Comments on: How Google can save Google TV

By: sciatic nerve pain

sciatic nerve pain — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:18:00 +0000

Google will just keep trying until it makes TV work. The more Roku boxes sell, the bigger the market for everyone.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:57:00 +0000

Price for the Logitech Revue is now $99, the camera is still expensive tho, at $150. I don’t think you’ll need anything else, it comes with a remote/keyboard/mouse, and you can use your iPhone or Android phone as a remote too.

By: Andyorange27

Andyorange27 — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:34:00 +0000

Google TV is failing because of networks blocking it.

By: Mathieu

Mathieu — Wed, 04 May 2011 16:52:00 +0000

Google TV is already OK.
What it needs the most to success is native and web apps designed for Google TV.
NHL/NBA/NFL… on Google TV are killer apps.
(Casual) gaming can be the other way Google TV may succeed.
Of course, Cisco-TelePresence-like feature are also going to become huge when everyone will be connected with GTalk on their phones, tablets and TVs.

By: Alexmd2

Alexmd2 — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:10:00 +0000

I am very happy with GTV. They should not switch to mobile CPUs, flash performance on them is not optimal. GTV does not need saving in my opinion. You can find any movie (that is out on DVDs) you like to watch any time with good to great quality including shows (even if ABC is blocking them). Amazon cloud player works great on GTV too. I don’t need any stupid apps, just open the full web, I can play AB on my tablet. I don’t know anybody who is watching TV for the news. Sports and live shows are the only things missing, but they will come. So far is is 8/10 start for me.

By: Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:54:00 +0000

I wouldn’t call it a failure but it certainly could use some work. My WMC7 box changes channels on my STB which the revue can’t control. Google would do well to look at WMC, BeyondTV and Boxee if they want to market a successful interface. As an Android fan I love Google TV but the family acceptance factor isn’t quite as nice.

By: Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:54:00 +0000

By: Speakthewordonly

Speakthewordonly — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:21:00 +0000

Why so ‘content’ with a product that promised more and has the potential for sooooo much more? If basics is all you want then just connect your PC to the TV. The window of opportunity is shrinking fast for Google in this arena, if they don’t step up guaranteed someone else will.

By: Simply Ridiculous

Simply Ridiculous — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 19:22:00 +0000

Google TV is not a dismal failure. It is a revolutionary concept that needs time for wider adoption.

By: Dr Fill

Dr Fill — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:43:00 +0000

I use the Revue to complement the my satellite programmings, not to replace them so I am perfectly happy with what the Revue can do for me. However, I can understand how it does not meet other users’ needs.

I don’t know who is in control of this device, Google or Logitech. I think Logitech should take control of the device and answer the users’ needs. Logitech is not looking good. If Logitech is already in control, then I’d way that its engineers are very incompetent. All the problems and bugs people are complaining about are solvable.

By: skeptik

skeptik — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:39:00 +0000

I don’t think google tv needs “saving”? When the G1 phone came out, I don’t remember (but it’s possible) anyone writing articles that the phone was a failure and going nowhere. Google tv does the basic things it’s designed to do already quite well. I own the Revue and don’t have cable tv- this allows me to watch everything I want over the net or my netflix instant account. I can also stream content over my network using built in DLNA. It’s true, android apps are going to blow this device out of the water, but I wouldn’t say that at this point it’s a failure.

By: Chris Davies

Chris Davies — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:36:00 +0000

It’s an example of a platform that has had plenty of financial support and OEM partners in its time, but still failed to achieve much.

By: Daymon R Hoag

Daymon R Hoag — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:29:00 +0000

Using Microsoft’s MSNTV (formerly WebTV) is a horrible example, and is in no way even relevant to the other products you’ve mentioned in this article.

By: Daymon R Hoag

Daymon R Hoag — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:23:00 +0000

Dish Network does something similar already. On some advertisements you have an options to learn more by clicking the select button when an icon stating to do so appears during the ad, so I know it’s possible. Integration with an Android phone, Google account, and Google check out would be great.

By: Kathy Weigands

Kathy Weigands — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:15:00 +0000

The price for Google TV’s basic box is $299. But, if you want the options like a keyboard, web cam, extra control, etc.. The price skyrockets to $680 plus tax. Why? This is like paying for a TV without a screen. That’s a steep price and I would rather use TV software from a service like the TVDevo website . All the channels are online and come into my laptop. There’s tons to watch and it has online radio.

By: Kathy Weigands

Kathy Weigands — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:15:00 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:49:00 +0000

Um, lack of a PDF reader is not what is hurting Google TV. Look at Apple TV and Roku, which don’t even have web browsers. Both are outselling Google TV like crazy. Neither have “all the content from the web and my PC network.”

People just want great video content without having to put in effort. It’s TV, not a computer – everything should “just work.”

It’s about adding great content at a low price without making your system overly complicated. Sounds simple, right? Too simple? Let me repeat it just so it sinks in:

IT’S ABOUT ADDING GREAT CONTENT AT A LOW PRICE WITHOUT MAKING YOUR SYSTEM OVERLY COMPLICATED.

Amazing that so few are getting this right.

Apple TV = too little content up until now (only iTunes, movie rentals, and Netflix). Recent additions of Airplay and more “app”-type content is very promising though.

Boxee = a valiant effort but still too complicated for non-techy types. Especially setting up DLNA, yikes what an awful interface. Not to mention non-technical types running away screaming at the mention of “DLNA.” I have hopes for them though, the remote for the Boxee Box is on the right track, and their UI is salvagable if they get some help.

Roku = they are on the right track. They need to keep adding more *quality* content. But in terms of bang-for-the-buck they are actually looking pretty good.

Google TV = too expensive. Too complicated for most (though I appreciate the complexity of the challenge they are undertaking). Flash is actually their biggest problem – if the browser didn’t need to support Flash they could afford a MUCH cheaper processor. Also, the remotes look scary and will have a hard time passing the “wife test” (sorry if that sounds sexist but it’s true).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:49:00 +0000

People just want great video content without having to put in effort. It’s TV, not a computer – everything should “just work.”

It’s about adding great content at a low price without making your system overly complicated. Sounds simple, right? Too simple? Let me repeat it just so it sinks in:

IT’S ABOUT ADDING GREAT CONTENT AT A LOW PRICE WITHOUT MAKING YOUR SYSTEM OVERLY COMPLICATED.

Amazing that so few are getting this right.

Apple TV = too little content up until now (only iTunes, movie rentals, and Netflix). Recent additions of Airplay and more “app”-type content is very promising though.

Roku = they are on the right track. They need to keep adding more *quality* content. But in terms of bang-for-the-buck they are actually looking pretty good.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:49:00 +0000

People just want great video content without having to put in effort. It’s TV, not a computer – everything should “just work.”

It’s about adding great content at a low price without making your system overly complicated. Sounds simple, right? Too simple? Let me repeat it just so it sinks in:

IT’S ABOUT ADDING GREAT CONTENT AT A LOW PRICE WITHOUT MAKING YOUR SYSTEM OVERLY COMPLICATED.

Amazing that so few are getting this right.

Apple TV = too little content up until now (only iTunes, movie rentals, and Netflix). Recent additions of Airplay and more “app”-type content is very promising though.

Roku = they are on the right track. They need to keep adding more *quality* content. But in terms of bang-for-the-buck they are actually looking pretty good.

By: Patrick Whittingham

Patrick Whittingham — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:28:00 +0000

I’ve had the Logitech Revue since October and it fails on these fronts. One can have all of the apps and smartphones but if I don’t have ALL of the content from the web and my PC network, it will still fail.

Web: Must have every file extension for audio/video and applications (ie., PDF).
PC Network: Must have every file extension for audio and video (ie., Windows Media Center).

By: Chris Davies

Chris Davies — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:48:00 +0000

Hopefully they’ll be slightly more ambitious than simply showing adverts – I’d like to be able to watch a regular broadcast advert on TV, pull up the details automatically on my Android phone or tablet, and then buy through Google Checkout. Google could take a cut of the proceeds, my life would be easier, and the advertisers have fewer people fast-forwarding through their ads.

By: John Ozimek

John Ozimek — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:41:00 +0000

Perhaps the bigger change will come when Google decides to really push advertising on both mobile and IPTV. Let’s not forget that Google uses everything it builds as a mechanism to sell advertising; so far it’s only really search where it’s found its groove.

I think that the changes being made with the return of Larry Page as CEO are going to accelerate the push to make money out of these – particularly Android. For all the handsets shipping, the user experience and app revenues are below par.

I do wonder about the immediate viability of IPTV though – if Hulu is only making $260 million a year despite all the effort, it may be that viable IPTV revenues are further off than people think.