# GoogleTV being F****ed by the Networks



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I find this amusing:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/21/television-networks-block-google-tv-from-accessing-web-based-con/

Maybe it explains why more content isn't available through TiVo appears the Networks only want you to watch their shows over the Internet if you do it on a computer, unless of course you are paying extra.

Makes me appreciate good old OTA with a TiVo DVR.

Thanks,


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I find this amusing:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/21/television-networks-block-google-tv-from-accessing-web-based-con/
> 
> ...


So I can watch for free at my PC but not in front of my TV? Why do we allow TV networks to have so much control. I think we should all download a torrent tonight to teach them a lesson!


----------



## Robbdoe1 (Dec 29, 2008)

Free on the computer but not on a Google enabled device? I'll just keep watching with my laptop hooked to my HDTV until they work it all out. It sure seems like nobody wants to play nice together.

Robb


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

It's free on PC because all you get is a tiny little window or some horrible low-res thing that looks awful when blown up on the HDTV. The networks don't want to undermine their lucrative distribution on various medium (cable/satellite/etc) and ad revenue. Plus they don't want to anger their partners as well by offering for free what the cable/etc companies are forcing people to pay $50+ a month for.

It's why Hulu only works on PC, but if you pay, you can get Hulu Plus on your TV in higher quality. And everyone should know it already when Hulu kept blocking various means of easily watching Hulu on a TV.

In the end, it boils down to "you're not getting TV for free without sticking an ugly antenna on the roof".


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

This begs for creating a simple proxy that changes the user-agent string so that it makes it look like the request is coming from plain ordinary internet explorer browser and not a google tv box...


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Worf said:


> It's free on PC because all you get is a tiny little window or some horrible low-res thing that looks awful when blown up on the HDTV.


You haven't really checked the networks' websites recently, have you?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

So the HTPC (or even the laptop with an HDMI port) becomes the new analog hole?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Apparently so. Quite stupid on their part, since they already have commercials inserted when you play shows. It shouldn't matter how anyone accesses the content.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Apparently so. Quite stupid on their part, since they already have commercials inserted when you play shows. It shouldn't matter how anyone accesses the content.


YEah except networks get per-subscriber fees from cable and satellite companies.

And programming on internet doesn't have half the commercials programming on cable/satellite/antenna have unless that has changed.


----------



## Gene S (Feb 11, 2003)

Thats why I didn't understand the point of GoogleTV. Surely they knew they would get blocked by the networks?!


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Gene S said:


> Thats why I didn't understand the point of GoogleTV. Surely they knew they would get blocked by the networks?!


If it's running on Android, won't there be ways around it?


----------



## bigpatky (Apr 23, 2008)

it looks like google is in negotiations w/ 3 networks now.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69K5QS20101022



> Google in talks to unblock access to TV websites
> 
> Thu, Oct 21 2010
> By Alexei Oreskovic
> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc is actively negotiating with three television networks that have blocked access to their websites on Google TV, a source familiar with the matter said...


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

aadam101 said:


> If it's running on Android, won't there be ways around it?


You would think...

(cross posted from other thread....)

http://phandroid.com/2010/10/21/google-tv-root-first-signs-possibilities/



> *Google TV Root: First Signs & Possibilities*
> 
> One member of AndroidForums  Apeman  has gained access to Recovery Mode on Sony Internet TV and has recorded video on how to do it:
> 
> Could this be the first hint at how to gain root access on Google TV? Hopefully all the modders, rooters, hackers and Software Engineers in the Android Community will head over to our Google TV forum and start comparing notes...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

why is this a surprise to anyone?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> YEah except networks get per-subscriber fees from cable and satellite companies.


And the point is? They don't block the content no matter which payTV provider you have. If you can watch it on a laptop with HDMI (readily available and easy to hookup to your HDTV), why does it matter if it's GoogleTV instead? You're using the internet to access their content either way.

From the article:
_Google said in a statement that its new Google TV service "enables access to all the Web content you already get today on your phone and PC, but it is ultimately the content owner's choice to restrict users from accessing their content on the platform."
_
Exactly, and this is why I don't get it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

it's no surprise to me- the network tv websites blocked android phones as soon as flash for android came along.

there are patches around to change the user agent to get it to work on an android phone if it's rooted.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bigpatky said:


> it looks like google is in negotiations w/ 3 networks now.


What do you want to bet that "unlocking" access to the 3 major networks will require a monthly fee not dissimilar to that of Hulu+ ?

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the networks did this. Obviously they want to protect not only their affiliates but also their advertising revenue. PC-Streaming users likely use cable or OTA on their TV sets. GoogleTV-Streaming users would be tempted to cut the cord. The networks won't let that happen unless they can either charge a fee or come up with a better structure for embedding commercials.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> it's no surprise to me- the network tv websites blocked android phones as soon as flash for android came along.
> 
> there are patches around to change the user agent to get it to work on an android phone if it's rooted.


Don't even need to be rooted. Enter about:debug into the browser, then look at the settings and you'll see the UA settings.


----------



## t1voproof (Feb 6, 2010)

The networks will agree if Google pays something for it.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

Worf said:


> It's free on PC because all you get is a tiny little window or some horrible low-res thing that looks awful when blown up on the HDTV. The networks don't want to undermine their lucrative distribution on various medium (cable/satellite/etc) and ad revenue. Plus they don't want to anger their partners as well by offering for free what the cable/etc companies are forcing people to pay $50+ a month for.
> 
> It's why Hulu only works on PC, but if you pay, you can get Hulu Plus on your TV in higher quality. And everyone should know it already when Hulu kept blocking various means of easily watching Hulu on a TV.
> 
> In the end, it boils down to "you're not getting TV for free without sticking an ugly antenna on the roof".


FYI -- my antenna is in my attic out of sight!


----------



## Schmye Bubbula (Oct 14, 2004)

*Advertising Age: **Why the TV Networks Blocked Google TV (It's About the Ads)*
"Until Online Revenue Matches TV, Networks Will Do All They Can to Keep Web Shows on PCs and TV Shows on TV"


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> why is this a surprise to anyone?


This.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

And now for more amusement: The first device running GoogleTV (the logitech Revue) is basically the same hardware as a netbook from 2008 without the screen:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/25/logitech-revue-with-google-tv-torn-down-netbook-specs-found-wit/

Content blocked - old low end hardware - limited functionality - fairly high price

Sure makes a normal everyday HTPC look more interesting.

Thanks,


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> And now for more amusement: The first device running GoogleTV (the logitech Revue) is basically the same hardware as a netbook from 2008 without the screen:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/25/logitech-revue-with-google-tv-torn-down-netbook-specs-found-wit/
> 
> ...


If they could detect what type of display you are using they'd be blocking those too.  When flash and silverlight start monitoring for an HDMI port to give you "better quality" you can bet those will be turned off when using the network sites.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

It's OK - my HDTV has a 9-pin PC connector as well. For streaming video it's better than what's required.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

pdhenry said:


> It's OK - my HDTV has a 9-pin PC connector as well. For streaming video it's better than what's required.


I think you mean 15 pin, but i get your point.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> And now for more amusement: The first device running GoogleTV (the logitech Revue) is basically the same hardware as a netbook from 2008 without the screen:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/25/logitech-revue-with-google-tv-torn-down-netbook-specs-found-wit/
> 
> ...


Not really. I'd rather have one box I can buy and have it do the job. I'm not interested in putting a PC in my entertainment center. (Wouldn't fit, anyway.)

I guess the low end netbook can also run apps designed for the TV and do integrated searches of TV and web, HDMI overlay, and incorporate my phone and Harmony remote?

I haven't bought GTV yet, but I certainly have no desire to kludge together my own either.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> I think you mean 15 pin, but i get your point.


...but who's counting? Should have said D-Sub and let it go at that.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

hefe said:


> Not really. I'd rather have one box I can buy and have it do the job. I'm not interested in putting a PC in my entertainment center. (Wouldn't fit, anyway.)
> 
> I guess the low end netbook can also run apps designed for the TV and do integrated searches of TV and web, HDMI overlay, and incorporate my phone and Harmony remote?
> 
> I haven't bought GTV yet, but I certainly have no desire to kludge together my own either.


I guess it all depends on what you want to do with it.

I don't have a web/smart phone, already have a harmony remote and don't use it anymore, and could care less about integrated searches or HDMI overlay.

I don't subscribe to premium or sports channels so what special apps does GoogleTV have that any Internet connect computer doesn't?

Frankly without free Network and Hulu content about the only thing I would do with it is check my email and this forum.

The one reason I would want to connect a computer to my TV is to watch the few (very few) cable shows I still watch (mostly SyFy) and then dump my sat sub. I have just been to lazy to get something setup or as you said kludge together. If the Logitech Revue foot the bill I would be interested if not I will wait until I update something and have a spare laptop/PC around.

Hulu Plus at $10 might also work so something that has that might work and also allow my to dump my sat sub.

Thanks,


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Advertising pays for network TV shows. The thread title could say Google TV not being allowed to F*** the networks--Google is trying to make it easy to watch network shows on your TV without the ads that pay for the programming.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

They run ads on their web content which GoogleTV shows without modification - GoogleTV runs their app in Chrome just like you'd do on a laptop, so there is no diff. Which again makes me wonder what the big deal is about except that the networks are scared of big cable/big sat complaining.

You really need to read this guy's first day review of it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

pdhenry said:


> ...but who's counting? Should have said D-Sub and let it go at that.


You threw me though. I was thinking..."Self, he's doing video over serial?"

You confused me.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lew said:


> Advertising pays for network TV shows. The thread title could say Google TV not being allowed to F*** the networks--Google is trying to make it easy to watch network shows on your TV without the ads that pay for the programming.


Google is not trying to circumvent advertising. If I choose to watch a show on ABC.com there are still ads.

Tivo does a better job of circumventing ads than Google TV.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> Google is not trying to circumvent advertising. If I choose to watch a show on ABC.com there are still ads.


But not nearly as many as they show on TV...

Networks don't want to be taken advantage of. I think the only reason there are fewer ads online is because traffic is light as viewers only use the website to supplement their TV viewing (catching a missed episode or viewing "extras" type of material).

Now you have Google TV coming in with the possibility of creating heavy traffic due to viewers foregoing watching the show on regular TV. That would be a big hit to the network's advertising revenue so they block access.
The other alternative is to increase the online ads and no one wants that to happen.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

steve614 said:


> But not nearly as many as they show on TV...
> 
> Networks don't want to be taken advantage of. I think the only reason there are fewer ads online is because traffic is light as viewers only use the website to supplement their TV viewing (catching a missed episode or viewing "extras" type of material).
> 
> ...


It's not as if Google has come out with some new invention, it's basically a HTPC with an easy to use interface.

What business is it of the network what device I use in my home to surf the web...?


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

I have a good laptop I use and an HDMI connection all setup on my HT to use for anything I can't easily get or do on my TiVo. The only people this really effects are those who cannot figure out how to watch internet programming without a Google TV.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

steve614 said:


> The other alternative is to increase the online ads and no one wants that to happen.


Says who? I think most wouldn't have a problem if it meant they could watch the show when they wanted to. I toyed with Hulu Plus and gladly watched the ads (even though I was paying.) I only canceled because they are not reliable in which shows they keep around. I was in the middle of a season and they removed it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> They run ads on their web content which GoogleTV shows without modification - GoogleTV runs their app in Chrome just like you'd do on a laptop, so there is no diff. Which again makes me wonder what the big deal is about except that the networks are scared of big cable/big sat complaining.
> 
> You really need to read this guy's first day review of it.





steve614 said:


> But not nearly as many as they show on TV...
> 
> Networks don't want to be taken advantage of. I think the only reason there are fewer ads online is because traffic is light as viewers only use the website to supplement their TV viewing (catching a missed episode or viewing "extras" type of material).
> 
> ...


I dont think the network themselves care- the eyeballs start moving to the net then they just put more commercials there. And then they keep ALL the ad revenue and don't share it with the affiliates.

But the problem is the affiliates- they get screwed when we dont watch the local channel and instead watch the internet. No local ad revenue. No lead in to the local news. What's the point of being a network affiliate then?

The money the LOCAL stations get from cable is only a new phenomenum(sp?). It's tough to read through the BS full page newspaper ads, but I think the current pissing match between cablevision and fox in NYC is that fox is only now getting around to asking for money for retransmission consent.

I'm not sure that the money the networks get from retransmission consent of their 10-20 owned and operated stations would be more then the extra money they would get from owning every ad on the internet.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Google isn't showing the advertising that broadcasters have intended to be included with programs viewed on a TV set.

People are living in a different world if they think the few ads shown when we view shows on a PC contribute anything toward the cost of producing programming. 

There is a difference, maybe not a big difference, between using tivo to FF through some commercials and not even getting the real ads.

I wonder how long the present model of free TV programming being paid for by ads that fewer people are watching can last.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

The point is that Google has nothing to do with that broken ad model (currently), it's just making it easier to see.

Repeat after me - there is no difference between what GoogleTV shows and what you see with a PC. The only difference is how/where it is viewed, that's all. Everything else is the network's problem.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> The point is that Google has nothing to do with that broken ad model (currently), it's just making it easier to see.
> 
> Repeat after me - there is no difference between what GoogleTV shows and what you see with a PC. The only difference is how/where it is viewed, that's all. Everything else is the network's problem.


All true however from the Networks point of view people who watch a show they missed on their computer do not reduce their TV base or total ad revenues.

However people who are replacing broadcast TV with the web are reducing the Network's base and their ad revenue. They (the networks) have identified people using GoogleTV and ones who maybe replacing traditional broadcast TV with web TV and they are not going to support it until someone pays up.

Thanks,


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> I dont think the network themselves care- the eyeballs start moving to the net then they just put more commercials there. And then they keep ALL the ad revenue and don't share it with the affiliates.
> 
> But the problem is the affiliates- they get screwed when we dont watch the local channel and instead watch the internet. No local ad revenue. No lead in to the local news. What's the point of being a network affiliate then?
> 
> ...


I'm ok with that. Right now I can watch at least seven 11PM local newscasts. Do we really need that many? I get my news from the internet anyway.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> All true however from the Networks point of view people who watch a show they missed on their computer do not reduce their TV base or total ad revenues.
> 
> However people who are replacing broadcast TV with the web are reducing the Network's base and their ad revenue. They (the networks) have identified people using GoogleTV and ones who maybe replacing traditional broadcast TV with web TV and they are not going to support it until someone pays up.


All of this is the network's problem, not Google's, and censoring Google's users because their model is broken is stupid. They put the websites out there for anyone to use, but want to restrict the platform on which they are viewed? C'mon. This is the public internet.

If you don't want people to view your content however and whenever they want, don't put it out on the freaking web. Make everyone pay to watch it if you want. Or put more ads in it. Whatever, I don't care. Just don't discriminate on who can access it and how if it's open to anyone with a browser.

This is the kind of crap, along with Fox.com temporarily cutting off Cablevision users recently, that will end up with Net Neutrality laws on the books.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> I'm ok with that. Right now I can watch at least seven 11PM local newscasts. Do we really need that many? I get my news from the internet anyway.


That seems to be a pretty narrow (and selfish?) point of view. Given today's economy, suppose there are those saving money, going without cable television and internet access, with antenna reception that gets maybe 3 of the 11 local stations. Say those 3 local stations are the ones effected by lack of local ad revenue, and close shop. How are those folks to get their news then? Meh. You don't care. You get your news from the internet...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> That seems to be a pretty narrow (and selfish?) point of view. Given today's economy, suppose there are those saving money, going without cable television and internet access, with antenna reception that gets maybe 3 of the 11 local stations. Say those 3 local stations are the ones effected by lack of local ad revenue, and close shop. How are those folks to get their news then? Meh. You don't care. You get your news from the internet...


I agree I know lots of people who are either OTA only or actual lifeline cable. In either case they are 100 dependent on local broadcasts for news/information. To have a stable Democracy it is necessary to have an informed public. The Internet is great for this but unless we want to have the Government put free high speed access in every home we need to maintain access to other sources of information such as OTA broadcasting.

Thanks,


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> ... unless we want to have the Government put free high speed access in every home we need to maintain access to other sources of information such as OTA broadcasting.
> 
> Thanks,


the FCC is working on that ...

Not that I think we should kill of local TV.

But then again - maybe we should? Broadcast tv is a big waste of rf bandwidth. What if there were just 4g or 5g or whatever ubiquitous affordable wireless bandwidth in it's place- then people just watch internet streams...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> All true however from the Networks point of view people who watch a show they missed on their computer do not reduce their TV base or total ad revenues.
> 
> However people who are replacing broadcast TV with the web are reducing the Network's base and their ad revenue. They (the networks) have identified people using GoogleTV and ones who maybe replacing traditional broadcast TV with web TV and they are not going to support it until someone pays up.
> 
> Thanks,


that's just silly. The only reason why it should effect their ad revenue is because they aren't selling enough ads on the internet. If commercial on broadcast tv hits 10 million viewers but I can show Ford that a commercial on the internet stream that people will watch on their Tv via google tv has 20 million viewers you dont think Ford wouldn't pay more for the internet ad?

supply and demand.

If more people are watching internet you increase the ads there and you get rich. it's that simply.

It's more complex then the ad revenue isn't there on the internet. I think it's the affiliate issue. Maybe it's something else. But ad revenue is not a problem if the networks run their sales departments right.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Funny thing is that there are currently more people that have replaced broadcast TV with web and are using PCs to do so than are using Google TV to do the same. They're (the networks) trying to get out in front of the "problem" since Google TV makes it so easy to do, and with mass adoption possible in the future, that will affect their business model. But they can't stop it forever. There will surely be more devices to contend with, and either they're going to offer streaming or not. They just won't be able to control how people watch it long term.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

hefe said:


> Funny thing is that there are currently more people that have replaced broadcast TV with web and are using PCs to do so than are using Google TV to do the same...


That's a pretty bold statement. Source?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> That's a pretty bold statement. Source?


What's so bold about that? Basically he's saying more people use pcs hooked up to tvs than use gtv devices to skip out on broadcast tv.

Given that gtv just came out it's a pretty safe assumption.

OF course both combined is a tiny subset of consumers.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> All of this is the network's problem, not Google's, and censoring Google's users because their model is broken is stupid. They put the websites out there for anyone to use, but want to restrict the platform on which they are viewed? C'mon. This is the public internet.
> 
> If you don't want people to view your content however and whenever they want, don't put it out on the freaking web. Make everyone pay to watch it if you want. Or put more ads in it. Whatever, I don't care. Just don't discriminate on who can access it and how if it's open to anyone with a browser.
> 
> This is the kind of crap, along with Fox.com temporarily cutting off Cablevision users recently, that will end up with Net Neutrality laws on the books.


It also forces more and more people to use bittorrent. The advertisers love the 18-34 crowds and these are the people who know how to use BT. This demo is being alienated by the networks every chance they get. Good thing BT is so user friendly.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> that's just silly. ...


Lots of stuff the Networks do qualifies as "just silly" in my mind  but they still do it. Hulu has been blocking pretty much everything that might connect to a TV since day one. However I will buy that there is more to it than just ad revenue.

Thanks,


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

orangeboy said:


> That's a pretty bold statement. Source?


Are you serious?

How long has Google TV been for sale? You really think that more people are already using it than are using HTPCs or just watching their TV on PCs?


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

hefe said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> How long has Google TV been for sale? You really think that more people are already using it than are using HTPCs or just watching their TV on PCs?


I was just astounded at the statement "people that have replaced broadcast TV with web". I personally don't know of anyone that has cut cable and taken down their antennas for strictly web based content.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

orangeboy said:


> I was just astounded at the statement "people that have replaced broadcast TV with web". I personally don't know of anyone that has cut cable and taken down their antennas for strictly web based content.


Anecdotal, I'll grant you, but I have heard some people talk of doing just that over the last couple years.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

orangeboy said:


> I was just astounded at the statement "people that have replaced broadcast TV with web". I personally don't know of anyone that has cut cable and taken down their antennas for strictly web based content.


I think there are a few on these boards but it's a VERY small number. I had cut cable at one point. I only reluctantly have it now because spouse insists on it.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Oh, and I wouldn't "take down" my antenna for web content. It's there and it's free. But I surely would/will consider going without satellite or cable.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

The Logitech Revue is starting to get some reviews on Amazon: Kind of mix bag:

http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Comp...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Well they finally lowered the price so much I decided to give the Logitech Reveu a look see.

Just ordered a reconditioned unit from TigerDirect for $79.99 including shipping, after my Fatwallet 5% rebate the cost is down to $76 low enough for me to trash it if I don't like it.

Hopefully the upcoming software update will make this a great buy 

Thanks,


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Well they finally lowered the price so much I decided to give the Logitech Reveu a look see.
> 
> Just ordered a reconditioned unit from TigerDirect for $79.99 including shipping, after my Fatwallet 5% rebate the cost is down to $76 low enough for me to trash it if I don't like it.
> 
> ...


the best thing in that price is the wireless Keyboard. The Keyboard is nice but they can't even get the audio over HDMI working properly.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Google TV is ok. But as long as it requires a remote or keyboard with 100 buttons it is really useless. Even in the 2.0 navigation is complicated and inconsistent at best. I could never let any non geek in my house use it without wanting to smash it into pieces. Roku, Apple TV, and Boxee get this market. All of them have simple remotes than anyone can pick up and use without hours and hours of training.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I like the keyboard.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

rainwater said:


> Google TV is ok. * But as long as it requires a remote or keyboard with 100 buttons it is really useless.* Even in the 2.0 navigation is complicated and inconsistent at best. I could never let any non geek in my house use it without wanting to smash it into pieces. Roku, Apple TV, and Boxee get this market. All of them have simple remotes than anyone can pick up and use without hours and hours of training.


Except it doesn't require the keyboard, they leverage the fact they own the Harmony remote line since it has GTV commands available and there's an iphone/android remote.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

dianebrat said:


> Except it doesn't require the keyboard, they leverage the fact they own the Harmony remote line since it has GTV commands available and there's an iphone/android remote.


Yes, that's true. I can use my Harmony One to control it, and I do sometimes.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> the cost is down to $76 low enough for me to trash it if I don't like it. Hopefully the upcoming software update will make this a great buy


If nothing else, you'll have a Bluetooth keyboard with touchpad.


----------



## RDK (Oct 9, 2011)

davezatz said:


> If nothing else, you'll have a Bluetooth keyboard with touchpad.


So are you saying that I can "repurpose" the GTV keyboard in my electronics graveyard as a wireless keyboard for the Android tablet that I'm hoping Santa brings me?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

isn't the wireless keyboard sold separately for more than you paid for the Revue?


----------



## tomm1079 (May 10, 2005)

ok i bought it..been thinking about it for months and you guys pushed me over the edge with the 79 price..

another day another toy...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

rainwater said:


> Google TV is ok. But as long as it requires a remote or keyboard with 100 buttons it is really useless. Even in the 2.0 navigation is complicated and inconsistent at best. I could never let any non geek in my house use it without wanting to smash it into pieces. Roku, Apple TV, and Boxee get this market. All of them have simple remotes than anyone can pick up and use without hours and hours of training.


Actually I point people at the Roku when asked for the reasons you stated. I really have no need for any of these type devices (have an HTPC attached to my home theater) but I like stuff that I need to spend time in a learning curve so long has it works well after I learn how to use it. I thought given the pending software update and potential of this device it would be fun to play with for at least a little while. I will post back in a few weeks on how it works out.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tomm1079 said:


> another day another toy...


Tis the season


----------



## Scyber (Apr 25, 2002)

Thats a very very tempting price for the revue.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

And even free shipping, assuming you can wait up to 9 days. These (Tiger Direct) units are refurbished BTW. I heard somewhere that most refurbished units were returns by customers who couldn't get them working properly or just didn't like them, but actually there is nothing wrong with them.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Just be warned that Logitech isn't going to support this device anymore past 2.0. If I were buying another I would wait until the next gen come out or go with a Sony.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

rainwater said:


> Just be warned that Logitech isn't going to support this device anymore past 2.0. If I were buying another I would wait until the next gen come out or go with a Sony.


They will support all devices until the warranty is over.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> ...low enough for me to trash it if I don't like it....


Well, if it comes to that you could let me have it to play with.

(it's not like there isn't enough stuff in landfills already)


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

rainwater said:


> Just be warned that Logitech isn't going to support this device anymore past 2.0. If I were buying another I would wait until the next gen come out or go with a Sony.


This is misleading. They will not do any *upgrades* past GTV 2.0 but they have pledged to *support* existing devices. They are pushing out the Android 3.1 update right now with an announced completion date of 12 Dec 2011.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

dlfl said:


> This is misleading. They will not do any *upgrades* past GTV 2.0 but they have pledged to *support* existing devices. They are pushing out the Android 3.1 update right now with an announced completion date of 12 Dec 2011.


Yes, like I said, they are only going to support 2.0 (Android 3.1). So once Google updates the next gen devices to 4.0, the Revue will be stuck and app support will probably end up lacking in the next year or so as developers will be supporting 4.0 (since it works for tablets, phones, and tvs).


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

rainwater said:


> Google TV is ok. But as long as it requires a remote or keyboard with 100 buttons it is really useless. Even in the 2.0 navigation is complicated and inconsistent at best. I could never let any non geek in my house use it without wanting to smash it into pieces. Roku, Apple TV, and Boxee get this market. All of them have simple remotes than anyone can pick up and use without hours and hours of training.


I am a non geek and can use the Revue easily as a result of the keyboard which allows me to find programming online and put it in my queue. Anybody in the house can access the queue to watch those programs, very simple to do. Little of the programming I stream is accessible by the Roku, Apple TV or Boxee and I have no idea why anybody recommends boxes so limited for the intended purpose, streaming video from the internet.

My two Revues haven't been updated yet but already do everything I had hoped for when I purchased them. Being a non geek might mean I won't find applications that are useful to me, I don't really have a feel for what Android 3.1 will add for me personally. As far as the networks blocking Google TV, I don't understand it since I would assume advertising funded programming requires viewers to succeed but for whatever reason, many networks do block Google TV. I don't care personally and use TiVo to watch most network programming since I can skip commercials.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Hmmm... a few questions:

1) Is the keyboard backlit?

2) Can the keyboard be used with a normal computer (Windows 7, for example)?


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> Hmmm... a few questions:
> 
> 1) Is the keyboard backlit?
> 
> 2) Can the keyboard be used with a normal computer (Windows 7, for example)?


No backlighting and the keyboard should work with anything that can accept the Logitech Unifying receiver connected by USB with the required software installed.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Chris Gerhard said:


> No backlighting and the keyboard should work with anything that can accept the Logitech Unifying receiver connected by USB with the required software installed.


Ok, cool. And that unifying receiver comes with the whole package deal?


----------



## rcobourn (Nov 10, 2004)

BrettStah said:


> Ok, cool. And that unifying receiver comes with the whole package deal?


The receiver is built in to the revue. You can purchase one from logitech support for about $10.


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

Hmmm< i have a revue but I've never thought about using the keyboard with my Win7 PC. I also have a Logitech Performance MX mouse that I thought came with a usb unifying thingamajig. Would that work together? I know I can try it later this weekend just seeing if anyone knows?


----------



## rcobourn (Nov 10, 2004)

2004raptor said:


> Hmmm< i have a revue but I've never thought about using the keyboard with my Win7 PC. I also have a Logitech Performance MX mouse that I thought came with a usb unifying thingamajig. Would that work together? I know I can try it later this weekend just seeing if anyone knows?


Yes, that will work. You will need to download the unifying software to your Win7 PC to add the keyboard to your existing receiver. http://www.logitech.com/unifying.


----------



## tomm1079 (May 10, 2005)

Got my unit today! Found out Tiger direct has a shipping warehouse next city over.

First thoughts....really cool! 

Im still at Android 2.1 but hoping for 3.1 over weekend.

i like the overlays and how it works. I have not explored it completely but i do like the fact i no longer have to change inputs to get a good amazon/netflix player

I did notice it sends all tivo commands with remote code 0. I just found a way to switch it so i am going to try that out. I have 2 tivos in the room and want the revue on remote code 1.

In case anyone wants to know how to change it: 
Applications>Settings>Input Devices>Customize Controller Keys


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Well I order this on 12/8 and it was delivered on 12/13 not bad for free delivery. I have received notice of my Fatwallet rebate so my cost is $76. The only issue I have with TigerDirect is they list the warranty to be 12 months. It is really 90 days, which is what I would have expected for a refurbished product, but they really should fix their web page.

I have been down with a 48 hour bug so I really haven't played much with the actual Revue unit. I will say the paper instructions suck and assume way to much user knowledge. They don't even mention putting batteries in the key board which might seem like a given for us but wouldn't for many people. The unit did do an update to 3.1 right at the start, setup was easy for me but did take to long. 

Will post more thoughts at a latter date.


----------



## tomm1079 (May 10, 2005)

Android 2 was ok but they really redefined this box with Android 3.

They actually moved everything to apps and they made it how i expected it to me from the start.

I really do like it. I loved the fact that i got a crappy football game on sunday locally and was able to tune into a better game online


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tomm1079 said:


> Got my unit today! Found out Tiger direct has a shipping warehouse next city over.
> 
> First thoughts....really cool!
> 
> ...


I need to change the Remote Address code on the Revue also. Can you tell me how you did it? I have looked around the Customize Controller Keys and don't see what I would change.

*Edit: tomm1079:*I figured it out - if anyone needs detailed instructions let me know and I will post them.

Thanks,


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Well I said I would post back my thoughts so here goes:

The Logitech Revue with Google TV has amazing potential, however as a consumer appliance it is a failure.​
The Revue is a consumer appliance failure for 2 primary reasons. The first is it violates the basic "you must be able to plug it in and use it" rule and second is because Logitech has stated they will not provide future updates so the potential of this device is limited.

I have actually enjoyed spending the time needed to figure out how to use all of this devices features. My Revue updated to the new 3.1 software at start up so my experience is only with the current and last software update. Because it tries to be many things it ends up not being the best at anything and not even good at many things.


Internet Streaming: You have your basics Netflix, Amazon and a few others. However both Roku and Boxee Box are easier and have more choices.
Universal Remote: Works to some extent but honestly you need a remote not a keyboard - you are better off with a harmony remote
Web browsing: Painful is the best way to describe the experience. This is not a mobile device no reason to put a mobile browser on it, there is plenty of real estate for tool bars. On a personal note I need a mouse. On the up side it has made me really appreciate my HTPC. 
Playing "local" media: Limited but it works except as aaronwt has said the Revue messes with sound quality. I can live with it when it comes to a TV show but listening to music is really not acceptable.
The Revue is a great idea and had great potential. However it is an end of life product and is unlikely to be improved enough for me to recommend it to anyone. At $76 I am fine with my purchase but honestly you would be better off with a $99 Roku.

Google TV is however a different matter. I really do see potential and with the right hardware and feature set Google TV could still be a great product. My advise to Google is: Think; "Keep it simple stupid", consumer appliances need to be just that, a simple appliance that any person can use without thinking about it much.

Thanks,


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I am enjoying it a great deal.

I have the Tinycam Monitor installed, and it's so cool to be able to go picture-in-picture and pull up the IP camera I have as a baby monitor in the baby's room.

I have used it far more than I thought I would to pull up information that something I'm watching prompts me to want to know.

With the Google TV remote app on my Android phone, I have had YouTube videos that I send to the TV screen.

Not many games, but I did enjoy playing Dragon, Fly on the TV.

And watching content through the Plex media player.

I do wish the hardware was a little faster, but I really like it, and totally got more than my $99 worth.

I really think the potential for when people really start producing more apps for this thing is quite huge. If not in consumer numbers, at least in my own enjoyment of it.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Well I said I would post back my thoughts so here goes:
> 
> The Logitech Revue with Google TV has amazing potential, however as a consumer appliance it is a failure.​
> The Revue is a consumer appliance failure for 2 primary reasons. The first is it violates the basic "you must be able to plug it in and use it" rule and second is because Logitech has stated they will not provide future updates so the potential of this device is limited.
> ...


Again, someone recommends the Roku with no keyboard and which can only access very limited internet streaming, this seems like a silly recommendation and I just don't get it. Can you get to Internet Archive.com or freemoviescinema.com with the Roku? Those are just a couple of the dozen sites I use for public domain movies and TV shows with the Revue but two that I like. When I compared what was accessible using the Roku to what is accessible using Google TV, I can't see any value with the Roku. Google TV is intended for the entire web, not just the selected few precious sites Roku is set up to handle.

If you can't use the Revue to find what you want to watch, I think you don't know how to use the device. Yes, it takes some effort but the web doesn't fit into a nice little plug and play device, there are a wide variety of different requirements to access programming, not just one simple process. I also have no problem using it for web browsing, including participation here and other forums.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Again, someone recommends the Roku with no keyboard and which can only access very limited internet streaming, this seems like a silly recommendation and I just don't get it. Can you get to Internet Archive.com or freemoviescinema.com with the Roku? Those are just a couple of the dozen sites I use for public domain movies and TV shows with the Revue but two that I like. When I compared what was accessible using the Roku to what is accessible using Google TV, I can't see any value with the Roku. Google TV is intended for the entire web, not just the selected few precious sites Roku is set up to handle.


Availability of content versus usability is a difficult topic because both a fairly personal. I will not recommend anything I think has usability issues and, in my mind, the Revue has significant usability issues. How the Revue functions maybe acceptable to you but I don't believe it would be for someone looking for a simple streaming appliance. The last person I made a recommendation to wanted something to stream Netflix and Amazon Prime that her 5 & 7 year old sons and non-tech husband could just pick up and use. I told her to get the top Roku with the gaming remote. She thanks me every time she sees me. They love the Roku simple to setup, simple to use, and they apparently love Anger Birds on the big screen. In fact she bought several for family members for Christmas.



Chris Gerhard said:


> If you can't use the Revue to find what you want to watch, I think you don't know how to use the device. Yes, it takes some effort but the web doesn't fit into a nice little plug and play device, there are a wide variety of different requirements to access programming, not just one simple process. I also have no problem using it for web browsing, including participation here and other forums.


I am not sure I agree that you can find everything someone wants to watch as some content is still blocked that you can access on a HTPC however I do generally agree with your statement. It still all comes down to usability for me and I don't find the Chrome browser in the Revue very usable and what the Revue does to music is completely unacceptable. I have hopes that Mozilla will release a Firefox browser for Google TV/Revue that isn't crippled, but for now my HTPC is significantly easier to use for anything that requires a browser than the Revue.

The one thing I will say for the Revue is that for someone tight on money it gives them access to more content than anything other than a HTPC at a very low price point.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Anyone using the keyboard from the Revue with an HTPC?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Well if anyone still really wants a Logitech Revue reconditioned ones are available again for $78 shipping included:

http://www.ecost.com/p/Logitech-Keyboards/product~dpno~8787872~pdp.gibeebd?source=EWB11588​
With Fatwallet you can also get a 2% rebate.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> Anyone using the keyboard from the Revue with an HTPC?


I am using a Revue keyboard with a laptop connected to an HDTV, primarily just to set and play PlayLater recordings. In addition to using the keyboard for browsing and search, the transport play and pause buttons work and the touchpad works with the time slider for skipping commercials, I must guess as to time point but after using it awhile, it is pretty easy. Playback is accomplished using Windows Media Player. I can also access those same recordings with any Google TV box in the house but no trick play or commercial skipping works, only play and pause using the touchpad. I installed XBMC and was going to use it to directly access my PlayOn channels but decided recording is much better, I know the program will still be available when I want it with that method.

Of course you must have the Logitech unifying receiver which comes with the keyboard when purchased separately. I can't see why it wouldn't work with a proper HTPC.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> Anyone using the keyboard from the Revue with an HTPC?





Chris Gerhard said:


> Of course you must have the Logitech unifying receiver which comes with the keyboard when purchased separately. I can't see why it wouldn't work with a proper HTPC.


Works awesome on my Acer Revo 100 HTPC I bought the unifying receiver on ebay for under $10 shipped. the Revo 100 replaced the Google TV after I had a few files the GoogleTV couldn't play, the Revo being Win7 plays all.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Works awesome on my Acer Revo 100 HTPC I bought the unifying receiver on ebay for under $10 shipped. the Revo 100 replaced the Google TV after I had a few files the GoogleTV couldn't play, the Revo being Win7 plays all.


Didn't the Revo come with a lighted touchscreen keyboard?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Didn't the Revo come with a lighted touchscreen keyboard?


the cool but weird little touchpad/keyboard combo, yes.. but you're always jumping between keyboard and touchpad mode. For a lot of things I like the bigger Logitech keyboard with real keys.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

A couple of apps I hadn't noticed before in the Spotlight section.

Vanguard - Independent films provided by ads. Pretty good for my tastes.

iHeart Radio - Another audio service like Pandora but adding actual radio stations from many cities. The custom station channels can be individual artists and there are some preset channels. I don't really care about the type of services and although I signed up for Spotify and Pandora, I rarely ever use them. The real radio stations mostly didn't work for me, audio cuts out but I would expect that to be fixed.


----------

