Logitech Calls Google TV a 'Big Mistake' 195
An anonymous reader writes "Logitech CEO Guerrino De Luca spoke bluntly about Google TV yesterday, referring to it as a 'beta' product and saying that relying on it for the Revue set-top boxes was a mistake. Logitech will stop production of the Revue, and plans to implement significant price cuts to get rid of their remaining inventory. 'He said there are "no plans to introduce another box to replace Revue." Further, he predicted that the "grandchild of Google TV" might succeed but not the current product. For now, that leaves Sony televisions with the Google software for people looking for the Google TV experience.'"
Well, duh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
At $99 per I am willing to buy several. Sure wish they'd trigger the Honeycomb update on the one I have. At $300 it was theft.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a tmob G1, it was a fine phone.
Sure, the current phones are better but the G1 is very old now (in mobile phone years).
Too bad (Score:2)
It would really be great if someone with financial muscle, like Google, could provide an easy alternative for the masses to watch streaming TV from an easy set-top box kind of platform, with decent live broadcasts.
Perhaps Google plans their own set top box?
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, this will all work itself out. Technology is going to evolve on its own to beat the cable companies.
The core problem is cable monopolies. Consumers can't fight back against the bandwidth cappers if government continues to say you have no choices.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can it, though? We all want to watch what we want when we want, but those controlling the content will not allow this. We get limited, mostly old stuff, on the likes of Netflix, adverts in pay for access on Hulu and chums. Some channels will stream the programming top browsers, but in poor quality, and then go out of their way to block viewing on HDTVs.
Most of us do not want to buy episodes. We may buy a complete season, or even series, but per episodes costs are bad value. Digital movies are dearer the
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to exclude a solution to the problem in your statement of the problem, then you may be doing it wrong. "Torrents" is a valid technical solution to your problem...
Re: (Score:2)
google tv, plex, sickbeard, sabnzbd, and a $11 newsgroup account.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that eventually there will enough pressure on cable companies from the likes of online video rentals, Hulu, etc, that we will either end up with an 'online' cable company, with more of an Ala Carte selection, or something new will evolve similar to that evolve from one of the bigger partners now. There are already rumors of an entry from Apple TV and Sony is also vying for the next generation TV. It's only a matter of time as people realize that the value provided by cable TV is not much of a value
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, this will all work itself out. Technology is going to evolve on its own to beat the cable companies.
The core problem is cable monopolies. Consumers can't fight back against the bandwidth cappers if government continues to say you have no choices.
It's the corporations saying we don't have choices. Government isn't saying anything at all, which allows these corporations to develop local monopolies. When competitive markets have failed in this manner we rely on government to be the only remaining cudgel to browbeat these corporations into serving the public good rather than their own pocketbooks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
The government and corporations are two faces of the same entity.
The problem is not "bandwidth cappers". Unlimited bandwidth is logically and physically impossible. It was designed by marketers to attract people to their services. Ironically, it all started with the stupidity of charging Internet by the minute. Most people had a gut feeling that it was bullshit, even if they did not understand the technology. Geeks knew that it was and gravitated towards different options. Mine was a personal account at a university that allowed me access to not only the internal network of the university to compile and run my programs, but also access outside networks. This was well before there were routers you could purchase. I had to create my own and manage my own firewall.
Other ISPs at the time figured out one way to be competitive was to analyze their users network traffic patterns, purchase enough bandwidth to stay comfortably within the average, and then oversell the shit out of it.
From that day forward, the situation has only got worse as public perception is that anything other than unlimited is of lesser value, and that doing so is somehow evil, wrong, and screwing consumers.
There is a simple answer to it, but the ISPs sure as hell don't want to hear it, or anyone else to hear it for that matter either. The answer is to charge for bandwidth like businesses charge each other for bandwidth. A lot more transparency, and a lot less bullshit.
What is a problem is that the content is locked into specific distribution channels and ISPs and content owners are increasingly creating revenue sharing agreements and interests that are quite monopolistic and unfair.
This problem has created a push towards legislation to protect those interests at all costs, the Constitution and consumer rights be damned.
Government wants to cooperate for a couple of reasons:
1) Campaign donations.
2) Lucrative backroom deals where legislators get a share of the profits, and a cushy ass job after they leave Washington.
3) Intelligence community buy-in. Of course they want more capabilities to monitor and lock down the actions of citizens in cyberspace. Even the well meaning and intentioned will claim they are only doing so to protect the American Way of Life (tm) and to fight the terrorizers that are seemingly everywhere. It's for our own good, and those pesky rights we have only get in the way. Just Trust Us (tm) is parroted over and over again.
So far all we have really succeeded in doing is *freeing* music from DRM to a large extent and providing illegal (infringing) alternate distribution channels for content of many types.
What the content providers/owners want is very simple. Absolute control over your devices. Absolute knowledge of your activities as it relates to their content. Absolute knowledge of all your activities and content to determine if it relates to their content and Fair Use is just fairy tale bullshit. Absolute ability to determine when to charge for access to content. Absolute ability to sell advertising to you based on their information capabilities. Legal enforcement of their powers through government they paid for.
There are two outcomes.
1) We rebel and create a secondary Internet beyond their control and continue to shift towards more direct involvement with the true creators of content, and a paradigm shift of how creators get protected and compensated in an advanced and free society
or
2) Totalitarian control over all of cyberspace and the dawning realization of the Plebs that cyberspace and real life were only separated via their ignorance and by then it will be too late. Bloody revolution or life under a tyrannical regime. Blah, Blah, Blah.... history being repeated yet again.
All of the rest of the bullshit and arguments is just foreplay till we get to the real fucking of the American Citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu, denying access (In part, also thanks to Adobe that allowed Hulu to block the bypass of changing user agent).
Networks, that also placed locks to flash running from GoogleTvs.
Google, taking 1 year to provide a supposedly update to install apps.
Sony (I guess Logitech as well) for locking down the console.
It's sad that a neat idea can be thrown away and bad mouthed because of many factors
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Informative)
they are the ones that grant the local monopolies to the cable companies
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Eventually there will be some wireless technology that provides TV service
There has been, for decades.
That said, government granted monopolies is what cripples the game in the US. In France, virtually EVERY DSL provider provides 100+ channels. And you have lots of DSL companies. Plus cable (one player) and Satellite (2 players)
In France, the local loop was paid off by the government, so they took it back from France Telecom and rent it to anyone willing. Result: 100+ channels, 20mbps DSL, free phone for €30/month.
Why? Because the market has competition. There are 4 major players in the DSL business and at least 6 small ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, what are your monthly costs for same?
Re: (Score:2)
I live in France, so my monthly costs are €30/month.
in 2004 I lived in the SF bay area (CA) and I paid $50/month for 512k/128k, with no phone or TV whatsoever. That said, hard to get HD channels through a 512 line anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
Educate yourself: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp [fff.org]
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A pain, really. I mean, it was the perfect setup.
Really, I've been angry at Google for month for that, and I still am.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Google plans their own set top box?
No, but they have already announced an Android 3.1 implementation, and screenshots released so far [engadget.com] look like they've taken on board the complaints about the older version. Might be worth buying up one of Logitech's cheap Revues if they decide to dump them at bargain bucket prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and where are you going to get the content?
you think HBO doesn't want to sell directly to the public (via their apps or their site)? you can only use it if you already subscribe through a cable/sat providers, and I understand Time Warner Cable doesn't even allow that. HBO owns the content, but they can't even dictate how it's distributed (to non TV devices)
DirecTV got over 300k new subscribers in one quarter because of NFL Sunday Ticket. Somehow, no matter how badly the NFL wants it, i don't think you're go
Re: (Score:3)
Since they have yet to put DVR capabilities into the existing 'AppleTV' product, nor allowed any way to add them on, I wouldn't bet on that right at this point in time.
No DVR == No Go
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs supposedly said that he had "cracked" the TV problem so there's a lot of speculation about AppleTV at the moment but it's safe to say it wouldn't be like a DVR. It would have to be something with direct content deals that cut out the middlemen and allow it to actually work better and simpler than today's DVRs.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait for Apple's television, which will be met by the usual derision from Apple critics on Slashdot followed by success in the market anyway.
Until the Apple TV can receive TV, I wouldn't bet on it though.
Re: (Score:2)
FAIL (Score:4, Insightful)
Google needs to put more wood behind fewer arrows. Instead of releasing half-assed beta products, how about polishing them, subjecting them to real user tests(not just dogfooding by geeks) ?
Is this what you expect people to use control the TV? http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sonygtv1.jpeg?w=588&h=332 [wordpress.com]
Really? That looks more like a cockpit than a remote control, and doesn't fit comfortably, or at all, in one hand.
Re: (Score:3)
Wish other devices had such remotes as well, saves you from the cursor based typing on many STB's/TV's
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.presentationtek.com/2010/02/11/vizio-1080p-led-lcd-hdtv-with-wireless-and-via-vf552xvt-and-vf472xvt-review/ [presentationtek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
With the amount of people that have smartphones now, the should just build WiFi into the TV and build an app to control it if you need typing (maybe with a fallback browser interface.) Like the AppleTV does with the Apple Remote app. It's not perfect but it works remarkably well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would my TV know my Netflix/Hulu/AmazonVOD password, if I don't type it in?
What about title search? And don't say "voice recognition", I'm not a native English speaker.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this what you expect people to use control the TV? http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sonygtv1.jpeg?w=588&h=332 [wordpress.com] [wordpress.com]
have you used one? it's actually a good remote- provides easy access to common things and have a full kb that doesn't get in the way of the common things.
Re:FAIL (Score:4, Interesting)
When I started watching TV there were two dials with fine-tuning rings and an on/off/volume knob. Today I have 56 buttons on just one of my remote controls, not to mention that some buttons have multiple functions depending on the history of button presses.
I think the Google remote is a reasonably good design; it's one of the features I like.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the time when I had to click arrow up/down until I get a letter I wanted, then arrow right, repeat until I typed a full word. This is useful, resistant and you don't have to look down to see what you're typing. If that's not the case of what you wanted, you can control the TV with your Android phone and/or your iPhone.
The biggest fail, was Google taking a year to allo
I wanted one (Score:4)
I might have gotten a Google TV, but between the price and the only ones requiring HDMI on both sides I was looking at $500 or so to get up and running with it. I did want one, but I could have bought a laptop for that and just hooked it up to my TV for not much more.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, good news! Now you can get a Revue for cheap!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but I still need to pay for an HDMI converter or a new TV as they don't provide composite outs.
Re: (Score:2)
Google TVs only support HD output so you'll need a new TV then as composite only supports 480i.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, which was a really dumb idea on their part. If they're trying to get marketshare against Apple I don't see why they aren't providing for those that still have serviceable analog sets. The digital switch over itself was only a couple years ago.
BAD TITLE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BAD TITLE (Score:5, Insightful)
It was too expensive due to the required Intel hardware, and the software was essentially a half-baked beta. That doesn't mean "Google TV a 'Big Mistake'"
So the software and hardware where bad, but otherwise it was a great idea?
Re:BAD TITLE (Score:5, Funny)
It was too expensive due to the required Intel hardware, and the software was essentially a half-baked beta. That doesn't mean "Google TV a 'Big Mistake'"
So the software and hardware where bad, but otherwise it was a great idea?
Yes, the firmware was awesome.
AOLTV all over again (Score:2)
It's AOLTV all over again. Something not done right that nobody wanted, anyway.
Re:AOLTV all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
that nobody wanted, anyway.
I have mixed feelings about this. The status quo for television is kind of a screwed up experience. I don't think Google TV was going to improve the situation -- it would have been just-another-set-top-box -- but it'd be nice if something were done to make TV-watching more seamless, especially for older people.
For instance, how many people can't work their own DVD player? "THIS needs to be ON, and set to THIS input, and then the TV needs to be a Channel X, but it isn't really Channel X, because THAT is set to 'DVD,' and..." I've had to explain things too many times to older family members, and still they forget. They're afraid they'll "break" the TV. I've even met people young enough that you'd think they'd know better who were unable to play DVDs in their own house ("Oh, my husband knows how that works."). In the year 2011, it's ridiculous. A setting gets changed and then the TV is "broken" for six months until I come visit.
Somebody needs to make a good, consistent, universal user interface for this stuff. Sometimes I wonder if the thing I should do is set up a super-simple media center PC for my parents, running something like Windows Media Center, that handles absolutely everything, so they don't need to understand three remotes and related input settings. You can imagine it being very simple. But I'm not so naive. Sadly, I think it'd end in tears.
It's also possible that the emergence of HDMI commands will fix things -- turning DVD players and the like into extensions of the television, operated by the same remote. But somehow I don't see the kind of strong interoperability needed to make this happen actually occurring either.
Re: (Score:2)
As Predicted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve Jobs discussed the problems of the TV market for high tech at D8 in 2010 [youtube.com] (fast forward to 1:31:06). Essentially, no one will pay for more innovative product because everyone already gets near-free, subsidized hardware that's good enough and there's not enough room to make money doing something more interesting.
"Ask Tivo, ask ReplayTV...ask Google in a few months."
Re: (Score:2)
Then how does that fit in with AppleTV?
Re: (Score:3)
Perfectly. AppleTV isn't much of a product for Apple.
The rumored "Apple is going to revolutionize TV" product doesn't exist. It's just a rumor so far. I submit that it will stay that way. I already have a TV that does what TVs do. It doesn't need a slick new GUI.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd love for a tv to come out that doesn't have more buttons on it's remote than a nuclear submarine's control panel.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a third-party remote with fewer buttons for $5 or something. You want to pay Apple $2000 for a TV instead?
Just don't press the buttons that make you sad.
On a less snarky note: Yes, TV remotes have human interface issues. It doesn't stop people from watching and enjoying TV in general. They're not going to pay $2000 (or any other large price premium) for a TV with a better remote control.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a third-party remote with fewer buttons for $5 or something. You want to pay Apple $2000 for a TV instead?
Yes, because for some reasons Apple seems to be the only company that can make things functional without 65 buttons to do the job.
Its cute that you're trying to be snarky and show your superiority over others, but all you're actually doing is show that you really just don't fucking get it.
It doesn't stop people from watching and enjoying TV in general.
Actually, it does, often, and if you didn't have your head so far up your own ass sniffing your own farts you'd know this.
Many people don't do things their existing television/cable box setup allows them to do because they
Re:As Predicted... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are simply wrong. People don't do what their cable boxes allow because they just don't really care. And if they do care, then they can make it work. It's not crazy difficult. It's imperfect and slightly annoying.
The guy who can't spent 2 minutes to set a DVR recording isn't going to buy a $2000 TV from Apple to do DVR recordings for him. The guy who is "intimidated" by buttons isn't going to buy a $2000 TV from Apple or anyone else.
Apple could improve TV human interfaces. But they can't do it enough to make it worthwhile because no one is going to pay a large premium for a small improvement. TVs just aren't fundamentally interactive.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. My grandparents don't even have players, and yet they already can't use the TV reliably - there's a hundred ways to "lock" yourself in some mode (menu, AV, Teletex, etc) and they don't have the hand coordination not to press such buttons accidentally, nor the memory to remember the various ways to leave such modes, with absolutely no helpful information from the TV.
I did buy them a simpler remote, but the problem is that those are *too* simple: they only have volume, channel up & down and turn o
Re: (Score:2)
But they aren't going to buy a $2000 Apple TV.
I understand there are people with limitations that cause TV remotes to be a significant problem for them. Those people aren't going to buy an expensive Apple TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As Predicted... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, being able to display only the channels you can actually choose from is one of many great features I love about my Tivo Premiere - not only can I block channels I don't get from the guide, I can block channels I don't ever want to watch (Bloomfield TV, Oprah TV, Lifetime, Lifetime Movies, Univision, HSN, QVC, etc.) from the guide so it's much easier to find the programming I do enjoy. Combined with a HD Roku box and a Netflix streaming-only subscription, I have more TV choices than I really need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want Windows Media Center with TV capture cards and XBox 360s as extenders. Its simply the best setup you can find at this point in time. Of course, it'll take you a few years of not paying for a shitty comcast DVR, but if you already have a PC capable of running it and some Xbox 360s, its not that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying: if you could get something better than Comcast service for less money, then you'd buy it. Ok. That makes you a normal, rational person. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you're willing to pay a substantial premium price for this improvement?
I can get ATT, Time Warner Cable, Direct TV, or Dish for pay TV where I live. If it mattered, I'd switch. Can't you switch?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple TV still doesn't support 1080p30. It doesn't support 1080 anything. I'm reserving judgement on whether people want something like it until they put out a product that matches the resolution of the televisions people actually have without relying on the television to upscale its output.
In other words.. they may not be making much money, but they're not really trying, either. It might be that they wouldn't make much money if they bothered to try, but we won't know that until they do.
--------
side note
Re: (Score:2)
Just like Apple weren't working on a slate?
So your point is that every Apple rumor is true, even the rumors that conflict with the other rumors. Because a rumor was true once. And every rumored Apple product will eventually be released.
I agree that Apple is "working on" something for TV. I don't think they'll be releasing a product that revolutionizes TV.
Re:As Predicted... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually was referring to the rumor that Apple was actually going into the TV business - not just the add-on. I think the add-on business is the way to go. I already have 2 large hi-def TV's that I have no intention of replacing anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then how does that fit in with AppleTV?
He describes Apple TV as a "hobbyist" product.
Re: (Score:3)
Steve Jobs has his own share of failures.
Unless the Apple TV has some revolutionary wow features, it isn't going to be any different than a Sony.
Re: (Score:3)
Except, in your snarky ignorance, you forgot to point out that it isnt' selling millions and they treat it more or less like its going away sometime in the near future.
If you're going to play the 'reality distortion field' card, you need to at least consider how well the product sells before doing so. You just look like an idiot in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Near free subsidized hardware? How do I get in on this. Last I looked televisions were expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
What Steve Jobs REALLY meant was that no one will pay the premium that Apple wants for the privilege of plastering Apple's logos all over their TVs. There is also very little 'Cool' factor involved in buying TVs so App
obvious mistake is obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
seems to me the moment this thing launched and content providers (hulu..etc) started blocking it..
I thought..well this thing is boned... and then also ..who the hell thought it was a good idea to launch before getting content guys onboard?
stupid... just stupid..they should have worked something out with hulu..etc before launching this thing.
Re: (Score:2)
who's blocking it besides hulu? you have crackle, amazon instant video, netflix, youtube, for movies.
price cuts? (Score:2)
Great, now where and when will I find these price cuts? They already dropped it to $99 back in July. A "significant" price cut might make it $49, which would be irresistible. To me, anyway.
google apps? (Score:3)
i have one (the sony version), and while the new software is much cleaner and consistent, it's seriously lacking applications. it has the standard stuff like netflix and pandora, but it doesn't have *any* google applications ... like gmail, maps, calendar, google music. how can it not have google music? combine this with the overall lack of really *any* compelling 3rd party applications, and it really hurts the overall package.
maybe they figure you can go to the browser to get all the apps, but that gives you more of a desktop / laptop experience that expects you to be 20-30cm from the display.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all of those things suck on a TV? Even in HD. No one listens to music on their TV, we have other devices far better at it than that. Mail, Calendar? To hard to read. Maps? No practical usefulness beyond settling an argument over what is how far from someplace on a big display. You're going to use your PC and print it or use your phone/GPS on the road.
A TV is good for watching motion video, thats it.
Re: (Score:2)
we have other devices far better at it than that.
yes, and if it was up to you, i'd still be carrying around an MP3 player, a dedicated cell phone, a laptop, a portable DVD player, and a dedicated GPS every where i go.
No one listens to music on their TV,
did you know, that modern TVs have audio out? my google TV even has optical out.
if your TV's hooked into your home ent system, which of course it will be, why not? pretty slick to have pandora, iheartradio, pandora, podcasts, your google music collection, and every other streaming audio source available from android.
Mail, Calendar? To hard to read.
they are not if you provid
Re: (Score:2)
And playing games, according to all the console owners.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotal, but a lot of my friends put on some tunes on the TV when we visit. They don't even have AppleTV's or GoogleTV's, they'll just pop in a music DVD or a DVD video of a concert. Because it's easy, it's already in the living room, you have the remote right there and you have a large display (obviously) you can use to change the music.
Customizing? (Score:2)
If they're gonna sell off these things on the cheap (not that they seem to sell them over here in Sweden at all, though), could it be any good for a more generic GNU/Linux box?
Anyone put Debian on this thing? (Wasn't apparently so from a quick glance at the first search results, at least.)
Cheap PC or streamer (Score:2)
The Logitech Revue has an Intel CE4100 SOC, which is about on par with the Atom processor in terms of CPU power, but can also do the full monte of 1080p hardware video decoding (and I think HDMI 1.3 audio bitstreaming as well). It was already down to $99 last time I checked, and if it drops further it could be a very attractive platform to play around with. (I believe someone has already rooted it.) It could serve as a very nice media streamer if someone ported XBMC to it, or with a streamlined Linux distro
SageTV (Score:2)
An Internet device that can't play content (Score:2)
I figured out it was a big mistake as soon as I found it wouldn't play content like Hulu or the networks. I'll go with a multi-media PC. Others here responded to me that it was great because it didn't have a noisy fan. I can't imagine buying this at any price, even a fire sale going out of business price. With a multi-media PC I can actually watch stuff on my TV, and play graphic intensive games on my big HD screen.
Curiously, the fix is rather simple, but they just don't do it: Let the browser ID itself a
Re: (Score:2)
Curiously, the fix is rather simple, but they just don't do it: Let the browser ID itself as any stock PC browser rather than reveal that it is Google TV. Then the user could play the content that they want on it. Treating this as different than any other computer is stupid.
you can set the user agent in the android browser. i don't know the issue, but i recall that this was not enough to fool hulu et al. i have no idea what else would be required though, either.
Voice control and better remote control (Score:2)
The future of TV user interfaces MUST include great voice control .. also the non voice UIs really suck .. I mean it's really difficult to do things that ought to be extremely simple.
What is the google TV experience, exactly? (Score:2)
Does not compute! (Score:2)
You only get one shot with a hardware vendor like this. Most people *besides Microsoft* can't get away with burning hardware vendors.
These guys at Google live in a Google world, they think Google, breath Google, live Google and can't possibly imagine why people outside the Google Sphere aren't as excited about what they are doing as they are.
Someday Google may learn about Memetics and it's not about matching technical specifications and requirments.
You'd think they would because they are in a key position
BUY TIVO! (Score:2)
Misstep (Score:5, Insightful)
Logitech realizes jumping into TV market was a really strange and ill-planned leap for them, tries to blame failure on supplier. News at 11.
So goole and apple want success with their TVs? (Score:2)
They are all absolutely getting it wrong.
In fact such smart media centre PVRs are woefully lacking. The built-in stuff in TVs is even worse. If I can get some either old and free or new and dirt cheap PC gear and shove a Live CD in it and have a better product by lots of measure then something is desperately wr
What is he smoking? (Score:2)
What is this guy smoking? Maybe the numbers don't work out, but from what I can tell, the Revue is the best thing to come to TV since the personal DVR (even at $100). At $50-60 it's a steal - almost literally, the thing has more hardware than that (and could tentatively be used as a workstation or any number of other roles).
Maybe it just didn't sell well. The idea works well, and even with the initial release (3.1 is much better) it's a great addition to a TV.
Re:All I want (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of sad that I'm really impressed by what seems like such an obvious and easy to implement feature... but I am. That's an awesome idea. If I wasn't living in an apartment right now, it might almost be enough to get me to switch by itself. Satellite in an apartment is a pain though.
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is that often for me the SD channel has perfect reception while the HD channel is stuttering or outright dead. (Time Warner Cable, western PA)
Re: (Score:2)