TV today is like the radio: many people still use it, but there's no more innovation going into it, it's bad quality, repetitive and meant only for the average person and no one else, and there's no need to integrate it with the internet, it's easier and better to just replace it with the internet.
Click to expand...

If I could just pay ABC, CBS, Fox, ESPN, etc. for their sports I would have gotten rid of my cable subscription a long time ago.

The internet satisfies everything else for me - and way better than cable TV. Except for sports. Live sporting events in particular.
 
The problem was this was basically marketed to replace cable, sadly the cable companies were not going to let that happen. Logitech should blame the cable companies and tv industry. Those monopolies do not have any competition so the consumers end up getting screwed, when they block the content going to these devices. :mad:
 
Is this Steve Jobs winning month or what.

First Flash on mobile, now Google TV.

He's bi-winning :eek:
 
WD Live TV Hub is still the best. I can send 3D 1080p mkv files straight to my 3D TV with 0 lag.
 
What's Wrong with TV Right Now

A short list, from my perspective:

1) The paid-content delivery model sucks. The cable/satellite companies lock consumers into a model where you HAVE to buy packages of channels, most of which the typical buyer doesn't want to see - let alone pay for. I get two dozen religious channels; a bunch of teen dance-party crap; Fox News; god knows how many hockey/mexican soccer/extreme rules Australian dick-wrestling sports channels, plus a bunch of shop-at-home channels I literally want gone from my channel selection. Fill in your own list of not-wanted-but-still paid for channels and you see the problem.

2) The onscreen channel/show listings pretty much suck. Page after page of junk to scroll through to get to the channels I actually want to watch. And the so-called "search" functions are cumbersome - bordering on useless.

3) Even on a modern "on-demand" cable system, the requested show only works about half the time. Tell me I'm not the only one this happens to.

4) How come you need a set-top box for every TV in your house. And you have to pay for, via a fee, every month. I recently worked out that the POS Cisco set-top box Time-Warner rents me each month is, by a fairly wide margin, the most expensive piece of technology I've got in my house.

Compared to these complaints, my $99 AppleTV 2 is a dream come true. It works all the time. The $99 I parted with at the Apple store is my sum total hardware investment. It works great with my iPad/iPhone/iMac. It streams my iTunes music and movie collection. And every time I spend $4 or $5 renting a "new release" from iTunes I feel like dancing a jig of joy at NOT having to deal with the morons at BlockBuster like I did in the old days. Oh, and it works great with Netflix too.

If any technology company can deal with problems 1 through 4, consumers will beat a path to their door. But until they do, I'm happy with my AppleTV.
 
If Logitech is bailing on this update, that's unfortunate, as it adds support for Android apps, which is huge.

The problem with any of these boxes is Cable companies, who want any set-top box other than the ones they rent to people themselves to fail.
 
The interesting thing about this future integrated Apple TV, is that in typical Apple fashion it may not allow third party set top boxes... Apple expects all of our content to be coming from the internet, be it movies, tv, games, browsing, etc.

Considering it will likely be running an A7-8 processor in 2013... this will make it an xBox, Playstation, and Wii killer.

The reason this will be so effective is that it will be so popular on its onset that it will basically force cable, movie and game distributors to succumb to the platform.

We'll see exactly what we saw with Apple's past few revolutionary products... other companies taking years to properly copy their design and catch up.

There will be many, many whiners, but the final turnout will result in a much better entertainment experience.

Only thing is, now we'll have to get used to replacing our TVs every 2 or so years :)
 
Last edited:
Google has basically become the Donald Trump of the tech world. They go around telling companies of some big new idea that will make them tons of money, and to quickly invest and develop hardware. Then, it's a big flock, Google has minimal software dev. losses because obviously there's no manufacturing involved, but companies like Logitech lose big. Another example is what's happening to android and making companies pay for the patents they are distributing on their smartphones. Then if Google decides it's not beneficial for them anymore, they end development, and it's all over, lol. They're tech terrorists.
 
The first few versions of the AppleTV didn't sell too well either. If Logitech had made the Apple TV, I'm sure they'd also be saying the same thing too.

Apple just said "Its a hobby, and we aren't too bothered about low sales".

I've been disapointed in Logitech over the past few years. Their products used to be fresh, especially their mice, but its all a bit stale. They still don't sell a multitouch mouse. If they did, I'm sure it would wipe the floor with the offerings from Apple and microsoft.
 
Codestud said:
That's 5 remote controls - so you then you have go out and buy a universal remote of some sort like a Logitech Harmony or something.

This is all driving us crazy because the user experience is poor - we keep having to juggle all these devices and switching inputs on our TVs.

So, how Apple is going to solve these problems I do not know...
Click to expand...

Why would they have to solve remote issues? As you yourself mentioned, Harmony (recently acquired by Logitech) has solved it. Really well.
 
Not got much sympathy for Logitech. The Z5500 5.1 system farce is evidence enough that they are not too clued up on the market.

However, i am beginning to wonder if the world actually needs an Apple-branded television for the seamless experience we all want.

In the UK, we have many ways in which to watch TV as it is broadcast. Analog TV (currently on its way out), Digital TV via aerial, Digital TV via satellite (Sky TV) and Cable TV from the likes of VirginMedia. We can also watch 'catch-up' TV in a variety of ways. We have iPlayer from the BBC, ITV Player, 4OD and Demand5 from Channel 5. Sky TV even has Sky Player, with 30 channels available. VirginMedia and Sky also have 'on-demand' services. When it comes to TV/Movie rentals, we have iTunes and LOVEFiLM etc.

While the whole TV business might be, as Jobs put it, 'Balkanised', the method of delivering all of this content isn't. All of it flows into our castles via the internet. However, the interfaces from which we access it is where it all goes wrong. What we need is a unified, and simplified interface. We want to search for and choose what we want to watch and for it to be displayed on our big TV. If hoops need to be jumped through to make that happen, we want that done out of sight!

What can Apple (or anyone else) actually do a television that has not already been accomplished by the likes of Samsung or Panasonic? The only answer i can think of is what i stated above... a unified and simplified way of accessing all/any content.

Why can't i choose the television that offers me the absolute best picture quality (whether produced by Apple, or not), let my dedicated surround system of choice handle the audio and have a device like the existing Apple TV handle the interface and streaming of the picture to the screen?

How about a television that has an 'Apple TV' plugin slot? Plug in your Apple TV and it takes over the screen. Interface is overlaid and is controlled by your iPod/iPhone/iPad.

From what i understand, there is no technical limitation to the seamless dream. It is just a case of getting all the content providers to offer their goods in the same way. It is this that will allow seamless TV.

----------
JAT said:
Why would they have to solve remote issues? As you yourself mentioned, Harmony (recently acquired by Logitech) has solved it. Really well.
Click to expand...

Really well??

I have to disagree a little there. I have a Harmony remote that often fails to control one of my surround systems. Which model?? A Z5500... made by.... Logitech :)
 
If apple could find a way to lump all the content in through Apple TV, then put all that in the iPad or iPhone, add Siri functionality for DVR & finding content, use the cloud for storage, & have the TV itself simply be a monitor for the content streamed to it from the cloud via mobile devices, that'd be great. All the pieces of the puzzle are there.


Ideally, instead of licensing shows though the regular useless networks, keeping all the existing BS and adding yet another layer of cost, Apple could just open their doors to producers, and order shows itself, for offer thru iTunes, just as networks order shows from production companies now. They'd have better metrics on popularity than TV and could decide how much a season of Futurama,Caprica,Stargate,etc... is worth. They've got the resources.
 
Last edited:
fixmymac said:
I have to disagree a little there. I have a Harmony remote that often fails to control one of my surround systems. Which model?? A Z5500... made by.... Logitech :)
Click to expand...
Why? Is it not IR, are there commands the Harmony doesn't know, is it some bizarre IR frequency the Harmony can't handle? That is quite ironic. ;)
 
kfergiez said:
I like the apple TV and all, but to me it's severely limited. You can only play movies that are in an apple format, and since most of my movies are not in one of apples formats, an apple TV is useless to me. I already have pandora, and netflix on my blu-ray, and oddly enough, it has dnla capability, so I can watch any movie I want from my computer wirelessly. The only thing I'm missing is iTunes on my TV, and the ability to remote control it with my iPhone.
Click to expand...

I plus voted you because I agree to a certain degree, however, I hope you realized that all the Apple TV is a test/beta or whatever, for what's to come in the future. Basically we paid to beta test for Apple's R&D department.
 
i can see apple making a deal with time warner and comcast to sell TV's with their cable encryption built in. MS already does this with x-box and AT&T uverse. the cable boxes are expensive and i bet the cable companies will love to get rid of them

add the fact that it will give apple direct access to the schedules and you will be able to easily search the 2000 channels for shows. add in a 1TB hard drive and thats your DVR

maybe time warner and comcast will figure out a way to efficiently send data via TCP/IP over their networks, but i bet the apple TV will have your normal coax connector along with hdmi
 
JAT said:
Why? Is it not IR, are there commands the Harmony doesn't know, is it some bizarre IR frequency the Harmony can't handle? That is quite ironic. ;)
Click to expand...

I wish i had a simple answer. The troubleshooting steps in the Harmony software have you adjusting pulse times and garbage like that. Apparently, there needs to be a certain time gap between commands. It puzzles me that Logitech cannot make their remote control work with one of their other devices without the user having to manually adjust IR pulse timings etc.

----------
JAT said:
Why? Is it not IR, are there commands the Harmony doesn't know, is it some bizarre IR frequency the Harmony can't handle? That is quite ironic. ;)
Click to expand...

Another irony has sprung to mind. Who was it that invented the Universal Remote Control??

erm... who did he work for??
 
Codestud said:
In the UK, Sky controls a big part of the pay TV market and have for many years been supplying their own locked down set top boxes.

Admittedly though they are very good technically with a reasonably good EPG and have HD and PVR facilities etc. And for many people that's good - if you're prepared to pay for the privilege.

But, as with all these boxes if you want to stream your own user-generated content, or say, an integrated DVD/BD player then forget it!

So what happens in a typical house is you end up switching between set top boxes, devices and remote controls to do anything.

.....

So, how Apple is going to solve these problems I do not know...
Click to expand...

The truth is, I don't care if Apple, Google, Sony, Samsung, LG, TiVo or Sky crack this mystery first. Television is changing right now, "on demand" internet based distribution is hugely popular - among all ages. It's convenient, you don't have to remember to set your STB to record, in fact you don't need an STB at all, just a decent broadband connection. I can't speak for the cable companies, but delivering content via a proprietary App (both as a traditional EPG and "on demand") is not that different to what we have today, but they do have a lot to loose. Why not give us channels we can rent, or just the TV shows we want.

There are a few "killer app"s
- Cable company content - this has to be equal to, or better than current deals, without them AppleTv, or GoogleTv just wont work.
- It has to be better than Sky+ HD / TiVo, easier to use, more social features, remote access.
- More integrated into the iOS infrastructure, so that it plays nice with your own home media service/iTunes library (basically the features of ATV2)
- Something that works right out of the box. It needs to be EASY! Plug it in, turn it on, connect it to WiFi, log-in to iTunes, download "channels"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back