# Why TIVO has not been successful!



## Carnage_7 (Sep 17, 2002)

Check out the following link: http://bestbuytivo.com/start-with-why-a-review. The author makes the point that TIVO was not successful because they explained what the box would do, but failed to explain why consumers would benefit from owning that box. Is this a simplistic explanation? Does it have any merit?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think TiVo had a hard time explaining the benefit of the box in the beginning because it was just something that was so new it was hard to explain. Most people focused on the ability to pause and rewind live TV, but in reality that is more of a gimmick then an actual useful feature. The real meat and potatoes is the ability to time shift TV and watch whatever you want, whenever you want. However in the early days the only people who really understood the convenience of that were people with really odd schedules or those who were already actively using VCRs to time shift. Everyone else just thought it was an expensive toy for A/V geeks.

By the time prices started to come down and word started to get out about how life changing a DVR really could be for the average Joe, that's right about the time the cable and DSS providers started coming out with their own competing products and hiding the true cost in the programming subscription fee. At first TiVo did OK because their features were so much better then the cable/DSS products, but over the years the cable/DSS DVRs have gotten better and TiVo has stayed pretty much the same. They still do OK in the geek crowd simply because they offer some advanced networking features that we geeks like, but for the average consumer the cable DVR is "good enough" and there is no real reason to lay out $300 + $12/mo for a real TiVo.

Going forward I think TiVo has to do one of two things.... Either become a direct supplier of DVRs to cable/DSS providers and move away from selling to consumers, or come up with something so revolutionary that consumers will once again see the value of owning a real TiVo. I think they are mainly trying for the first one, but I would love to see them come up with something revolutionary again. 

Dan


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I'd argue that it was the fact that Tivo thought the average person was brain dead.. and only when all the Netflix streaming, Photo app using, Iphone grabbing generation exploded onto the scene did Tivo finally see the writting on the wall and figure out that people wanted to use the box for more than just "a digital vcr" and they should toute it as such. Too late, but hence the Premiere's "one box" laughable claim of music, movies, etc..

Fact is, $99 devices beat the crap out of Tivo for Media playback and Tivo just accels at being a cable tv box.. and traditional TV is dieing.

I think they will team up with more players like RCN, etc.. and together try to slow the death of cable. Overall, I doubt, and think they already know, that they will not be a contender in the next generation of media devices.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Dan203 has it right. Actually, TiVo is already in the process of doing a "number 1" type of transition for the company by getting _away_ from the hardware business and become a supplier of software only. (It was expressed by Rogers long ago, briefly, but he hasn't mentioned it as of late; it could hurt Series 4 sales). That is the entire reason for the suit against Echostar, who at the time--merely a coincidence?-- had the most DVR's in homes.

Oh, and by stunning coincidence (such serendipity), now TiVo says both AT&T and Verizon also infringe. PLEASE! The suit is all about leverage to get providers to pay TiVo fees for its software--OR ELSE! TiVo knows if they don't prevail against Echostar, it is all over for the company. Everything depends upon being able to push their software upon cable, sat, and the rest. I believe this is why the Series 4 was _under_whelming to many of us: TiVo didn't want to spend a ton of cash on R&D for a _revolutionary_ Series 4 box when TiVo wants to get _out_ of the set-top-box business. Nope. No future in STB's. It's software or nothing, now.

TiVo CEO Tom Rogers was asked in an interview why TiVo was suing AT&T and Verizon instead of the box manufactures such as Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, since they design the hardware and implement _much_ of the software. Dear old Tom NEVER answered the question (in fact, he stammered trying to evade answering that question). But when pressed by the interviewer, Tom did concede that they are or will sue providers of TV services who will not talk to them about paying for TiVo software, and he did say that AT&T and Verizon expressed no desire to even discuss even the most remote possibility of any deal with TiVo, while those who are willing to have tea with TiVo are spared the lawsuits.

So, the strategy is clear. Get a favorable ruling in a court case, then use that as leverage to "persuade" the provider to come to an agreement to pay for TiVo software or they will be sued, too.

The question now is how long the inevitable Echostar pay-out and licensing fees (I just think Echostar/Dish will lose in the end) will keep it afloat if AT&T and Verizon balk instead of caving in. Probably long enough. But AT&T and Verizon have much deeper pockets than Echostar/Dish, so they very well could play the Charlie Ergan card and just go for a long, long trial, but TiVo will have that Dish income every month keeping the company alive. AT&T and Verizon may have to pay in the end, anyway. Or will the final ruling in favor of TiVo against Echostar/Dish mean that TiVo becomes an attractive company for a larger company to buy and exploit the favorable ruling itself (maybe Ergan, himself, after losing, paying hundreds of millions more to get a seat on the board)?

The big flaw in TiVo's plan was never foreseen, but is _now_ apparent, when TiVo filed the infringement suit against Echostar nearly 7 years ago: the quick advancement and adoption of true media boxes such as Boxee, PopCorn, et al. even Blu-ray players that provide a portal to TV programming and movies via the internet directly to media sites. What use is TiVo software there? NONE! However, expect Mr. Rogers to find some clever way, perusing the vast array of broad patents TiVo owns, to claim those media boxes and Google TV--and perhaps even the sites themselves such as Netflix--infringe upon TiVo patents and file suit. That really will be the only way TiVo will be around years from now. But the cable and Sat co's may be sharing the same the grave with TiVo.

As for the article cited: I have to disagree with it. TiVo did, in fact, do as good a job as anyone explaining the why or explaining the benefit to consumers. In fact, the cable cos. and satellite probably did an even worse job on those points, but their DVR's are successful products for their services and are the number 1 factor in preventing churn. The problem for TiVo was always the business model. Everyone knew of and _wanted_ a TiVo--until they saw the price, as in the box and monthly service. Sorry, but TiVo still remains a toy for affluent who can afford to pony up the big bucks--and the price of the lifetime service is out of the question for most families, while the rest of America felt they could take the risk with a cable co or sat co DVR provided for FREE (for new installs, of which there were millions) and monthly fee that was anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a TiVo monthly charge. Oh, and the cable co and sat co would replace the defective or no longer functioning DVR FREE of charge (Dish does charge shipping for non-extended warranty customers, but at a $15 shipping fee, it is a steal compared to replacing a TiVo). That is why TiVo isn't the big gorilla today and why it is suing Echostar/Dish, AT&T, and Verizon. The best marketing in the world (an accolade TiVo deserves) is not going to, in any way, mitigate *sticker shock*. Just too many families (and mostly the wives?) could simply not justify such an extravagance. So they did without--until the cable and sat man came along with their own downscaled and cheaper DVR's.

It is the times and market that changes and it is the companies that can change with them that will survive, not, as the article suggests, companies NOT changing and sticking to some successful business plan that seemed pretty good back in 1999. In fact, Starbucks CD sales bring in a ton of cash, as to just about ALL the "silly" things they have added to the menu and shelves for people to buy. Starbucks got hurt a bit because competitors (fast food places like McDonald's) started selling less expensive (and higher sugar?) versions of Starbucks drinks. In other words *competition.*. And TiVo didn't really have any for a few years (replay TV sued and Dish's DishPlayer sabotaged by Microsoft software that MS later used for its Ultimate TV, but none of them serious competition for TiVo), and the future looked bright in TiVoland. Then came the big "C": *competition--with a better business model.* But so be it in our free market system.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

In 2001 the season pass that did not record repeats and being able to get a bigger drive sold me and many of my friends on TiVo as a valuable replacement for the VCR, when MRV came out I replaced all my families VCRs with TiVos. Selling used TiVos with lifetime made the cost of ownership very low as the hardware was almost free back then. (remember the $150 rebates and gift points for signing up for service ? and the points could sold on E-Bay for as much as $35), so my cost to get into the Series 3 HD TiVos was still not too high as the price on lifetime Series 2s was still over $300. The hardware cost of the Series 3 was much higher so the next migration will be a lot more money and as of now not worth it for the Series 4.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I see Tivo not being as successful as it should for several reasons:

1. You have to buy the box. Cablecos supply the hardware for free, other than the monthly rental. If it breaks, they replace it at no cost. If a Tivo breaks, you either pay to get it repaired or replaced.
2. You have to pay a monthly fee over and above the cost of the box. Unless you have the MSD, the monthly fee is not much less than the monthly rental of the cableco DVR. You also have to pay for cablecard rentals in addition to the hardware cost and monthly Tivo fees (or whatever plan you choose).
3. Too many bells and whistles. Most people just want a box to record an occasional TV show. Tivo has added far too much bloatware, IMHO. Considering that the extra features available on a Tivo don't cost anything to use on a PC, I don't see it as much of a marketing edge.

Tivo is suing everyone under the sun out of sheer desperation. I guess with Media Center being part of almost every version of Windows 7 Tivo will go after Microsoft next. I've been a Tivo fan ever since they first came out, but I don't see Tivo surviving for much longer unless they can find a buyer with better marketing savvy. 

I just bought a Ceton CableCARD tuner for my HTPC and I will soon be retiring my last Tivo after 10 years. There is simply too much competition for Tivo to be able to hold onto any significant market share with their current marketing strategy. I've seen absolutely nothing in the new S4 Tivo Premiere that would make me want to update to the current model. The S4 was more of a lateral move than an upward one.

Here's what I'd like to see Tivo do:

1. Sell new Hi-Def Tivos for $399 and include lifetime service.
2. Allow Tivos to stream live TV over a home network instead of using the current crippled MRV feature.
3. Configure the Tivo with a SSD that contains the primary Tivo partitions while using a separate removable hard drive for the mfs partitions (i.e., recording space). Allow the user to replace the mfs partition drive with a larger one simply by swapping it out. A menu option could be used to configure the mfs partitions for use with the Tivo. I'm no Linux guru but if this is not feasible then it should be possible at least to have several hundred MB of non-volatile memory that contains the Tivo image and a built-in MFS Tools program so the user could swap out the drives and restore a backup to the new drive stored directly on the Tivo hardware.
4. Market Tivo extenders for use with a main Tivo configured to work as in item No. 2. The main Tivo would become the server that can feed multiple extenders. The extenders would include tuners, but no hard drive, that can stream live TV back to the main Tivo for recording so that every tuner on the network could be pooled for use with a central DVR. An external drive could be added to the extender to increase network storage.

The bottom line is that Tivo has options they haven't even tried to market yet that could put them in front of the rest of the pack. They just need to stop trying to put band-aid patches on an aging OS and rethink the DVR from the ground up. Tivo is over 10 years old and, aside from a lot of (generally) useless extra features, it really hasn't changed all that much.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bschuler2007 said:


> I'd argue that it was the fact that Tivo thought the average person was brain dead.. and only when all the Netflix streaming, Photo app using, Iphone grabbing generation exploded onto the scene did Tivo finally see the writting on the wall


actually you are pretty far off base here. A high ranking Netflix officer (think it was Chairman) was on TiVo inc. board. TiVo had even announced work on a streaming app YEARS before anyone else. Netflix simply could not get the licensing deals for streaming though and TiVo had to wait. While waiting they did the deal with amazon.

only other appliance was Xbox hanging with TiVo on download or streaming. Now of course netflix streaming in on lots of devices.

I think Dan has it correct and unfortunately this means TiVo has to watch how much money it puts into innovations and more importantly what kind of innovations as deals with MSOs hopefully become an important revenue stream.

We consumers just have to face facts that it is hard to make a profit on selling just to us, given the competition from broadcast providers


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> I see Tivo not being as successful as it should for several reasons:
> 
> 1. You have to buy the box. Cablecos supply the hardware for free, other than the monthly rental. If it breaks, they replace it at no cost. If a Tivo breaks, you either pay to get it repaired or replaced.


TiVo tried a rental program. It failed It had to cost more than a cable DVR of course, becaus DVR is TiVo's primary revenue.


> 2. You have to pay a monthly fee over and above the cost of the box. Unless you have the MSD, the monthly fee is not much less than the monthly rental of the cableco DVR. You also have to pay for cablecard rentals in addition to the hardware cost and monthly Tivo fees (or whatever plan you choose).


It is not so much that there is a fee, but that the price is too high for many.


> 3. Too many bells and whistles. Most people just want a box to record an occasional TV show. Tivo has added far too much bloatware, IMHO. Considering that the extra features available on a Tivo don't cost anything to use on a PC, I don't see it as much of a marketing edge.


Basically that, too many B&W than the average user would use. Sell (at a reasonable price) or give a way a basic DVR service with the hardware (sold at cost or profit). Sell the added features for a monthly or one time cost. Sell major software update revisions for a one time cost.

<snipped>



> 1. Sell new Hi-Def Tivos for $399 and include lifetime service.


The Premier,yes. $549 or $599 for the XL. As I stated above, the base service (what this Product Lifetime could be) would have the necessary features to be a DVR the average user would need. Make further money in upselling the advanced features, or even apps.



> 2. Allow Tivos to stream live TV over a home network instead of using the current crippled MRV feature.


I think MRV is not a big problem, and might be a limitation of the hardware.
But a plus in my book if they figure out how to, and do not require their proprietary appliance to do it. They can make it an "upsell" feature though.


> 3. Configure the Tivo with a SSD that contains the primary Tivo partitions while using a separate removable hard drive for the mfs partitions (i.e., recording space). Allow the user to replace the mfs partition drive with a larger one simply by swapping it out. A menu option could be used to configure the mfs partitions for use with the Tivo. I'm no Linux guru but if this is not feasible then it should be possible at least to have several hundred MB of non-volatile memory that contains the Tivo image and a built-in MFS Tools program so the user could swap out the drives and restore a backup to the new drive stored directly on the Tivo hardware.


They can have a "disk on chip" with enough smarts to boot and connect to the internet to download the software and base MFS images. An SSD costs a bit more, and takes up an SATA channel.


> 4. Market Tivo extenders for use with a main Tivo configured to work as in item No. 2. The main Tivo would become the server that can feed multiple extenders. The extenders would include tuners, but no hard drive, that can stream live TV back to the main Tivo for recording so that every tuner on the network could be pooled for use with a central DVR. An external drive could be added to the extender to increase network storage.


With Allvid around the corner, I don't see that happening.
At most they could make a media client which includes TiVoStream.


> The bottom line is that Tivo has options they haven't even tried to market yet that could put them in front of the rest of the pack. They just need to stop trying to put band-aid patches on an aging OS and rethink the DVR from the ground up. Tivo is over 10 years old and, aside from a lot of (generally) useless extra features, it really hasn't changed all that much.


Apart from the SSD and MRV streaming (yet) thing, is the Premiere not that?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

classicsat said:


> TiVo tried a rental program. It failed It had to cost more than a cable DVR of course, becaus DVR is TiVo's primary revenue.


I believe that Tivo is striking an agreement with Comcast or other cableco to use them as the cableco DVRs. This might be a boost Tivo desperately needs.



> It is not so much that there is a fee, but that the price is too high for many.


Exactly, especially when you total up the cost of the DVR, the Tivo service, and the CableCARD fees.



> Basically that, too many B&W than the average user would use. Sell (at a reasonable price) or give a way a basic DVR service with the hardware (sold at cost or profit). Sell the added features for a monthly or one time cost. Sell major software update revisions for a one time cost.


Sounds reasonable to me.



> The Premier,yes. $549 or $599 for the XL. As I stated above, the base service (what this Product Lifetime could be) would have the necessary features to be a DVR the average user would need. Make further money in upselling the advanced features, or even apps.


I was referring to the base model Premiere. If they made the drive easily upgradeable there would be no need for the XL. Of course, I mean easy for the general population and not the rank and file here. I'm pretty sure there's a fair number here that could upgrade a Tivo drive with little or no problem.



> I think MRV is not a big problem, and might be a limitation of the hardware.
> But a plus in my book if they figure out how to, and do not require their proprietary appliance to do it. They can make it an "upsell" feature though.


It's most definitely a limitation of the hardware. For a few extra bucks they could easily upgrade the integrated NIC for a much higher throughput.



> They can have a "disk on chip" with enough smarts to boot and connect to the internet to download the software and base MFS images. An SSD costs a bit more, and takes up an SATA channel.


I just threw in the SSD off the top of my head before I realized that the UTV DVRs have had this method of upgrading drives from day one. There's no reason why Tivo couldn't do the same thing.



> With Allvid around the corner, I don't see that happening.
> At most they could make a media client which includes TiVoStream.


I'm not familiar with AllVid so I have no comment.



> Apart from the SSD and MRV streaming (yet) thing, is the Premiere not that?


Can't say. I haven't delved all that deeply into the Premiere's features. From a cursory view I don't see all that much that is different than the Tivo HD or S3. I believe the UI is new but I haven't given it a good look-see.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

The revolting stench is coming from the top down in this company.

It may already be too late indeed for this once innovative tech company to rejoin its peers. Nevertheless, TiVo CEO Tom Rogers must be kicked out if not sued by the shareholders for mail fraud. He should have been thrown out years ago for nearly bankrupting the company. TiVo CEO Tom Rogers is culpable. He is responsible for changing the course of a forward-thinking tech company and turning it into bunch of backward lazy ambulance chasers robbing it of any legitimate reputability it once possessed in technology. 

I'm beginning to think TiVo CEO Tom Rogers is someone's main squeeze or close family relative.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> The revolting stench is coming from the top down in this company.
> 
> It may already be too late indeed for this once innovative tech company to rejoin its peers. Nevertheless, TiVo CEO Tom Rogers must be kicked out if not sued by the shareholders for mail fraud. He should have been thrown out years ago for nearly bankrupting the company. TiVo CEO Tom Rogers is culpable. He is responsible for changing the course of a forward-thinking tech company and turning into bunch of backward lazy ambulance chasers robbing it of any legitimate reputability it once possessed in technology.
> 
> I'm beginning to think TiVo CEO Tom Rogers is someone's main squeeze or close family relative.


Don't hold back, say what you really mean. 

I've always thought the barrier for TiVo was price. I looked at them for several years, always baulking at the price tag and subscription. It was only when I happened upon an open box deal in 2003 that I decided to get one. Since that time I haven't purchased a TiVo for more than the first one, yet having a TiVo makes one appreciate it more.

Some will say lower prices didn't help TiVo, however even when the box was less than a 100.00 dollars the sub was still high compared to cable offerings. If cable card had not come along with all it's issues on the S3 I think TiVo as a company would be doing much better. In the end I think it's just poor timing for a DVR company with the analog to digital conversion, cable card, and SDV amounting to a triple threat to TiVo's business.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> Don't hold back, say what you really mean.
> 
> In the end I think it's just poor timing for a DVR company with the analog to digital conversion, cable card, and SDV amounting to a triple threat to TiVo's business.


 Who would have thought, I mean these things just came out of nowhere.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

ZeoTivo,
Yeah that explains Netflix but nothing else. I still contend Tivo pulled a Nokia (Thinking they were dominate in the mobile phone market and were blind to the upcoming iPhone/smart phone revolution). Every person in the world has heard of Tivo because they were FIRST. But then Tivo sat back and wanted to just be a DVR while the yet to be known competition saw Tivo being stupid and leap frogged them.

Fact is, Today Tivo should have 10,000 apps and be the software people want loaded in every TV and Bluray player.. instead we have 10,000 different software company's products and each with 3-4 apps all fighting to dominate and Tivo not even considered a contender. Thus everyone elses posts about Tivo surviving only as a Patent holder.

Tivo so miss managed their initial lead.. it would be like Microsoft still trying to sell Windows NT.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

Replay tv was a much better product, if an HD version of replaytv was release i would have went that route. Tivos interface is slow clunky, and it never catches up. To the smart people, i know replaytv is no longer being made, except its owned by dish.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Somewhere along the lines TiVo shifted from being an innovative tech company who was constantly developing new exciting features that benefited it's users, to a company who focused mainly on money making schemes like pause ads, nielson ratings, etc... and finally to a company who's main focus is trying to get their software onto other companies DVRs. This left a lot of the current users feeling bitter and abandoned. They had a small chance to redeem themselves with the new HD UI on the Premiere but that failed miserably. It's slow, buggy and half finished and just serves as further proof that consumers are no longer their top priority. 

Dan


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

The question though will become with Allvid, which of course is years off, will TiVo changes it's goals? They have made it obvious they aren't in the part of the business they want to be in and would rather be in the software side dealing with companies rather than customers/consumers. When the rules change though, will TiVo still be trying to make the switch?

The problem is I truly don't know if TiVo will ever be able to keep up with the pace of the tech and the consumer space then. They have such a track record now of being behind the curve and slow to implement change I don't see how they could. 

I look at Google TV and Apple TV and ask why isn't TiVo doing this. Why do I have to search multiple TiVos to find which one recorded the show I want? Why isn't there an option to put my Netflix Instant watch TV shows as part the list of My Shows? Why doesn't TiVo offer something you can turn on so that if it sees you miss an episode of a show say on FOX or ABS that doesn't repeat, it is in a pending queue where you can choose to buy it or not from Amazon? TiVo implemented an episode guide of sorts per show, yet there is no way for me to track what epsides I have and haven't seen. I could go on and on.


----------



## ClubrhythmEnt (Apr 2, 2003)

This whole discussion has taken whatever little excitement I had left for the release of the vaporware HD DirecTivo and squashed it like a bug.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The S3/HD/Premiere are shut out of the satellite tv market, which represents 29% of the tv market.

Can't use the Tivo right out of the box with digital cable. Have to set up an appointment for a cable card install and take a day off work.

No axillary inputs or ability to control set top boxes.

No ability to stream content to other devices.

Hard drive is too small on some models.

Limited plug and play support for external hard drives on some models.

Stopped selling lifetime service at one point and then brought it back.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

shwru980r said:


> Stopped selling lifetime service at one point and then brought it back.


This is one that bit me personally with my Series 3 purchased in November 2006, so I'm not going to be so quick in giving them any more money in the future.

I thought that when the hype for the Premiere started up with all the "reinventing the DVR" nonsense that maybe, just maybe, they would bring something truly awesome and I was really excited, only to be let completely down when they introduced pretty much the same thing that they had before, just with an HD interface. No thanks.


----------



## wp746911 (Feb 19, 2005)

the details are complex, but the answer is simple. Tivo is a technology company that had a big lead and blew it. They were the premiere dvr company, and as mentioned earlier they actually were pioneers in streaming, with some of the earliest netflix and amazon integration- well before this roku/ps3/blu-ray player streaming that is going on. They also were early in the box to box transfering and box to pc transfering.

But look at them now- their netflix interface is almost definitely the worst I have ever seen, their transfering is antiquated, etc.

Sure the price is high, but look at the iphone- its a $200++ device plus a huge monthly service contract and sells like crazy. Sure a $0 tivo would sell better, but a $400 tivo that was really innovative would sell well tooo..


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

Videodrome said:


> ...To the smart people, i know replaytv is no longer being made, except its owned by dish.


All of ReplayTV's IP is owned by DirecTV, not Dish.

http://www.replaytv.com/

___


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Somewhere along the lines TiVo shifted from being an innovative tech company who was constantly developing new exciting features that benefited it's users, to a company who focused mainly on money making schemes like pause ads, nielson ratings, etc... and finally to a company who's main focus is trying to get their software onto other companies DVRs. This left a lot of the current users feeling bitter and abandoned. They had a small chance to redeem themselves with the new HD UI on the Premiere but that failed miserably. It's slow, buggy and half finished and just serves as further proof that consumers are no longer their top priority.
> 
> Dan


Nailed it..


----------



## drevilkep (Aug 4, 2010)

The cable and satellite companies turned DVRs into a commodity and then offered the lowest upfront cost. A consumer shopping for a DVR saw TiVo and said "That's nice, but $300 upfront is kind of pricey" and then called their cable company and was told they could have DVR service for ~$10 plus $5-10 extra for a box. Since TiVo service is $10-13 a month anyway (forget lifetime, that's another upfront cost), $5-10 a month to rent a box is much more palatable to the average Joe than $300 upfront. Sure you're saving money in the long run with TiVo, but the average American has shown time and again that they don't think long term about purchases like this. And with the fast paced electronics industry turning out near gear all the time, who could blame them? All those Series-2 owners who bought in 2007-2008 basically have paperweights now (or will soon when analog is dropped by the cable companies for good). They may never be able to fully recoup their box costs. 

I only jumped to TiVo recently when they were clearing out the TiVo HD for $99. I'll recoup my box costs in a year and the DVR service fee is the same with TiVo when I prepay for a year, so it's a wash and I get the better TiVo experience. Most people don't care about the "experience" they have with their DVR. If it works (and the cable companies do), that's all they care about. Then there is the hassle of setup. The cable and satellite companies will come to your house and setup their boxes, usually for no charge if you are a new customer. You're on your own with TiVo. Add in the complexities of CableCARD and SDV and now you're losing some of the die-hard TiVo fans. 

Now lets talk about video on-demand. Cable generally has a bigger selection and fewer barriers to entry. Just select what you want and it's added to your cable bill. No signing up for Amazon or Netflix accounts, typing in codes or passwords. Just click and watch. Throw in the free content most providers offer and TiVo doesn't come close to competing.

Overall, people stopped using TiVo because it was no long convenient or cheap. Look at the huge loss of subscribers in 2006-2007, right when HD was being offered by cable/satellite. Consumers asked the question "Can I have TiVo?" and we're told (by TiVo) "Yes, the box costs $700 + $12.95 a month and you'll need to rent TWO CableCARDs from your cable company". They then went to their cable company to ask about CableCARD fees and were told "You don't need to buy a box from us, the DVR service is $10 a month and we'll rent you a box for another $5-10. We'll even come out and install it for free. CableCARDs are $2 each per month." Faced with those choices, it's obvious why people jumped from TiVo and the brand is slowly being forgotten.


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

shwru980r said:


> Can't use the Tivo right out of the box with digital cable. Have to set up an appointment for a cable card install and take a day off work.


That's blame should be place on the cable companies, not Tivo. I had to do the same thing with my cable company and I watched them install it and there's no reason that I couldnt' have done that on my own. But the cable company does not allow that and requires me to pay $30 for them to come out and install it. This is not Tivo's fault.



shwru980r said:


> Hard drive is too small on some models.


Can't agree with this one. They offer different models with different hard drive sizes based on what you can afford. Hard to argue with that. If you have the money, buy the one with the biggest hard drive. If money is an issue but you still want a Tivo, but a more affordable, small hard drive Tivo. It's like that in every industry.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

csell said:


> Can't agree with this one. They offer different models with different hard drive sizes based on what you can afford. Hard to argue with that. If you have the money, buy the one with the biggest hard drive. If money is an issue but you still want a Tivo, but a more affordable, small hard drive Tivo. It's like that in every industry.


Yeah they offer different hard drive sizes, but the costs of drives has plummeted. Right now I can buy a 1TB drive for $59 and a 2TB drive for $110. These aren't even sale prices and a better price when you compare it to the 320gb drives at $45 or the same price as a 500gb drive. The Premiere should have had a 500gb drive and the XL a 1.5tb drive stock at least. This is why I have always said they should refresh the skus once a year with the next step up in hard drives.

The drives are especially small when you consider it is usually 2 years or so before TiVo releases a new model. 2 years is a long time in the tech world.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> The S3/HD/Premiere are shut out of the satellite tv market, which represents 29% of the tv market.
> 
> Can't use the Tivo right out of the box with digital cable. Have to set up an appointment for a cable card install and take a day off work.
> 
> ...


HD out of the box (except OTA) is NOT anything TiVo could do as that is a Cable Lab requirement for cable security.

You can't get an HD recording from a Cable co.s cable box so what good would having control over it be, if you wanted that any Series 2 will work. HDMI is the reason one can't get the HD directly from the cable box and that NOT TiVos fault, again look to Congress for the encryption used in the HDMI system.

Plug and play on external Hard drives again is a requirement of the Cable Lab and the general requirement for program security, that why one can't interchange drives in the same model TiVo without a C&D all, again NOT TiVos fault

No ability to stream content to other devices, that is TiVo

Hard drive size is a customer choice by how much money to spend.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bschuler2007 said:


> ZeoTivo,
> Yeah that explains Netflix but nothing else. I still contend Tivo pulled a Nokia (Thinking they were dominate in the mobile phone market and were blind to the upcoming iPhone/smart phone revolution).


when you can point me to the successful independant DVR company that is iPhone like innovative then we can talk. Till then you simply have a strawman argument that holds no actual facts. DISH is likely the closest thing you can point to and even they dipped their toe in the consumer 3rd party market and then pulled it back.

Moxi only bolsters the argument that it is hard to compete as a standalone despite innovation.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Somewhere along the lines TiVo shifted from being an innovative tech company who was constantly developing new exciting features that benefited it's users, to a company who focused mainly on money making schemes like pause ads, nielson ratings, etc... and finally to a company who's main focus is trying to get their software onto other companies DVRs. This left a lot of the current users feeling bitter and abandoned. They had a small chance to redeem themselves with the new HD UI on the Premiere but that failed miserably. It's slow, buggy and half finished and just serves as further proof that consumers are no longer their top priority.
> 
> Dan


I would agree, except that I only feel remorse and not bitter. The reason things changed is as you noted in your first post - there was no profit to be made in the standalone DVR consumer market. (Steve Jobs said that bluntly for all you iPhone innovation posters) Rogers would have been run out if he had poured all effort into innovation of standalone boxes only to continue showing poor subscription sales and even greater losses.
The standalone user base is legacy now, though it provides a useful place to see how different features will work and how popular they are.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

csell said:


> That's blame should be place on the cable companies, not Tivo. I had to do the same thing with my cable company and I watched them install it and there's no reason that I couldn't' have done that on my own. But the cable company does not allow that and requires me to pay $30 for them to come out and install it. This is not Tivo's fault.
> 
> Can't agree with this one. They offer different models with different hard drive sizes based on what you can afford. Hard to argue with that. If you have the money, buy the one with the biggest hard drive. If money is an issue but you still want a Tivo, but a more affordable, small hard drive Tivo. It's like that in every industry.


I wasn't assigning blame. I was just stating reasons why I thought Tivo wasn't successful. The cable company has a fiduciary duty to make cable card installs as painful and expensive as possible to steer customers to the cable company DVR. Tivo could have added the ability to control a set top box so a cable card was not needed.

The Tivo HD only has a 20 hour capacity for digital broadcasts. That's a serious step down from the series 2 models. A newer model should not have less capacity than the old model.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...- there was no profit to be made in the standalone DVR consumer market. (Steve Jobs said that bluntly for all you iPhone innovation posters) Rogers would have been run out if he had poured all effort into innovation ...


I have been searching for that Steve Jobs quote "There was no profit to be made in the standalone DVR consumer market." and haven't found it.

But it is true the standalone DVR is not current to today's technology and that's what is being said here. But to merely defend TiVo CEO Tom Rogers for not keeping up to innovation and to obscure that he is just a clueless tech squatter in a suit is a bit much at this point. A squatter who settles on a technology without right or title to it. A tech squatter who kills what's left of the tech through lack of innovation and imagination, he needs to go!

As is apparent. Either he goes or as is happening the Tivo consumer goes!


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Joe3 said:


> I have been searching for that Steve Jobs quote There was no profit to be made in the standalone DVR consumer market. and havent found it.


The quote if it is the one I am thinking of is from the conference a couple months before the recent Apple TV launch. It was a question to Jobs about why they haven't tried to get into the TV set top box market. I don't think I ever saw a transcript but the video series is out there and was mentioned and covered pretty heavily on all the tech blogs when it came out. Check engadgethd.com and you should be able to find the video. I believe it was the same conference that had Gates and Jobs sit down and talk together about tech.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> when you can point me to the successful independant DVR company that is iPhone like innovative then we can talk. Till then you simply have a strawman argument that holds no actual facts. DISH is likely the closest thing you can point to and even they dipped their toe in the consumer 3rd party market and then pulled it back.
> 
> Moxi only bolsters the argument that it is hard to compete as a standalone despite innovation.


It's hard to innovate when it takes all your resources just to remain compatible with the changing cable landscape. If the FCC doesn't soon create some regulations that help 3rd party box makers, there won't be any.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lessd said:


> HD out of the box (except OTA) is NOT anything TiVo could do as that is a Cable Lab requirement for cable security.
> 
> You can't get an HD recording from a Cable co.s cable box so what good would having control over it be, if you wanted that any Series 2 will work. HDMI is the reason one can't get the HD directly from the cable box and that NOT TiVos fault, again look to Congress for the encryption used in the HDMI system.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to assign blame. I'm just pointing out the reasons I think tivo is not successful.

I understand about not swapping out external drives, but the tivo hd only allows plug and play on one model of external drive that drive proved unreliable. The previous model S3 allowed plug and play on multiple models of external drives.

As far as I know the customer has no choice in the selection of a hard drive shipped in a Tivo. The customer can crack open the case and put in whatever hard drive they want, but that voids the warranty.

20 hours of recording time for a Tivo HD was not enough.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> I'm not trying to assign blame. I'm just pointing out the reasons I think tivo is not successful.
> 
> I understand about not swapping out external drives, but the tivo hd only allows plug and play on one model of external drive that drive proved unreliable. The previous model S3 allowed plug and play on multiple models of external drives.
> 
> ...


I was under the impression that the drive contents were encrypted anyway, so it shouldn't matter whose drive you connect since it won't work on another TiVo or computer afterwards without being reformatted.


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

Stormspace said:


> I was under the impression that the drive contents were encrypted anyway, so it shouldn't matter whose drive you connect since it won't work on another TiVo or computer afterwards without being reformatted.


You are absolutely correct, and a lot of the tech innovations were hammered down by media companies afraid they'd loose their revenue stream if the ReplayTV or TIVO or whoever's DVR could just accept any add-on hard drive to copy or export content, without regard to encryption or protection. That's always been a problem. Everybody needs a piece of the pie before you start baking or they squawk long and hard - and with the links between cable companies, networks, and media companies, they are friendlier to their own hardware than to any outsider company like TIVO (or ReplayTV).

Don't the rest of you remember all the squawking over something as simple as fast forwarding vs skipping commercial breaks?

I'm sure TIVO could make all kinds of innovations, but they have to fly it by the digital gatekeepers before anything can be put into place.

Heck, look at all the mess with home theatre equipment and the HDMI handshake that's required between your TV, Receiver and source.
If in doubt, kill the signal - so the innocent viewers get dropouts and glitches and all of that, while any would-be bootlegger just chuckles and makes their copies.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> I have been searching for that Steve Jobs quote "There was no profit to be made in the standalone DVR consumer market." and haven't found it.


it was in an interview linked here a couple weeks ago. I paraphrased for the context here. He meant it in the larger context of the fact you could not offer a full broadcast experience (eg SDV and PPV/VOD interaction) on a 3rd party standalone box then Apple saw Apple TV as nothing more than a hobbyist thing versus a real product line. The pricing moves seem to point that out.



Joe3 said:


> But it is true the standalone DVR is not current to today's technology and that's what is being said here. But to merely defend TiVo CEO Tom Rogers for not keeping up to innovation and to obscure that he is just a clueless tech squatter in a suit is a bit much at this point. A squatter who settles on a technology without right or title to it. A tech squatter who kills what's left of the tech through lack of innovation and imagination, he needs to go!
> 
> As is apparent. Either he goes or as is happening the Tivo consumer goes!


I think your dislike of Rogers has colored your facts some. He is no technologist at all but he was hired by TiVo board specifically because he could make deals with MSOs. That was his job description the board gave him. There is no obfuscation here, the man was likely told to keep his nose out of the tech details except where it impacted his deal making.
So TiVo is not the shiny thing us geeks want it to be. OK. I can agree with that, but if it was the shiny thing we subset of the market wanted, there is no compelling case that this would have increased sales any at all. If you can make that case then there is a dialog to be had, otherwise it is just something you (and I ) want but the free market can not produce.

Again can you point me to the standalone innovative DVR maker that is doing well. Hint: no one can.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Series3Sub said:


> Dan203 has it right. Actually, TiVo is already in the process of doing a "number 1" type of transition for the company by getting _away_ from the hardware business and become a supplier of software only. (It was expressed by Rogers long ago, briefly, but he hasn't mentioned it as of late; it could hurt Series 4 sales).


Lots of people have said this - including Rogers, but it doesn't ring true. If it's true, then why are there no Sony or Philips brand S3 or S4 TiVos? Until the advent of the S3 and then the S4 Tivo, almost no TiVos at all were manufactured by Tivo, at least not compared to the number manufactured by Humax, Hughes, Pioneer, RCA, Samsung, and Toshiba, as well as the aforementioned Sony and Phillips, who were I believe the biggest manufacturers of TiVos. If TiVo wants to get out of the TiVo manufacturing business, then why are they manufacturing more TiVos than they ever did before? Why do they remain the only manufacturer of current generation TiVos, when previously they were one of the smallest manufacturers of TiVos? TiVo built their business on licensing their software (and presumably hardware designs, as well) to other manufacturers to manufacture and sell. If they are wanting to revert to that model, then why haven't they licensed their S3 and S4 platforms to any manufacturers? Heck, even the agreement with DTV doesn't represent getting out of the hardware business so much as resurrecting the old business. I don't think TiVo ever manufactured a DirecTiVo, did they? The deal with Comcast hints of possibly moving in a different direction, but nothing much seems to have come of it, and I see no evidence even this represents a shift in their core business, as opposed to natural diversification.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> I understand about not swapping out external drives, but the tivo hd only allows plug and play on one model of external drive that drive proved unreliable.


Two models, IIRC.



shwru980r said:


> The previous model S3 allowed plug and play on multiple models of external drives.


Not by intent. Hackers almost immediately discovered the enabling of the Kickstart upgrade, and once that was out of the bag, TiVo didn't want to risk the potential headache associated with disabling the ability to upgrade the S3 with a wide range of drives.



shwru980r said:


> As far as I know the customer has no choice in the selection of a hard drive shipped in a Tivo.


Manufacturer? No. Drive size? Of course one does.



shwru980r said:


> The customer can crack open the case and put in whatever hard drive they want, but that voids the warranty.


Or he can buy the TiVo from any one of the value added resellers - like I did with my second S3 - with full warranty intact. I believe some of them even offer extended warranties. Of course, it is the reseller's warranty, not TiVo's, but so what? I (and anyone else who doesn't feel like upgrading themselves) can easily go out and buy a brand new TiVo under full warranty with whatever sized drive they wish. So what's the beef?



shwru980r said:


> 20 hours of recording time for a Tivo HD was not enough.


Compared with 12 for the Scientific Atlanta 8300HD? At least with the TiVo, one only risks voiding a warranty. If you open the case of an 8300HD, you risk being sued.

I agree a 150G hard drive is too small. Indeed, a 1TB hard drive is generally too small for me and for many people. Upgrading the drive is just about trivial, though, and if one is too technically un-inclined to do it themselves, then there are plenty of people around willing to do it for them. Two of the sponsors of this forum make that very thing a big part of their business.

Voiding thge warranty? Ho hum. To most intents and purposes, the real meat of the warranty is only 90 days, anyway, and if one is really concerned about it, then I suggest using the existing drive for 90 days before upgrading. Ninety days is just not that long a time to wait to upgrade the drive, if the warranty is really important to the buyer.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Series3Sub said:


> Sorry, but TiVo still remains a toy for affluent who can afford to pony up the big bucks--and the price of the lifetime service is out of the question for most families,


Uh-huh. My cable service costs me $175 a month. I could buy a TiVo every month for less than that. I read recently the average spend to the CATV company is $110 a month. Of course, the cost of the TiVo is over and above that number, not in replacement of it, but still, it's pretty trivial compared to the $1200 or so a year the average consumer pays for CATV service. It's absolutely minuscule to the $5000+ a year the average family happily - and mostly obliviously - forks over to the networks for "free" TV.



Series3Sub said:


> while the rest of America felt they could take the risk with a cable co or sat co DVR provided for FREE (for new installs, of which there were millions) and monthly fee that was anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a TiVo monthly charge.


I don't know where you get your CATV service, but it certainly is not around here. A TiVo with lifetime service is *MUCH* cheaper than the POS cable box. Time Warner charges $19.95 a month for the first DVR, and $9.95 for each additional DVR. Throughout its lifetime, my S1 TiVo cost me less than $6 a month. Of course, I had to pay up-front. So far, my first, outrageously expensive S3 has cost me $25 a month, plus of course the $6 Time Warner charges me for the CableCards, but if it lasts me as long as my S1 - and I see no reason it should not - it will wind up costing me $10.71, a month, plus of course the $6 for the CableCards. The TiVoHD was a much better deal. Assuming a similar lifespan, it will only have cost me $5.34 a month, plus $3 for the CableCard. Considering all three outlets, going with the CATV devices would cost me $478 a year. The TiVos cost more than that initially, but over time their daily cost diminishes steadily. More importantly, if you ask me, is the fact the CATV DVRs are *HORRIBLE*. I understand the Passport software may be considerably better, but I had to live with the absolute torture of a DVR running the SARA software for 9 interminable months. I had not intenced to buy an S3 when it came out, instead waiting a few months for the price to come down. When the S3 was introduced, it was a whopping $900 with lifetime service. I would not have cared if it were $2000. Nothing would have induced me to live any longer with that hunk of junk.



Series3Sub said:


> Oh, and the cable co and sat co would replace the defective or no longer functioning DVR FREE of charge


Yada, Yada, Yada. A free device I cannot modify or have modified at my whim is worth every penny.



Series3Sub said:


> So they did without--until the cable and sat man came along with their own downscaled and cheaper DVR's.


Downscaled? Yes. Cheaper? No. That said, it is generally true those who cannot afford to pay for their goods and services up front will wind up paying more over time. I save $60 a year on my alarm monitoring by paying the year in advance. I save $25 a year on phone service by paying up front. Over a 3 year period, I save $70 on TiVo service by paying up front. So why is it the phone company, the alarm company and yes, the CATV company won't allow me to pay for three years' service *and then never charge me again*? How is it TiVo comes off less attractive for this? Am I the only one who can actually count, or is it just that I am the only one who bothers?



Series3Sub said:


> It is the times and market that changes and it is the companies that can change with them that will survive, not, as the article suggests, companies NOT changing and sticking to some successful business plan that seemed pretty good back in 1999.


Oh, yeah, right. I was just noticing the other day how AT&T is only raking in $60 - $80 *BILLION* a quarter based on a business plan developed in the 1800s. Hmm.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> I was under the impression that the drive contents were encrypted anyway, so it shouldn't matter whose drive you connect since it won't work on another TiVo or computer afterwards without being reformatted.


That's not entirely true. Assuming you transplanted a drive from a similar Tivo model, you can perform a Clear & Delete Everything and the drive will marry itself to the new Tivo and work as before. The only caveat is that you'll lose all of your recordings, season passes, and all other settings.

If you want to use a Tivo drive in a PC or a MAC then of course you'd have to format it using the same file system used by the computer.


----------



## stahta01 (Dec 23, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> Oh, yeah, right. I was just noticing the other day how AT&T is only raking in $60 - $80 *BILLION* a quarter based on a business plan developed in the 1800s. Hmm.


IIRC, the name AT&T was sold to one of the Baby Bells?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T

Tim S.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> That's not entirely true. Assuming you transplanted a drive from a similar Tivo model, you can perform a Clear & Delete Everything and the drive will marry itself to the new Tivo and work as before. The only caveat is that you'll lose all of your recordings, season passes, and all other settings.
> 
> If you want to use a Tivo drive in a PC or a MAC then of course you'd have to format it using the same file system used by the computer.


My response was in reference to external drives.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

stahta01 said:


> IIRC, the name AT&T was sold to one of the Baby Bells?


Allegedly. I always find it interesting when a company worth less than the quarterly earnings of another company "buys" the second company for about 1 month's revenue of the purchased company. I also find it interesting when said company buys back stock from the stockholders for a fraction of what it is worth, without the stockholder's permission to purchase it.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I read recently the average spend to the CATV company is $110 a month. Of course, the cost of the TiVo is over and above that number, not in replacement of it, but still, it's pretty trivial compared to the $1200 or so a year the average consumer pays for CATV service.
> ...
> A TiVo with lifetime service is *MUCH* cheaper than the POS cable box. Time Warner charges $19.95 a month for the first DVR, and $9.95 for each additional DVR. Throughout its lifetime, my S1 TiVo cost me less than $6 a month.


One fundamental problem is the innumeracy of the average American consumer. They will gladly pay $1200+ per year for cable, but also at the same time believe that a TiVo is "expensive", even though it could save them a considerable amount of money in DVR rental charges.

This is not a good portent for the future economic survival of this once-great country.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> One fundamental problem is the innumeracy of the average American consumer. They will gladly pay $1200+ per year for cable, but also at the same time believe that a TiVo is "expensive", even though it could save them a considerable amount of money in DVR rental charges.
> 
> This is not a good portent for the future economic survival of this once-great country.


This is still a great country. Consumer's spending accounts for 2/3 of our economy and that is one of the things that makes this country better place to live than most of the rest of the world. We spend because we can afford it. We spend money for CATV, iPhones, broadband Internet, food and drinks, jewelry, cars, sports tickets, gambling, and thousands of other "wasteful" material things that are considered luxury items in many other countries as long as we perceive that we get good value for our money. TiVo and many other failing products and services are not being successful because consumers do not believe that they are getting their money worth. It is that simple. You can proclaim that TiVo saves you money all day long, the reality is that consumers do not believe it. You can say that consumers are stupid and don't know math, or you can open your eyes and say that company that sells the consumer products or services nobody wants at the price point that they are offered doesn't know what they are doing.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

samo said:


> This is still a great country. Consumer's spending accounts for 2/3 of our economy and that is one of the things that makes this country better place to live than most of the rest of the world. We spend because we can afford it. We spend money for CATV, iPhones, broadband Internet, food and drinks, jewelry, cars, sports tickets, gambling, and thousands of other "wasteful" material things that are considered luxury items in many other countries as long as we perceive that we get good value for our money. TiVo and many other failing products and services are not being successful because consumers do not believe that they are getting their money worth. It is that simple. You can proclaim that TiVo saves you money all day long, the reality is that consumers do not believe it. You can say that consumers are stupid and don't know math, or you can open your eyes and say that company that sells the consumer products or services nobody wants at the price point that they are offered doesn't know what they are doing.


You nailed it, TiVo needs high volume to even keep the hardware price as it is and if enough people don't purchase you have just what you said above. I don't purchase tube type audio equipment but people that do pay a high price because they want what they believe is the best, I purchased TiVo for the same reason, great country this USA.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

samo said:


> This is still a great country.


Greatness absolutely never has anything whatsoever to do with economics under any circumstances, whether speaking of a country or a company. Period. A large company is just that: large. It is never great. Neither is a small one. It is just small. While we are at it, this whole thread is nonsensical. TiVo is successful, in spades. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being small, BTW, and TiVo isn't even small. They are quite large, just not giant. OTOH, while there is nothing wrong with being small, there is a great deal wrong with being large, and a hideous amount wrong with being giant. Why does anyone here want to see TiVo become bigger? Do you think it will result in better customer service? A better product? Get real.



samo said:


> Consumer's spending accounts for 2/3 of our economy and that is one of the things that makes this country better place to live than most of the rest of the world.


How many other places have you lived? This sort of arrogance is a major reason we often have such a bad reputation abroad. I love living here, and certainly there are many people who wish to live here, but cannot. We also all know very well there are a great many people who do come here to live, legally or otherwise. As Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of England pointed out when speaking of us in the United States, "A significant measure of how good a country is can be made by taking note of how many people want to get in." Nonetheless, among the very large number of people who could easily live anywhere they choose, a large percentage do not choose to live here. As a people, we definitely have our fine moments. We also, however, have plenty of perfectly evil moments, and every person in this country would do well to remember that, and work hard to actively improve ourselves, rather than crow about how wonderful we are. Here's a clue, though: fiddling the economy won't get us there. Being respectful of others, helpful, generous, tolerant when it is appropriate and intolerant when it is not, and actively seeking each and every one of us to better ourselves in some way every single day will. Being great has nothing to do with large numbers of people. It has to do with each individual being a worthwhile person. It is at least as easy - perhaps far easier - for a country with a population of 500 individuals and no industry at all to be great as for one with 2 billion people and a booming economy. Indeed, there are lots of island nations where I would prefer to live if I could not live here, but China would be way, way, way down my list.

Oh, and also BTW, there are plenty of perfectly wonderful places around, some quite a bit better in many respects than where I live now, but I still don't want to live in those places. 'Not because here is "better", but because here is home.



samo said:


> We spend because we can afford it.


Oh, nonsense! Some times it puzzles me why we spend. Often the only reason I can provide seems to be because someone's parents taught them they were supposed to spend as rampantly as possible. Spending far more than we can afford is our favorite pastime. Many of us make it an occupation. I have been in a number of homes literally with dirt floors, no air conditioning, no interior doors, completely ineffectual plumbing and sanitary arrangements, no wall coverings, and only a handful of cheap, rickety chairs for furniture, with the exception of a large TV and CATV service, the latter being the reason I was called out by one of our techs.



samo said:


> We spend money for CATV, iPhones, broadband Internet, food and drinks, jewelry, cars, sports tickets, gambling, and thousands of other "wasteful" material things that are considered luxury items in many other countries


They are considered luxuries here, too. They *are* luxuries. It's nice, mostly, that we have so many freely available luxuries, but their ubiquitious nature has nothing to do with the fact they are not necessities. Neither does the amount we spend on them. The fact many of us spend significantly more on luxuries than on necessities just means we are rich. It doesn't make the luxuries into necessities. For that matter, a large chunk of the county does not have one or more of the items you listed above, many of them not because they cannot afford them. Indeed, you would have to pay me - a rather large amount, actually, to get an iPhone. I could certainly afford it, but I would far rather flush the money down the toilet than support the iPhone.



samo said:


> as long as we perceive that we get good value for our money.


It would be pretty stupid to continue to pay for something that does not offer good value. In this case, perception and reality are largely the same thing.



samo said:


> TiVo and many other failing products and services are not being successful because consumers do not believe that they are getting their money worth.


I don't think that is true. I think most TiVo owners are at least reasonably happy with their unit. The main crux if this thread is not about TiVo owners, but perspective TiVo owners. 'Big difference. In this case, perception and reality are far different things. People just don't know how it would serve them well. When we first started selling internet service in the early '90s, we had the same problem. Customers had a hard time seeing how spending $1000 a month on internet service woud do their business any good. Heck, it was hard getting our own sales staff to understand how it would profit the customer to buy our service. Of course, now we have customers who happily cough up $100,000 a month for internet service.



samo said:


> It is that simple. You can proclaim that TiVo saves you money all day long, the reality is that consumers do not believe it.


So what do you recommend? Increase subscription costs? Increase the cost of lifetime service and eliminate monthly subscriptions? Increase the cost of both and reduce the hardware cost?

Actually, I do have one suggestion: offer essentially a payment plan for the hardware. The consumer buys the box from TiVo, Best Buy Costco, etc, for $65, then pays $25 a month for the first year's subscription, after whihch time it drops to $12 a month, or they can buy the lifetime sub for $350 up front, or $200 at the end of the first year. That might be more attractive. What they need, though, is some demos. Slick video demos distributed on the web and at every store that sells TiVos. Put out a few adds with enticing trailers pointing towards the web videos. I don't mean stupid "Our DVR is better than theirs" adds like Dish puts out. I mean real, live, well produced demonstrations that really show off the unique features of the TiVo without over-taxing the attention span of the potential buyer. SHOW THEM how easy it is to tell the TiVo to record the newest movie the moment it hits the theater and then forget about it and let the TiVo worry about when and what channel, and then point blank mention no one else has the capability. SHOW THEM how easy it is to record every NCAA basketball game and every Major league baseball game. SHOW THEM how easy it is to record every John Wayne picture directed by John Ford, but excluding Lee Marvin.



samo said:


> You can say that consumers are stupid and don't know math, or you can open your eyes and say that company that sells the consumer products or services nobody wants at the price point that they are offered doesn't know what they are doing.


It's easy to say TiVo doesn't know what they are doing. What is *your* solution? Oh, and while we are at it, do you have over 1/4 $Billion in your bank account?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I don't purchase tube type audio equipment but people that do pay a high price because they want what they believe is the best, I purchased TiVo for the same reason, great country this USA.


Which illustrates my point. Do you (and others) consider the companies which produce high end audio equipment to be failures? Ferrari will never sell as many cars as a giant like GM (assuming GM doesn't go bankrupt), nor will they garner anything remotely like the amount of revenue GM does. Does that make Ferrari a failure? Are the Ferrari employees impoverished? Quite the contrary, I know Ferrari has laid off far fewer workers than GM. Ferrari doesn't even have as many workers, period, as GM has laid off. Does the low number of cars Ferrari produces distress Ferrari owners? Don't make me laugh. They are proud of the fact they own a vehicle few others anywhere own.


----------



## MeStinkBAD (Jul 16, 2003)

Strange.. I recall back all thru the 90's... i was being told by so many that a company i personally cared a bit about for was doomed to fail. It was hopeless, it was too late. No one wanted to use their products. They're was nothing they could do that others could do far better... and for a lot less cash... so frustrating cuz the people who we're saying these things wanted to believe it. The entire decade nearly I heard this... and they did come very close to shutting down...

I think you people know who I am talking about. It's gotta be pretty obvious... you know that "fruit" company (lol).


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

MeStinkBAD said:


> I think you people know who I am talking about. It's gotta be pretty obvious... you know that "fruit" company (lol).


You can call it a "reality distortion field", or maybe a "religion", or even a "fad". But I disagree with those characterizations. What the "fruit" company has going for it is a *visionary.* The antithesis of Tom Rogers, the antithesis of a glad-handing former media executive.

It's been repeated over and over: *TiVo needs better leadership!*


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I have always believed that Tivo should offer a defeatured version of their software with no monthly fee with the hardware. That way the DVR becomes something people can buy like a DVD player or VCR with no ongoing costs. More people will be willing to try it or give it as a gift if there's no commitment or subscription required. Tivo could then offer to "turn on" the advanced features with a subscription fee. They could even have free weeks where they turn on the features so users can try them. I suspect the issue with my plan is that if you got basic DVR service for free, the amount you could get for enabling the advanced features would be far less than $12.95.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

How would they do that if they have to pay for guide data? Now if guide data was free it would make sense. If the hardware gets cheap enough I expect we may eventually see a Windows 7MC box like you describe once embedded 7 with Media Center is released since Win 7 includes the guide data. 

Of course if the hardware was very cheap where they made all their profit there, they could have also offered a model where your own PC would download the guide data from the server. Then your TiVos would just connect to your PC to download the guide data. This way you would only have one flat fee/lifetime with unlimited number of TiVos since it would effectively be one guide data subscription.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

bschuler2007 said:


> ZeoTivo,
> Yeah that explains Netflix but nothing else. I still contend Tivo pulled a Nokia (Thinking they were dominate in the mobile phone market and were blind to the upcoming iPhone/smart phone revolution). Every person in the world has heard of Tivo because they were FIRST. But then Tivo sat back and wanted to just be a DVR while the yet to be known competition saw Tivo being stupid and leap frogged them.
> 
> Fact is, Today Tivo should have 10,000 apps and be the software people want loaded in every TV and Bluray player.. instead we have 10,000 different software company's products and each with 3-4 apps all fighting to dominate and Tivo not even considered a contender. Thus everyone elses posts about Tivo surviving only as a Patent holder.
> ...


TiVo was first among 2 others: Replay TV and Echostar's DishPlayer 7100 (software by Microsoft) that included WebTV. All three were on display at the same CES and Replay TV and TiVo were available to the public virtually at the same time, and it took considerable lead time to develop the "PVR" (TiVo later become owner of that trademark and it later abandoned the term "PVR") so none of the 3 players who demoed their units at the same moment at CES did so buy developing their product at the last minute. None of the 3, Dish (Echostar)/Microsoft; Replay TV; nor TiVo, can claim they were truly "first." I remember Replay TV and TiVo being for sale at virtually the same time and DishPlayer 7100 delayed several months into 1999.

TiVo's brilliant marketing has promoted the myth that they were "first," "originators of the DVR," etc. Even Wikipedia's entry on TiVo finally removed the text purporting the fantasized claim that TiVo was the "originator" of the DVR. Wikipedia's other entry for "DVR" was also cleansed of TiVo apocrypha and now is accurate in citing the 3 DVR's having been exhibited at the same time.

TiVo, still the most brilliant of marketing mavens in the DVR cavalcade, but not "first."


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Series3Sub said:


> ...TiVo, still the most brilliant of marketing mavens in the DVR cavalcade, but not "first."


They were first to market, according to TiVoPony.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> They were first to market, according to TiVoPony.


Does this TiVo first stuff matter, does anybody remember the first hand held calculator was called the *Bomar Brain *by Bomar, a lot of good that did them when HP came out with their first handheld LED calculator at $395 (I still have one somewhere). You can tell most pioneers by the arrows in their back.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> How would they do that if they have to pay for guide data?


what do you suppose guide data costs per user per month? I'm guessing it isn't much of the subscription price. Build 3 years of guide data pricing at cost into the price. Assume that a high percentage of the buyers will opt for a subscription service at some level within the first year. Free service level, basic service level, full service level.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Series3Sub said:


> TiVo was first among 2 others: Replay TV and Echostar's DishPlayer 7100 (software by Microsoft) that included WebTV. All three were on display at the same CES and Replay TV and TiVo were available to the public virtually at the same time,


Like others noted, TiVo busted its butt to be the first on the shelf and did that. Oddly though it was the replay DVR I first noted in all the tech talk sites. When I wanted to buy I went with who had sold more and TiVo had sold considerably more.

So of the three TiVo is still in the retail hunt. Any other entrant to the market - Moxi being the latest and greatest example have died on the vine. Yet somehow TiVo inc. has screwed up since they are not selling products like *Apple does - which ironically will not even touch the DVR market because it is a hard market to create a business model in.*
can we all please start from reality in this debate?


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> It's hard to innovate when it takes all your resources just to remain compatible with the changing cable landscape. If the FCC doesn't soon create some regulations that help 3rd party box makers, there won't be any.


Why is it government's job to level the playing field? If a third-party solution is not cost-effective, why should regulations be put in place to bend the natural costs of things?

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> what do you suppose guide data costs per user per month? I'm guessing it isn't much of the subscription price. Build 3 years of guide data pricing at cost into the price. Assume that a high percentage of the buyers will opt for a subscription service at some level within the first year. Free service level, basic service level, full service level.


You can buy guide data from schedules direct for $20 a year. I'm certain the cost is less in bulk for pass-through on DVRs.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Check out what a media interface should look like in 2010. You build the best looking and working tech and tell people about it they (TiVo Consumers) will come. But if you hire a bunch a ambulance chasers you lose.

Anyone know if there are term limits on the TiVo board?

ahttp://www.plexapp.com/about.php


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> Why is it government's job to level the playing field? If a third-party solution is not cost-effective, why should regulations be put in place to bend the natural costs of things?
> 
> Cheers!
> -Doug


Because in this case market forces aren't being allowed to work. Wouldn't you like to be able to use a TV without a cable box? For a few years we could do that with cable ready sets, but the cable companies changed the standard so once again to get cable you need a STB. Then there was cable card to again allow TV's to operate without a STB, but SDV has come along and killed that on TV's. And on the few DVR's being marketed as cable card compatible the Tuning Adapter required to get SDV aren't working well and the cable companies have no incentive to make it better. Most people confronted with giving up on a TiVo or other third party DVR and switching service to satellite will give up and just get the cable STB. That's not how it's supposed to work.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> Because in this case market forces aren't being allowed to work. Wouldn't you like to be able to use a TV without a cable box? For a few years we could do that with cable ready sets, but the cable companies changed the standard so once again to get cable you need a STB. Then there was cable card to again allow TV's to operate without a STB, but SDV has come along and killed that on TV's. And on the few DVR's being marketed as cable card compatible the Tuning Adapter required to get SDV aren't working well and the cable companies have no incentive to make it better. Most people confronted with giving up on a TiVo or other third party DVR and switching service to satellite will give up and just get the cable STB. That's not how it's supposed to work.


But locking down a standard does not allow timely updates in delivering content. The technologies you mention (Cable ready sets, cable cards, etc.) are the result of improved technology and efficient delivery of content. Where do you draw the line in preventing progress? Should the government force all makers of portable music players to include an AM tuner? Should a utility company be forced to provide DC for a home because an owner has an antique refrigerator they refuse to part with? If a service provider finds a new efficient way to transmit their data, they should be permitted to switch their methods without having the entire planet voting on it.

I sympathize with your concerns, but I do not believe its the government's job to level the playing field here. In the end, how much penetration does Tivo have in Cable homes? That level of penetration alone should indicate the ROI on some open standard. If the number is low, it adds cost to the majority who don't care.

If new Tivos could just have component inputs so that one can record the high-def content from their Set Top Boxes, we wouldn't be talking about this. But they won't do that.... Scary big media won't let them.

Cheers!
-Doiug


----------



## belunos (Sep 19, 2002)

Tivo just costs too much. I'm sure it's been said time and again. I'm willing to bet DVR uptake has exploded since cablecos and satellite provides started giving/leasing them away, compared to when there was only tivo and replay. The deal they have on the site now, 0 down and $20 per month for two years, that's how they should have been doing it from the get go. $480 for the box and two years of service with nothing more than $20 out of pocket immediately, that's how you build a huge customer base. 

They did a fine job of explaining what tivo did. Trick play plus watch your shows anytime you want, no need to wait in front of the tube.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> Check out what a media interface should look like in 2010. You build the best looking and working tech and tell people about it they (TiVo Consumers) will come. But if you hire a bunch a ambulance chasers you lose.
> 
> Anyone know if there are term limits on the TiVo board?
> 
> ahttp://www.plexapp.com/about.php


I do not want my TiVo DVR costing as much as an apple computer just for the hardware
and I am still getting a pretty big laugh out of all these apple comparisons when the visionary of Apple himself said there was no viable business model in a 3rd party box to get broadcast TV and yet TiVo remains alive all these years.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> , but I do not believe its the government's job to level the playing field here.


the Govt. could care less about leveling the playing field. The Govt. is instead trying to create opportunities for 3rd parties to innovate and create new companies and jobs - and thus tax revenue. It is the Govt.s job to promote the economic growth.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the Govt. could care less about leveling the playing field. The Govt. is instead trying to create opportunities for 3rd parties to innovate and create new companies and jobs - and thus tax revenue. It is the Govt.s job to promote the economic growth.


It's the government's job to adopt policy that allows entrepreneurs to create new jobs and opportunities on their own. Whatever the private sector does, the government can do with twice the people at four times the cost. Government shouldn't force inefficiency.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> While we are at it, this whole thread is nonsensical. TiVo is successful, in spades.


You must have a different definition of success that I do. A company which has been around for a decade and, with the exception of one or two quarters, consistently loses money every quarter (-20% profit margin according to Yahoo Finance) doesn't seem that successful to me. More so when you add in the fact that TiVo is also consistently bleeding subscribers, losing one of their main revenue sources.

Sure TiVo has a lot of cash on hand (thanks to the payment from Dish and limited advertising), but that doesn't mean anything if they keep losing money every year. I think TiVo will be around for years to come, but to call TiVo "successful, in spades" is nonsensical. To be successful TiVo needs to gain money, not lose it. To do that TiVo needs to do one or more of the following things:

1. Gain more subscribers; this currently means sell more hardware.
2. Gain more revenue from advertising (tied to #1 since less subscribers means less ad revenue). 
3. Increase sales of aggregated and non-aggregated customer data (also tied to #1).
4. Increase revenue from patent licensing (either through negotiations or law suits).


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Like others noted, TiVo busted its butt to be the first on the shelf and did that.


Not "on the shelf" but the first shipped by the mail order on Internet. First DVR at b&m stores was Dishplayer. Tivo was second - first TiVo's at Sears appeared early September 1999, Dishplayer was in stores in July. Replay wasn't available in stores till October 1999. Does it make a difference "on the shelf" or "first shipped" ? Probably not, just like it makes no difference who was a first one "to market". TiVo sold about a 1,000 units before S1 hit the stores - not exactly huge market penetration. But in first year in stores TiVo sold more net subs for S1 units than they did in last year.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> I have always believed that Tivo should offer a defeatured version of their software with no monthly fee with the hardware.


The problem with that is they are currently sell8ing the box at a loss, and making up for it in subscriptions. In order to sell the bare box at a profit, they wou7ld have to greatly increase the price of the box.



HiDefGator said:


> That way the DVR becomes something people can buy like a DVD player or VCR with no ongoing costs. More people will be willing to try it or give it as a gift if there's no commitment or subscription required.


For $500, give ir take? I seriously doubt it. Cisco sells it's underpowered boxes to CATV companies for $450 each in lots of 10,000 or more, with no retail overhead. Add in the retail overhead from Best Buy et al, and the TiVo is going to have to go for more than that in single lot quantities.



HiDefGator said:


> Tivo could then offer to "turn on" the advanced features with a subscription fee. They could even have free weeks where they turn on the features so users can try them. I suspect the issue with my plan is that if you got basic DVR service for free, the amount you could get for enabling the advanced features would be far less than $12.95.


The big issue with your plan is they could never turn a profit. The boxes they could sell at $500 a pop is pretty much limited to the techie types and early adopters who have already purchased TiVos. They would sell just about zero boxes.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Does this TiVo first stuff matter, does anybody remember the first hand held calculator was called the *Bomar Brain *by Bomar, a lot of good that did them when HP came out with their first handheld LED calculator at $395 (I still have one somewhere). You can tell most pioneers by the arrows in their back.


And then Texas Instruments flooded the market with its SR series. 'Good point. How many people out there intend to buy an Altai or Imsai computer this year, or a Moog synthesizer? OTOH, Microsoft was late in the game for almost every aspect of computing one can count, but it didn't seem to hurt their bottom line.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> Why is it government's job to level the playing field? If a third-party solution is not cost-effective, why should regulations be put in place to bend the natural costs of things?


There is no natural cost of things when a small number of companies hold all the playing cards. More to the point in this case, the CATV companies have a natural anti-competitive advantage over 3rd party manufacturers. They can subsidize their losses in DVR rentals with higher CATV bills, and there is nothing the consumer can do about it. Meanwhile, the 3rd party owner has to pay the same subsidy the leased DVR user does, meaning they get hit with the cost of the 3rd party box PLUS a substantial part of the cost of the CATV DVR, even though they aren't using the latter.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Because in this case market forces aren't being allowed to work. Wouldn't you like to be able to use a TV without a cable box? For a few years we could do that with cable ready sets


Actually, not. The first scrambling systems were deployed circa 1980, roughly the same time as Cable Ready sets were deployed. One of the top complaints from customers when I was with a cable company in the early 1980s was, "I just paid <some large number> of dollars for a Cable Ready TV, why do I have to have a Cable Box?"



Stormspace said:


> but the cable companies changed the standard so once again to get cable you need a STB.


Few, if any, CATV providers scrambled all their channels. 'Mostly it was just the PPV and Premium channels. Indeed, it was only some time in the last few months that Time Warner Cable here in San Antonio finally did away with channel traps for HBO and Showtime on channels 14 and 16. Until this very year, one could get all the channels below 73 - which included one channel of HBO and one of Showtime, without any sort of cable box.



Stormspace said:


> Then there was cable card to again allow TV's to operate without a STB, but SDV has come along and killed that on TV's. And on the few DVR's being marketed as cable card compatible the Tuning Adapter required to get SDV aren't working well and the cable companies have no incentive to make it better. Most people confronted with giving up on a TiVo or other third party DVR and switching service to satellite will give up and just get the cable STB. That's not how it's supposed to work.


No, but then when was the last time any government agency was involved with anything that worked the way it was supposed to? I think it may have been around 70 BC.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

belunos said:


> They did a fine job of explaining what tivo did. Trick play plus watch your shows anytime you want, no need to wait in front of the tube.


It sounds to me like you haven't a clue of what the TiVo is capable. Trickplay and timeshifting are only the tip of a very large iceberg. Indeed, I don't use trickplay very much, at all, and while I timeshift 100% of what I watch, timeshifting is a minor aspect of the features I enjoy - and demand. It's TiVo's recording features, along with the large number of 3rd party utilities, that make the TiVo what it is and also set it far apart from the competition. A VCR does timeshifting and trickplay, and indeed a lot of DVRs are just VCRs on steroids. The TiVo is not. Unfortunately, most of the public does not understand this. TiVo is the Hummer of DVRs, with a minigun and armor plate installed. but most people (including you?) don't think it's any different than a Ford Escort.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

morac said:


> You must have a different definition of success that I do.


A company is a success if it doesn't go bankrupt (or require a government bail-out), provides a healthy working environment for its employees, and provides valued products to its consumers as long as those products are useful. Once the products are no longer useful, then the company is no longer needed, and it can either die having been a success, or possibly evolve with the consumers needs to produce new products. AT&T started out as a telegraph company, you know. They are arguably the most successful telegraph company that ever was, and ever will be.



morac said:


> A company which has been around for a decade and, with the exception of one or two quarters, consistently loses money every quarter (-20% profit margin according to Yahoo Finance) doesn't seem that successful to me.


Many startup Cable systems showed losses for more than 20 years. Heck, our company posted a loss for almost 20 years, and we are one of the fastest growing and most profitable $1B+ companies around. Posting a loss is just a matter of good bookkeeping as long as the debt is serviceable and the loss is sustainable. Where so many companies (inexplicably) make the mistake is in trying to pawn the losses off on investors. 'Big, BIG mistake. It also just does not seem to register to people who ostensibly should know better that one cannot sell at a loss and make up for it in volume. To make losses sustainable, one must DECREASE volume until more favorable conditions can be arranged.

That's what we did, BTW. We began walking away from sales at which we would have jumped 6 month previously. We made it more difficult for our customers to buy our product, and raised prices. Meanwhile, our competition desperately tried to increase revenue at all costs, reducing prices and signing up anyone who had a valid address. Guess what happened?



morac said:


> More so when you add in the fact that TiVo is also consistently bleeding subscribers, losing one of their main revenue sources.


Now that is the one thing that is really problematic, although even that is not necessarily inevitably lethal. We lost more than 80% of our business during the Telecom collapse, yet at the same time we posted consistently higher EBIDTA throughout the entire debacle and continued to inch closer and closer to profitability despite massive loss of revenue. Of course, it meant we had to drastically reduce costs and replace the lost revenue with other revenue streams. Our carrier revenue plummeted, but we replaced substantially all of it in almost the same time period with enterprise revenue. TiVo may have to do something similar. Admittedly they are in a tougher postition than we were, but still almost every one of our competitors eventually went completely bankrupt. The point is, it's not just the economic environment that determines whether a company makes it, or not.



morac said:


> Sure TiVo has a lot of cash on hand (thanks to the payment from Dish and limited advertising),


Has Dish payed them anything at all? Of course, I haven't been keeping up, but the last I heard they were still defying the repeated rulings against them, and had been ruled in contempt of court multiple times, refusing to pay a penny.



morac said:


> but that doesn't mean anything if they keep losing money every year.


I think it was H. L. Hunt who had one of his accountants come to him and complain that a sports team he owned was losing half a million dollars a year. "Oh, my God," he is said to have responded, "in 1500 years I will go broke." Nothing - no human being, machine, no nation, not even any rock lasts forever, and certainly no business enterprise ever will. If you insist a company cannot be a success if it eventually ceases to exist - let alone has a slump in sales volume for a time, then no company every has or ever will be successful. The measure of success is not in immortality, or even necessarily in longevity, but in how well it serves its purposes for the time it does exist.



morac said:


> I think TiVo will be around for years to come, but to call TiVo "successful, in spades" is nonsensical. To be successful TiVo needs to gain money, not lose it. To do that TiVo needs to do one or more of the following things:
> 
> 1. Gain more subscribers; this currently means sell more hardware.


'Not a measure of success. It is how well it serves the customers it does have that makes it a success. Of course, far from being mutually exclusive, serving existing customers well can only help gain new customers.



morac said:


> 2. Gain more revenue from advertising (tied to #1 since less subscribers means less ad revenue).


I consider any company which makes its money through add revenue to be, if not a failure, then at least a useless company. Non-directed advertising is nothing but legalized theft. Certainly it won't do anything for TiVo owners in general or the members of this forum specifically for TiVo to increase revenue through advertising. What good does it do for a company to be "successful" if no one wants its product any more? How will it benefit the members of this forum if we no longer want the products TiVo offers?



morac said:


> 3. Increase sales of aggregated and non-aggregated customer data (also tied to #1).


I don't know what you mean by aggregated vs. non-aggregated customer data. Data is one of the things they sell. If they can come u with more types of data to sell, then they stand to gain more revenue from it. It doesn't take a math whiz to calculate that one.



morac said:


> 4. Increase revenue from patent licensing (either through negotiations or law suits).


Certainly they started out doing just that and they can potentially do it again. There are a large number of other means they could employ to stay in business and perhaps grow it, however. You're missing the most fundamental and most important means, though. All Tivo needs to do - all any company needs to do - to stay in business indefinitely is to see to it costs are lower than revenue. It isn't in particular necessary to grow anything whatsoever. Reducing costs can be difficult, and it is important one is careful just which costs one reduces. Sometimes what seem apparently to be the easiest costs to cut can have devastating long term effects. I know these statements are distressingly vague almost to the point of hand waving, but I just don't know enough of the internals of TiVo's business to make any better and more specific assessment, but then I suspect you don't either.


----------



## pkincy (Sep 23, 2006)

I was one of the many that adopted Satellite TiVo early and bought the lifetime service on 3 boxes.....and than got screwed when they stopped supporting Satellite.

Because of that I may know and miss there software interface but won't give them any money up front any longer nor will I sign a contract with them for $20/month given that I need to deal with cable cards and SDV.

Their old stupid business decisions probably didn't kill them, but that plus the current technical challenges of cable cards, cable companies and SDV implementation (I am now in San Diego with TimeWarner) make it not worth the move from the OK but not great cable boxes that are more compatible and available.

Perry


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> There is no natural cost of things when a small number of companies hold all the playing cards. More to the point in this case, the CATV companies have a natural anti-competitive advantage over 3rd party manufacturers. They can subsidize their losses in DVR rentals with higher CATV bills, and there is nothing the consumer can do about it. Meanwhile, the 3rd party owner has to pay the same subsidy the leased DVR user does, meaning they get hit with the cost of the 3rd party box PLUS a substantial part of the cost of the CATV DVR, even though they aren't using the latter.


Cable companies have the job of providing the end-use with television, maybe internet, and maybe phone. I am most certain that one of their business goals is to provide interfaces with everyone. They should be permitted to transmit that data in any way they see fit, and is most profitable to their businesses. A smart company will change and adapt to market needs. People want more Hi-Def. They want more bandwidth. So, they need to find more ways to get that data down the same sized pipe.

Sure, it would be nice if standards never changed, and everyone could build their own STB from parts at Radio Shack, but that is not reality. Technology changes daily. As I said before, if Tivo simply built a box that accepted hi-def analog (component) inputs, there wouldn't be an issue, and the box would work with ANYTHING. But they won't. In the end, Cable TV and Sat Companies need to provide a signal that your TV can understand. THAT SIGNAL is what Tivo should record. It shouldn't be Tivo's job to worry about the incoming cable signal. They just need to capture the signal that is to be displayed on the TV.

I think we are not seeing the big picture here.

1. How many homes have Cable Television?
2. How many of those homes have a Tivo?
3. What is Tivo's penetration into the Cable Home?

If the number is small, why should cable companies halt progress for the few?

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I do not want my TiVo DVR costing as much as an apple computer just for the hardware
> and I am still getting a pretty big laugh out of all these apple comparisons when the visionary of Apple himself said there was no viable business model in a 3rd party box to get broadcast TV and yet TiVo remains alive all these years.


The point is that TiVo CEO Tom Rogers and the Board have no vision. They are blind as a tech company and that means death to a tech company. They're ruining this company. They no longer have the cognition called for to think boldly. This is still the country that is only limited by its vision. They have lost theirs. And I ditto, they have no idea of TiVo's unexplored possibilities.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> I consider any company which makes its money through add revenue to be, if not a failure, then at least a useless company.


I guess Google has to be one of the biggest failures ever then since nearly all their revenue comes from advertising.

I'm not sure how you can say that as long as a company is still in business it's a success. Under that reasoning I could come up with a business model where I start off a company with $1,000,000 dollars and have it give away $20,000 worth of products every year with no revenue. The company would be "successful" for 50 years, after which it would be bankrupt.

To me, success equals growth. A company can't fail it's way into success, unless being bought out by a successful company at below market value is considered a success.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> A company is a success if it doesn't go bankrupt (or require a government bail-out), provides a healthy working environment for its employees, and provides valued products to its consumers as long as those products are useful.
> 
> ...
> 
> Has Dish payed them anything at all? Of course, I haven't been keeping up, but the last I heard they were still defying the repeated rulings against them, and had been ruled in contempt of court multiple times, refusing to pay a penny.


LOL, I don't think the Tivo shareholders agree with your definition of a success. I believe "barely treading water" is the best way to describe Tivo.

The answer to the other question is yes, Dish has paid some money to Tivo. The question is whether or not Dish has to pay even more money. That's in Appellate Court right now.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> It's the government's job to adopt policy that allows entrepreneurs to create new jobs and opportunities on their own. Whatever the private sector does, the government can do with twice the people at four times the cost. Government shouldn't force inefficiency.


You forgot to add "and do it 10 times slower". That is critical. Sometimes the technology develops and changes directions so fast that government can't really control it. They end up releasing specifications that are instantly obsolete, like CableCard. And companies like Tivo end up releasing products that are instantly obsolete, like the S3. Who would want to get into that business?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Many of the popular third party programs won't run on a S3 (and many S2 units) unless the customer replaces a chip soldered on the motherboard. I don't know if those same programs will run on the Premier using any existing techniques.

Tivo has made it difficult upgrade the internal drive in Premier units. Tivo has made it more difficult to add non-approved external drives to Tivo HD units.

I'll agree third party applications were common for S1 and earlier S2 units. Tivo is no longer encouraging third party applications. If anything making it harder.



lrhorer said:


> It's TiVo's recording features, along with the large number of 3rd party utilities, that make the TiVo what it is and also set it far apart from the competition. A VCR does timeshifting and trickplay, and indeed a lot of DVRs are just VCRs on steroids. The TiVo is not. Unfortunately, most of the public does not understand this. TiVo is the Hummer of DVRs, with a minigun and armor plate installed. but most people (including you?) don't think it's any different than a Ford Escort.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> The point is that TiVo CEO Tom Rogers and the Board have no vision. They are blind as a tech company and that means death to a tech company. They're ruining this company. They no longer have the cognition called for to think boldly. This is still the country that is only limited by its vision. They have lost theirs. And I ditto, they have no idea of TiVo's unexplored possibilities.


and my point back is that a man held by many folks in many industries as a visionary says that their simply is no business model that can be pursued in the 3rd party add on market for broadcast media. So someone with true vision would have TiVo inc. invest its resources in something else like oh say partnering with the broadcast companies.

so either explain to us just what unexplored possibilities the TiVo execs are missing or I will note that you make an easy assertion with no detail behind it. I am not holding these execs up as visionary but I do note again they are keeping a company afloat in a market Apple will not even enter.

So give us some details...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> You forgot to add "and do it 10 times slower". That is critical. Sometimes the technology develops and changes directions so fast that government can't really control it. They end up releasing specifications that are instantly obsolete, like CableCard. And companies like Tivo end up releasing products that are instantly obsolete, like the S3. Who would want to get into that business?


for an obsolete product my TiVo HD boxes are doing a great job


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> Many of the popular third party programs won't run on a S3 (and many S2 units) unless the customer replaces a chip soldered on the motherboard.


those are not the third party programs he was looking for.

I think he meant Netflix and such


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> You forgot to add "and do it 10 times slower". That is critical. Sometimes the technology develops and changes directions so fast that government can't really control it. They end up releasing specifications that are instantly obsolete, like CableCard. And companies like Tivo end up releasing products that are instantly obsolete, like the S3. Who would want to get into that business?


Yes. I forgot the whole slow-ness of things.

We'd still be debating AM Stereo formats if FM finally didn't make AM Stereo obsolete.

Sad thing is, Tivo is trying to be things it shouldn't be. Their CORE business is a standalone DVR. The more they try to shove into the box, the more they will fall behind.

If they simply made a box that:
1. Had an OTA ATSC/NTSC tuner(s)
2. Had COMPONENT (NOT HDMI) inputs
3. Had an IR blaster

They'd be doing just fine, and they could even be used with sat boxes.... But since they wanted to replace the STB.....

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## vectorcatch (Nov 21, 2008)

dstoffa said:


> If they simply made a box that:
> 1. Had an OTA ATSC/NTSC tuner(s)
> 2. Had COMPONENT (NOT HDMI) inputs
> 3. Had an IR blaster


For the record only #1 in this list appeals to me. I would have never bought a TiVo if I had to route inputs from another box and use an IR Blaster. I understand it was a nice workaround in the Series 2 days, but it would never be an option for me.

However, I do understand those elements would be important to you. I think that is what a lot of us lose track of frequently in these discussions is what does TiVo need to do for the average consumer. For most products I own I wish there were all kinds of features that would be great for me, but I soon realize most people would never go to the trouble I do.

I would argue that hooking up a second box and routing the first to it, is well beyond "average". I base this on the fact I know individuals who didn't even know they had a DVR from the Cable Company because they had never gone in the menu.

My wife is another perfect example, had I not been there should probably wouldn't even have an HDTV. To her, regardless of picture quality, it seems like too much trouble. She wants to plug one wire into the TV and be done, the same is true of her Mother who threw a fit when she signed up for Verizon (because it was cheaper) and they told he she had to have a box.

I think the key to TiVo's success would be lower entry cost and seamless integration (i.e. Keep the physical connections to a minimum (1 HDMI, 1 RF for cable) and not have to involve the provider (i.e. allow some automated way of associating a box to a provider account).

I feel like TiVo could do this by assisting in the Cable Company interaction process, I mean they should be able to retrieve the CableCard and HOST ID from the network connection when it phones home and then have a system where it is sent automatically to the Cable Provider.

Most people only see the cable guy twice when living in a house, once on initial install and once when they move.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dstoffa said:


> Sure, it would be nice if standards never changed, and everyone could build their own STB from parts at Radio Shack, but that is not reality. Technology changes daily. As I said before, if Tivo simply built a box that accepted hi-def analog (component) inputs, there wouldn't be an issue, and the box would work with ANYTHING. But they won't. In the end, Cable TV and Sat Companies need to provide a signal that your TV can understand. THAT SIGNAL is what Tivo should record. It shouldn't be Tivo's job to worry about the incoming cable signal. They just need to capture the signal that is to be displayed on the TV.


IMHO there is a legal problem in recording many cable channels that why MRV is more and more useless, so TiVo would be breaking the law if they developed a means of recording, (using the HDMI or component cable as inputs), any HD cable station without restrictions . For that matter I know of no consumer recorder that will record directly from HDMI or component inputs. If anybody knows different let us know.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

vectorcatch said:


> For the record only #1 in this list appeals to me. I would have never bought a TiVo if I had to route inputs from another box and use an IR Blaster. I understand it was a nice workaround in the Series 2 days, but it would never be an option for me.


Well, we agree that to be successful, they need to keep it simple. In toady's world, with all the options out there (OTA, CableTV, SatTV, IPTV), the only standard that will remain standard is the display standard. Transmission standard be damned. So, to make it work, the should simply work on the ability to record the data that is being fed to the television. I suggested COMPONENT HD Feeds because one doesn't want to have to deal with handshakes and copy flags....

They need to find their audience, and super-serve it. The ability to route inputs from another device sans OTA is key in today's tv world. And I don't think its difficult to set up at all, especially if you've ever hooked up a VCR or older DVR.

All the "Add-ons" just add cost and reduce profit margin. You build the best and most usable standalone DVR and run with it.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lessd said:


> IMHO there is a legal problem in recording many cable channels that why MRV is more and more useless, so TiVo would be breaking the law if they developed a means of recording, (using the HDMI or component cable as inputs), any HD cable station without restrictions . For that matter I know of no consumer recorder that will record directly from HDMI or component inputs. If anybody knows different let us know.


Also the FCC just gave cable companies the go ahead to turn off analog outputs on cable STB's and there is also the macrovision encoding of analog outputs to thwart copying.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

lessd said:


> IMHO there is a legal problem in recording many cable channels that why MRV is more and more useless, so TiVo would be breaking the law if they developed a means of recording, (using the HDMI or component cable as inputs), any HD cable station without restrictions . For that matter I know of no consumer recorder that will record directly from HDMI or component inputs. If anybody knows different let us know.


That's the whole reason for using ANALOG component connections.

The Happague HD PVR 1212 records HD content via Component inputs. It does the processing and feeds the files to your PC via USB. It has an IR Blaster to change channels. This is the type of functionality that Tivo ran away from. Ideally, all you'd need is a Tivo as a front-end....

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and my point back is that a man held by many folks in many industries as a visionary says that their simply is no business model that can be pursued in the 3rd party add on market for broadcast media...


You misunderstand me. I understand your viewpoint is based on your assumption. Possibly I never made mine clear. I disagreed with you. Your view that there simply is no business model that can be pursued in the 3rd party add on market is not one I assume. We have to agree to disagree.

I am still holding out hope that this sad impersonation of a tech CEO by TiVo CEO Tom Rogers will not be brushed aside by the Board any longer and certainly not the TiVo shareholders themselves.

People who have been exposed to technology (including children, wives, et cetera.) are for the first time holding their nose when TiVo is mentioned. They are no longer saying, oh how cute.

A fish stinks from the head down.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dstoffa said:


> That's the whole reason for using ANALOG component connections.
> 
> The Happague HD PVR 1212 records HD content via Component inputs. It does the processing and feeds the files to your PC via USB. It has an IR Blaster to change channels. This is the type of functionality that Tivo ran away from. Ideally, all you'd need is a Tivo as a front-end....
> 
> ...


I stand corrected but the system takes more powerful hardware for a complete system than TiVo has now, and I would guess that a total system would have a much higher hardware cost then TiVo now has. Without recording and playback capabilities the Happague HD PVR 1212 cost retail $199 and still requires and external hard drive and a duel core 2Ghz processor with 256G memory in your computer to record on and do the playback. The current TiVo hardware is not anywhere close to that. But if a DVR could do all that, no cable cards would needed, that would be neat but not at $600 or more + sub cost. I think this is a cost issue for TiVo to produce such a box and again the legal issue comes into play as the Happague HD PVR 1212 by itself does not copy anything, only streams into your computer, if you put the two functions together in one box, that may be a legal problem. Note also from the output of any cable box (I know of) you could only record one channel at a time.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> Cable companies have the job of providing the end-use with television, maybe internet, and maybe phone. I am most certain that one of their business goals is to provide interfaces with everyone. They should be permitted to transmit that data in any way they see fit, and is most profitable to their businesses.


That was tried with telephone, long before CATV service existed. It was a horrible, frantic mess, and no one's service worked with anyone else's. Move forward about 80 years, and someone decided to build a Community Antenna Television system by stringing a piece of 3/4" steel cable from a mountain top down across the valley so that the people who lived in the valley could receive the same OTA service as most of the rest of the country. Voila! CATV service was born. Soon people realized they could employ coaxial cables delivered to every house, rather than a passive radiator for every outside antenna to receive, and thus deliver better service. At the same time, however, it was realized that it had become practical for the maintainer of the CATV system to charge the subscribers for connecting to the CATV system. That's not practical (except through taxation) with a passive radiator. Before the industry had already begun, however, it already faced significant regulations concerning the nature of the signals they delivered. This is the only reason a TV you purchase in Idaho will work with a CATV system in California. Competition in the marketplace is usually healthy for both consumers and businesses. Competition in protocols and technical specifications is not. The only reason you have a computer on your desktop right now that can send messages out into a World Wide Web is because there exist published standards at every level of computing to which the equipment must conform. Now, as it happens, and for various reasons, the computing industry has been very good about developing its own standards with relatively little interference from government. The television and CATV industries, however, have not. Even now, with all the government regulations, there is still no SDV standard. Every CATV company wants its own protocols. They *WANT* to be incompatible with each other, and to this very day, they are fighting tooth and nail to reach that goal.



dstoffa said:


> A smart company will change and adapt to market needs. People want more Hi-Def. They want more bandwidth. So, they need to find more ways to get that data down the same sized pipe.
> 
> Sure, it would be nice if standards never changed


It's not a matter of changing standards. There is no standard.



dstoffa said:


> and everyone could build their own STB from parts at Radio Shack, but that is not reality.


That has nothing to do with the issue. Standards can change just as fast as proprietary systems can, and it is no more difficult for a hobbyist to build a box to conform to a standard than it is to a proprietary system. It is, however, much more difficult for manufacturing companies to build for multiple proprietary systems than for a single set of standards. Why should the CATV companies have it their way at the expense of the manufacturers? Are the CATV companies "special"?



dstoffa said:


> Technology changes daily. As I said before, if Tivo simply built a box that accepted hi-def analog (component) inputs, there wouldn't be an issue, and the box would work with ANYTHING.


Are you daft?

1. Component Analog outputs are on the way out. 'Talk about a buggy whip.

2. With a significant number of consumers clamoring for four or more tuners, you are going to suggest TiVo drop back from two to one?

3. Two additional A/D and D/A conversions inevitably means more undesirable artifacts in the picture.

4. HD A/D conversion is expensive.

5. The resulting files will almost surely take much more space than the MPEG II and MPEG IV streams produced by commercial entities. Bye-bye recording time, or else hello more expensive disks for the same amount of storage (in hours).

6. We're back to a CATV STB controlled by the TiVo. That was the big failing of the S1 TiVo. It's far, far less reliable, costs more (for the STB rental), and performs much more poorly.

That's just a start on the problems with your suggestion. You haven't thought this through, at all. What's more, TiVo (and other DVRs) are only one small part of the issue. We are talking about standards that apply to every receiver - every television, every DVR, every re-transmission device (like SlingBox).



dstoffa said:


> But they won't. In the end, Cable TV and Sat Companies need to provide a signal that your TV can understand. THAT SIGNAL is what Tivo should record.


Don't lose your day job, because you will never make it as a part-time engineer.



dstoffa said:


> I think we are not seeing the big picture here.


Beg pardon, Mr. Kettle? Not only are you missing the big picture, your picture seems to be in black-and-white.



dstoffa said:


> 1. How many homes have Cable Television?
> 2. How many of those homes have a Tivo?
> 3. What is Tivo's penetration into the Cable Home?
> 
> If the number is small, why should cable companies halt progress for the few?


Well, first of all, because the few are just as important as the many. There are far more fundamental issues at point here, though. In 1970, CATV systems were even less pervasive overall than TiVos are now. So creating standards for them and then to accomodate the TV manufacturers then and vice-versa was a bad idea? But now the shoe is on the other foot, things have changed?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

morac said:


> I guess Google has to be one of the biggest failures ever then since nearly all their revenue comes from advertising.


All the best thieves are successful ones. I said, "If not a failure...", not "Is a failure..." It certainly fails in its obligation to the public, however. Arguably the most lucrative business ever devised was Murder, Inc. Just because a company can make more money through extortion than from selling to consumers doesn't mean it should be allowed to do so. Google and other such businesses - most notably and egregiously the National TV networks - are all but guaranteed revenue because the can force consumers to pay for their product without any consent on the part of the consumer. Indeed, most consumers don't even realize they are being forced to pay for the services. They think of OTA content and search engines as "free". Many even think government programs are "free". The wool has been pulled over their eyes, and it wasn't even difficult, yet the fact is, such entities cost the consumers far, far more than even the most expensive subscription services. How anyone ever thought being forced to pay for something makes it free is beyond me...



morac said:


> I'm not sure how you can say that as long as a company is still in business it's a success. Under that reasoning I could come up with a business model where I start off a company with $1,000,000 dollars and have it give away $20,000 worth of products every year with no revenue. The company would be "successful" for 50 years, after which it would be bankrupt.


Well, first of all, unless the cash just sits in a vault somewhere, then accrued interest would allow the company to persist hypothetically forever. Indeed, there are many successful businesses out there who do precisely that. They are known as "Non Profit Organizations" and "Endowment Funds", often charitable ones. Are you saying the American Cancer Society or the National Kidney foundation are not successful? Are the Howard Hughes Medical Institute or the Carnegie Foundations failures? If the purpose of the company in question is to give away goods and services, then yes, such a company would be successful. If that's not the company's purpose, then it isn't successful, or at least has limited success.

Like many people, you seem to be failing to understand the difference between purpose and practical considerations. Success is tied to intent and purpose, not to practical considerations, no matter how essential those considerations may be. As a human being, I am irrevocably and inextricably tied to my metabolism. I absolutely must eat, drink, defecate, and urinate on a quite regular basis, or I will die, but my life would be a most desolate one indeed if its main purpose were to fulfill the needs of my bowels. A similar notion is true of business. If the purpose of every business were to make money, then every business would be a bank (or a mint). I am an engineer because I want to design things, and I work for a telecommunications company because I enjoy / am good at communications. The money they pay me for my work has importance, to be sure, but there are many, many far more important and fundamental considerations for my career than just making money. I could do just about anything (of which I am capable, of course) and make money.



morac said:


> To me, success equals growth.


You have the same problem many people do. It's a major problem in our society, and a major reason we are liable to not be around much longer. It is exactly the same attitude which causes many - perhaps most - nations to fall apart, and as a nation we have already lasted longer than any other democracy in history.

Unrestricted growth is called, "cancer", and we have a bad case of it. If you would like other examples of just such failures, see Rome in the 1st century, Spain in the 15th century, England in the 19th century, and Argentina in the 20th century. More examples supplied upon request.

Growth for growth's sake is virtually always a bad idea, and is *NEVER* a sign of success.



morac said:


> A company can't fail it's way into success, unless being bought out by a successful company at below market value is considered a success.


Again, a reduction in size does not necessarily indicate a failure, any more than a military retreat indicates defeat. To extend the analogy even further it is quite possible to win every battle, yet lose the war. See Vietnam or conversely the War of 1812. It's true a shrinking company may be a symptom of failure, but it is not necessarily the case, at all. Indeed, if a market is shrinking, then the company - or at least the section of the company dealing with that market - must shrink or it will fail. Near the turn of the last century, gas utility companies (and their investors) were panicked because some upstart named Edison had developed a new method of lighting that did not use natural gas. They should not have panicked, as most of them did eventually embrace the new technology and are now making more money selling electricity than they did selling gas. The point, though, is that when the demand for gas diminished, the gas companies themselves were forced to shrink their operations with diminishing market demand. It didn't make them failures. You are buying into a number of commonly held fallacies. Profit is not necessarily success, nor is it the end-all and be-all of business. Growth is not necessarily good nor necessarily necessary. There is nothing wrong with being in second place (or third, or fourth...). Life is neither a contest nor a destination. How you get there and with whom you share the journey are far, far more important than where you wind up or how much money you have when you get there. After all, eventually we all wind up six feet under, and I don't know about you, but I for one would rather get there as slowly as possible.

It's also one of life's little ironies that those who wind up making the most money are those who don't worry about making money. On three separate occasions, I undertook a path that deliberately cut my salary in half, yet now I am making far more than any of my colleagues who kept their positions because they didn't want to "lose" money.

You can say TiVo is not successful all you want, but I obtained devices from them which work very well for me. Anything else about the company is rather superfluous. If they are around when the devices no longer work for me, and are producing a product that will work very well for me, then they stand a good chance of selling me another device or three. If they are not around, why should I care?


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> That was tried with telephone, long before CATV service existed. It was a horrible, frantic mess, and no one's service worked with anyone else's. Move forward about 80 years, and someone decided to build a Community Antenna Television system by stringing a piece of 3/4" steel cable from a mountain top down across the valley so that the people who lived in the valley could receive the same OTA service as most of the rest of the country.


My family has roots in the coal mining towns of PA, so I know where CableTV originated. I know why Jerrold made early CATV equipment. CATV was wired brought to the valley towns simply because an electronics salesman realized he could sell more TV's if people had programming to watch. Buying stock at the ground level was one of my aunt's greatest moves financially.



> Voila! CATV service was born. Soon people realized they could employ coaxial cables delivered to every house, rather than a passive radiator for every outside antenna to receive, and thus deliver better service. At the same time, however, it was realized that it had become practical for the maintainer of the CATV system to charge the subscribers for connecting to the CATV system. That's not practical (except through taxation) with a passive radiator. Before the industry had already begun, however, it already faced significant regulations concerning the nature of the signals they delivered. This is the only reason a TV you purchase in Idaho will work with a CATV system in California.


Forget about content, and bringing in out-of-market stations. A TV bought in Idaho works in California because early CATV systems were 12-channel VHF Systems, and every TV had a VHF Tuner. It was not in their best interest to change protocols, because the selling point of the service is the content, and at the time, there was plenty of bandwidth to retransmit whatever content was available. PayTV networks didn't exist, and the FCC frowned upon bringing in out of market stations that duplicated local content. 12 channels was more than enough. Even if you needed a STB in those days, they'd just change the output to work with your existing set, because in the end, that is all that matters.



> Competition in the marketplace is usually healthy for both consumers and businesses. Competition in protocols and technical specifications is not. The only reason you have a computer on your desktop right now that can send messages out into a World Wide Web is because there exist published standards at every level of computing to which the equipment must conform. Now, as it happens, and for various reasons, the computing industry has been very good about developing its own standards with relatively little interference from government. The television and CATV industries, however, have not. Even now, with all the government regulations, there is still no SDV standard. Every CATV company wants its own protocols. They *WANT* to be incompatible with each other, and to this very day, they are fighting tooth and nail to reach that goal.


As long as the data can be re-assembled at the end does it really matter? And if they are incompatible, what's the job of CableLabs?



> It's not a matter of changing standards. There is no standard.


Again, so what? Can the assembled picture be displayed on my TV? If so, then the majority of consumers don't care.



> That has nothing to do with the issue. Standards can change just as fast as proprietary systems can, and it is no more difficult for a hobbyist to build a box to conform to a standard than it is to a proprietary system. It is, however, much more difficult for manufacturing companies to build for multiple proprietary systems than for a single set of standards. Why should the CATV companies have it their way at the expense of the manufacturers? Are the CATV companies "special"?


Are you saying that Set Top Box Manufacturers have an issue making boxes for cable companies? I don't think so. I think you are saying that its unfair for 3rd party makers to make boxes, because they'd have to customize each box to work with a given system. Again, so what? If they cannot compete, then their business model doesn't work.

CableTV is NOT arpanet. It is a wired connection from a content provider to your home. It's not a packeted based network running all over the world. Maybe someday, but not today. Comparing computers to CableTV is not a fair comparison.



> Are you daft?


Quote the contrary. Maybe I just have grown harder in old age. I learned that things get harder to control the tighter you make your grip, and the tighter the grip, the more expensive.



> 1. Component Analog outputs are on the way out. 'Talk about a buggy whip.


But it would work with anything. It doesn't require R&D.



> 2. With a significant number of consumers clamoring for four or more tuners, you are going to suggest TiVo drop back from two to one?


I wrote of a way for it to work. I didn't say it would be better or more appealing. However, I'd rather have a one tuner sure-fire solution that works instead of a multi-tuner option that half-a$$ works.



> 3. Two additional A/D and D/A conversions inevitably means more undesirable artifacts in the picture.


Again, I didn't say that it was perfect. I just wrote of a way it would work. Undesirable artifacts and their effect on one's enjoyment of picture are up to debate.



> 4. HD A/D conversion is expensive.


I never said it was cheap.



> 5. The resulting files will almost surely take much more space than the MPEG II and MPEG IV streams produced by commercial entities. Bye-bye recording time, or else hello more expensive disks for the same amount of storage (in hours).


Quite possibly. But probably not as bad as you write as we move forward.



> 6. We're back to a CATV STB controlled by the TiVo. That was the big failing of the S1 TiVo. It's far, far less reliable, costs more (for the STB rental), and performs much more poorly.


Again, I write of a way it will work. I have had Tivos and Replays, and IR blasters only failed after power outages. After I figured out that I could tell my SA STBs to power up upon receipt of a alpha-numeric key press, all those problems went away. YMMV.



> That's just a start on the problems with your suggestion. You haven't thought this through, at all. What's more, TiVo (and other DVRs) are only one small part of the issue. We are talking about standards that apply to every receiver - every television, every DVR, every re-transmission device (like SlingBox).


Yes I have. Are we talking about display standards or transmission standards? Very different.

Again, what's the job of CableLabs, then, if there are no standards?



> Don't lose your day job, because you will never make it as a part-time engineer.


Don't flatter yourself. You've turned this into a technology battle, where my post was written to show a way that Tivo could develop a DVR that could record HD content and work with anything, because this thread originally started as how Tivo could become a financial success. One argument is that Tivo cannot simply because they cannot compete with the content providers in way of cost. Do you think its possible, that if every standard you feel should be followed is implemented, that Tivo STILL would be able to compete? I say it would be tough. DNNA saw the writing on the wall and sold off the IP to RTV to Direct. They were gonna end up throwing good money after bad if they pressed forward with new DVRs.

I believe it would be VERY tough to convince the masses to buy a Tivo box when they can get the same functionality from the content provider with no financial risk (buying lifetime subscription and hardware) for almost the same monthly cost. Many just won't do it.



> Beg pardon, Mr. Kettle? Not only are you missing the big picture, your picture seems to be in black-and-white.


Nope. Sometimes the best ideas and best products are not cost-effective. It makes more sense for many to settle for a more affordable solution. I can spec out something that is the best invention since the bread slicer. However, its made out of unobtanium. It just costs too much, and I'll never sell enough to turn a profit. How can I make it simple?



> Well, first of all, because the few are just as important as the many.


Spock wouldn't agree.



> There are far more fundamental issues at point here, though. In 1970, CATV systems were even less pervasive overall than TiVos are now. So creating standards for them and then to accomodate the TV manufacturers then and vice-versa was a bad idea? But now the shoe is on the other foot, things have changed?


Standards? All you need is a box that understands the digital signal being transmitted and processes it so your TV can understand it. That is the function of the cable company... and shouldn't be the function of a Tivo. The Tivo should record data, not process it. And maybe this is where we disagree...

It's possible that the there is no market for a stand-alone DVR outside the niche market.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> LOL, I don't think the Tivo shareholders agree with your definition of a success. I believe "barely treading water" is the best way to describe Tivo.


Again, how many other companies of TiVo's size do you know with a quarter of a billion dollars cash on hand? Not that it is a good measure of success, but a huge wad of cash in the bank means the company is viable, and that they can buy back the stock from those investors at a handsome profit for them. Indeed, having cash in the bank is the very definition of "solvent".



BobCamp1 said:


> The answer to the other question is yes, Dish has paid some money to Tivo. The question is whether or not Dish has to pay even more money.


How much, and when?



BobCamp1 said:


> That's in Appellate Court right now.


It's been in appellate court numerous times, continuously so for the last couple of years. The judge has ruled repeatedly they have no grounds for appeal.


----------



## Bai Shen (Dec 17, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I think TiVo had a hard time explaining the benefit of the box in the beginning because it was just something that was so new it was hard to explain. Most people focused on the ability to pause and rewind live TV, but in reality that is more of a gimmick then an actual useful feature. The real meat and potatoes is the ability to time shift TV and watch whatever you want, whenever you want. However in the early days the only people who really understood the convenience of that were people with really odd schedules or those who were already actively using VCRs to time shift. Everyone else just thought it was an expensive toy for A/V geeks.


Agreed.



> By the time prices started to come down and word started to get out about how life changing a DVR really could be for the average Joe, that's right about the time the cable and DSS providers started coming out with their own competing products and hiding the true cost in the programming subscription fee. At first TiVo did OK because their features were so much better then the cable/DSS products, but over the years the cable/DSS DVRs have gotten better and TiVo has stayed pretty much the same. They still do OK in the geek crowd simply because they offer some advanced networking features that we geeks like, but for the average consumer the cable DVR is "good enough" and there is no real reason to lay out $300 + $12/mo for a real TiVo.


I just switched to Comcast, and I can't fathom why people would go with their dvr over Tivo. The DVR fee is $10-15/mo, and the interface is horrible.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> My family has roots in the coal mining towns of PA, so I know where CableTV originated. I know why Jerrold made early CATV equipment. CATV was wired brought to the valley towns simply because an electronics salesman realized he could sell more TV's if people had programming to watch. Buying stock at the ground level was one of my aunt's greatest moves financially.


John and Margaret Walson created the first commercially supported closed CATV system in Pensylvania. It was not the first community antenna. A number of bergs across the country got their citizens to cough up the tax money for community antennas, which originally were just stretches of bare steel wire rope suspended from mountain tops over the valleys. Walson's system employed coaxial cable. We diverge, though...



dstoffa said:


> Forget about content, and bringing in out-of-market stations. A TV bought in Idaho works in California because early CATV systems were 12-channel VHF Systems, and every TV had a VHF Tuner.


No that's not the only reason. It's also because they both were based upon NTSC standards, rather than PAL, Seacam, mechanical video, or a host of other competing standards. It's also because the power system in both states is required to be 60Hz at roughly 110 VAC. Go plug that TV in in Japan or France and you will be in for a rude - and potentially dangerous - awakening. Indeed, the term VHF itself is based entirely upon the FCC regulations which define the channelization scheme within the 49 - 217 MHz spectrum. Not only the 6MHz channel width is defined by the FCC, but also the 4 MHz gap between channels 5 and 6 and the 86 MHz gap between 6 and 7. If the TV or broadcasters had some proprietary channelization scheme, then it wouldn't work, at least not for the entire spectrum, unless the TV had a vernier dial, rather than a channel selector.



dstoffa said:


> It was not in their best interest to change protocols, because the selling point of the service is the content, and at the time, there was plenty of bandwidth to retransmit whatever content was available.


Whether it may or may not have been is beside the point. Company execs are no less prone to poorly advised decisions than anyone else in general.



dstoffa said:


> As long as the data can be re-assembled at the end does it really matter? And if they are incompatible, what's the job of CableLabs?


To produce the very standards you say should not exist.



dstoffa said:


> Again, so what? Can the assembled picture be displayed on my TV? If so, then the majority of consumers don't care.


No, it can't. That's the crux of the issue.



dstoffa said:


> Are you saying that Set Top Box Manufacturers have an issue making boxes for cable companies? I don't think so. I think you are saying that its unfair for 3rd party makers to make boxes, because they'd have to customize each box to work with a given system. Again, so what? If they cannot compete, then their business model doesn't work.


No, I am saying the CE manufacturers don't want to have to manufacture 50 different types of TV to accommodate 50 different CATV companies, and the consumer doesn't want to have to buy a TV in Manhattan that won't work if they move to the Bronyx. They also don't want multiple boxes.



dstoffa said:


> CableTV is NOT arpanet. It is a wired connection from a content provider to your home. It's not a packeted based network running all over the world. Maybe someday, but not today. Comparing computers to CableTV is not a fair comparison.


You are apparently missing the point entirely. In fact, my very point was they are different, although it goes much deeper than the internet. From the PCI cards and hard drives that fit inside your computer to the monitor that hangs off it to the WiFi device that talks to it from a distance, the computing industry post IBM PC has done a relatively good job of settling on a minimal number of evolving standards. CATV companies have not.



dstoffa said:


> Quote the contrary. Maybe I just have grown harder in old age. I learned that things get harder to control the tighter you make your grip, and the tighter the grip, the more expensive.


What has that to do with being daft?



dstoffa said:


> But it would work with anything. It doesn't require R&D.


Far from "working with anything", the number of devices with which it will work is diminishing at a rapid pace. That's the point.



dstoffa said:


> I wrote of a way for it to work. I didn't say it would be better or more appealing. However, I'd rather have a one tuner sure-fire solution that works instead of a multi-tuner option that half-a$$ works.


CableCards work fine. My S1 TiVo regularly failed to record programs because Time Warner had a habit of rebooting them unexpectedly at 04:00. Afterward they would shut off. Since the TiVo had only 1-way communication with the STB, it would never know the STB had been turned off. Often I would miss 2 or 3 days of programming as a result. My S3 class TiVos have been 100% rock solid, and have never by themselves missed a program if the house power was on and the CATV feed good. Unfortunately, the TAs have not been as reliable, a fact about which I warned the Cisco engineers when it was decided to go with a USB interface. Even so, however, the TA / S3 pair is more reliable than the STB / S1 pair.



dstoffa said:


> Again, I didn't say that it was perfect. I just wrote of a way it would work. Undesirable artifacts and their effect on one's enjoyment of picture are up to debate..


I'm sorry, but it's just a dumb idea, like amphibious cars and jet packs.



dstoffa said:


> I never said it was cheap.


And expensive, to boot.



dstoffa said:


> Quite possibly. But probably not as bad as you write as we move forward.


I did not quantify the amount.



dstoffa said:


> Again, I write of a way it will work.


All three of my TiVos are heavily customized. My HVAC control system was designed and built by me and suits my personal needs. My servers and most of my workstations are heavily customized by me. The work very well for me and suit my needs, but few other people would be satisfied with them, and very few would be inclined to (or capable of) the persistent management requirements or the need for tweaking. I like them, but would I be able to sell any of them? Not very many.



dstoffa said:


> I have had Tivos and Replays, and IR blasters only failed after power outages. After I figured out that I could tell my SA STBs to power up upon receipt of a alpha-numeric key press, all those problems went away. YMMV.


That assumes you know there was a power outage. Often times I would not realize there had been a brief drop-out while I was at work or asleep until the next day or so. As I already mentioned, however, most happened with the 04:00 software upgrade from Time Warner.



dstoffa said:


> Yes I have. Are we talking about display standards or transmission standards? Very different.


We are talking about standards and the existence of bodies required to administer or produce them.



dstoffa said:


> Again, what's the job of CableLabs, then, if there are no standards?


You tell me. The FCC never required CableLabs to produce a bidirectional standard, so at least untyil recently they never have. (Has OCAP been ratified?) The result is multiple, incompatible SDV implementations. The Consumer Equipment manufacturers pressured the FCC to force CableLabs to produce a unidirectional standard, and the FCC caved in, ordering CableLabs to produce a UDCP standard, so they did, and now every UDCP can work in virtually any CATV system in the US. Unforetunately, many of the most desirable channels are now SDV, and the UDCP standard does not allow for SDV compatibility, nor is there any ratified standard which does. Last I heard, although implemented in a number of places, OCAP is only proposed, not ratified. Worse, it should not be allowed.



dstoffa said:


> Don't flatter yourself.


How was that flattering myself? I am a professional engineer, formerly one in the CATV industry.



dstoffa said:


> You've turned this into a technology battle, where my post was written to show a way that Tivo could develop a DVR that could record HD content and work with anything, because this thread originally started as how Tivo could become a financial success.


Not only would your suggestion not work well by anyone's standards, it would be very expensive, so that no one would want to buy it. How would that enhance TiVo's financial situation?



dstoffa said:


> One argument is that Tivo cannot simply because they cannot compete with the content providers in way of cost.


TiVo doesn't compete with content providers. Perhaps you mean CATV providers? They don't really even compete with them, in the ordinary sense.



dstoffa said:


> Do you think its possible, that if every standard you feel should be followed is implemented, that Tivo STILL would be able to compete?


Since the standards FAVOR the TiVo (and other receiver manufacturers), you bet. How is that difficult to understand?



dstoffa said:


> I believe it would be VERY tough to convince the masses to buy a Tivo box when they can get the same functionality from the content provider


First of all it isn't the same functionality, by a very long shot. For just one small example, check out this link. If you were authorized (by me, of course) you could click on any one of the show titles there and have them immediately start transferring from my video server to the TiVo in my theater, from anywhere in the world. That's not a feature offered by the other DVRs. When a movie is announced to come out - before it even is in the theaters, let alone on DVD / Blue-Ray or in any TV schedule - I can (and do) set my Tivo to record it whenever and on whatever channel it is broadcast. No other DVR can do that.



dstoffa said:


> with no financial risk (buying lifetime subscription and hardware) for almost the same monthly cost.


'Care to re-read what you wrote? A monthly cost not a financial risk? There is no higher financial risk than money one knows one will be out. Even with the lottery one has little bit less than 1:1 odds of losing the money, but with a lease / rental, the risk is 100%. Whether the consumer properly understands that, or not, it is a fact, as is the fact a TiVo with a lifetime subscription will cost less as long as the TiVo lasts about 3 - 4 years. The risk it will fail (or be stolen, destroyed in a fire, etc) in less than 4 years is not zero, but nonetheless, there is a very good chance the TiVo will cost less or not much more than the leased DVR.



dstoffa said:


> Many just won't do it.


That's obvious. Are you suggesting the senior management at TiVo does not know this? If you aren't then I rather fail to see your point. If you are, then I submit it is highly unlikely.



dstoffa said:


> Nope. Sometimes the best ideas and best products are not cost-effective. It makes more sense for many to settle for a more affordable solution. I can spec out something that is the best invention since the bread slicer. However, its made out of unobtanium. It just costs too much, and I'll never sell enough to turn a profit. How can I make it simple?


You just admitted your solution would be more expensive.



dstoffa said:


> Spock wouldn't agree.


Kirk proved him wrong. Individuals are the only important unit of a society. Groups, no matter how large, never are. Of course, some companies seek to sell their wares to as wide a segment of the population a possible. Others deliberately seek to cater to a more vertical segment of the population. Despite the posts in this thread, the former does not automatically make the former company a success and the latter a failure.



dstoffa said:


> Standards? All you need is a box that understands the digital signal being transmitted and processes it so your TV can understand it.


Consumers don't want that box. It was one of the most common complaints of subscribers. The DVR has modified that, somewhat, but consumers definitely don't want *TWO* boxes. It also has a snowball's chance in Hell of being approved by CableLabs, and without CableLabs approval, the CATV company does not have to allow you to hook it up to their system or troubleshoot any problems (and almost surely won't).


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Also the FCC just gave cable companies the go ahead to turn off analog outputs on cable STB's and there is also the macrovision encoding of analog outputs to thwart copying.





dstoffa said:


> That's the whole reason for using ANALOG component connections.


So what happens when the CATV companies turn off the analog outputs, as they have wanted to do for a long time, and have just been given permission to do?

What happens when the STB manufacturers quit making units with analog outputs, which is already underway? Read my lips: component analog is dead. They just haven't buried it, yet.



dstoffa said:


> The Happague HD PVR 1212 records HD content via Component inputs. It does the processing and feeds the files to your PC via USB. It has an IR Blaster to change channels. This is the type of functionality that Tivo ran away from. Ideally, all you'd need is a Tivo as a front-end....


You don't even need that, since it's now nothing but a brick.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> The problem with that is they are currently sell8ing the box at a loss, and making up for it in subscriptions. In order to sell the bare box at a profit, they wou7ld have to greatly increase the price of the box.
> 
> For $500, give ir take? I seriously doubt it. Cisco sells it's underpowered boxes to CATV companies for $450 each in lots of 10,000 or more, with no retail overhead. Add in the retail overhead from Best Buy et al, and the TiVo is going to have to go for more than that in single lot quantities.
> 
> The big issue with your plan is they could never turn a profit. The boxes they could sell at $500 a pop is pretty much limited to the techie types and early adopters who have already purchased TiVos. They would sell just about zero boxes.


My understanding is the cost to manufacture a premiere is far less than $500 or even $400 these days. One recent estimate put it well under $300.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> No that's not the only reason. It's also because they both were based upon NTSC standards, rather than PAL, Seacam, mechanical video, or a host of other competing standards. It's also because the power system in both states is required to be 60Hz at roughly 110 VAC. Go plug that TV in in Japan or France and you will be in for a rude - and potentially dangerous - awakening. Indeed, the term VHF itself is based entirely upon the FCC regulations which define the channelization scheme within the 49 - 217 MHz spectrum. Not only the 6MHz channel width is defined by the FCC, but also the 4 MHz gap between channels 5 and 6 and the 86 MHz gap between 6 and 7. If the TV or broadcasters had some proprietary channelization scheme, then it wouldn't work, at least not for the entire spectrum, unless the TV had a vernier dial, rather than a channel selector.


Yes, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel if the existing wheel works. In the 50's into the 70's it worked just fine.



> Whether it may or may not have been is beside the point. Company execs are no less prone to poorly advised decisions than anyone else in general.


Company executives, along with politicians, have a habit of kicking problems down the road. Many people don't think about the true cost of their choices.



> To produce the very standards you say should not exist.


Well they aren't doing a good job since you write that they already don't exist. Who let that happen? And does the AVERAGE END USER care. Not talking super-user here.... They want their stories. They don't care how.



> No, it can't. That's the crux of the issue.


Yes it can. The cable company will provide me some box that will display a picture on my TV. What do you mean it can't? A lot of people would be constantly calling tech support if the cable box didn't work. Are you certain of your response?



> No, I am saying the CE manufacturers don't want to have to manufacture 50 different types of TV to accommodate 50 different CATV companies, and the consumer doesn't want to have to buy a TV in Manhattan that won't work if they move to the Bronyx. They also don't want multiple boxes.


I am sure that the CE manufacturers each have contracts with a number of cable companies. I am sure that no one STB manufacturer makes 50 versions of the same model. They just charge more to the cable company. And yes, they can pass that on-to consumers... but again, does the AVERAGE END USER care? They want their stories.



> You are apparently missing the point entirely. In fact, my very point was they are different, although it goes much deeper than the internet. From the PCI cards and hard drives that fit inside your computer to the monitor that hangs off it to the WiFi device that talks to it from a distance, the computing industry post IBM PC has done a relatively good job of settling on a minimal number of evolving standards. CATV companies have not.


I don't think I am. As I believe you pointed out earlier, cable companies are pseudo-monopoles -- basically utilities in their domain. Computer / PC manufacturers are in the business of selling equipment across a MUCH wider domain. They have no psuedo-monopoly. If you want cableTV, you had to go to your local franchise. Provided they offered a signal your TV could use, it didn't matter. You could buy any TV you wanted because those cable companies had to provide a signal or device that could display NTSC signals. With a PC, each manufacturer wants to sell their stuff. It's in their best interests to guarantee card A with work with Mobo B, etc. With CableTV, the end user really doesn't care, as long as they get a good picture. The cable company will give / lease a device that will make it work. Don't forget, most people don't build their own PCs from parts anymore. They go to a big box store and just say "Gimmie Gimmie Gimme". They only care about the end result.



> What has that to do with being daft?


Maybe I should thank you for describing me as merry, playful, and frolicsome.



> Far from "working with anything", the number of devices with which it will work is diminishing at a rapid pace. That's the point.


Are there HD devices on the market which do not have component outputs, and are HDMI only? I don't see it disappearing any sooner than Composite SD video.

Does Tivo work with all HD Satellite TV?



> CableCards work fine. My S1 TiVo regularly failed to record programs because Time Warner had a habit of rebooting them unexpectedly at 04:00. Afterward they would shut off. Since the TiVo had only 1-way communication with the STB, it would never know the STB had been turned off. Often I would miss 2 or 3 days of programming as a result. My S3 class TiVos have been 100% rock solid, and have never by themselves missed a program if the house power was on and the CATV feed good. Unfortunately, the TAs have not been as reliable, a fact about which I warned the Cisco engineers when it was decided to go with a USB interface. Even so, however, the TA / S3 pair is more reliable than the STB / S1 pair.


As I posted earlier, I solved that problem back in 2003, when I learned that my Scientific Atlanta SD4200 STB had a "Power-On" function that would turn the box on and tune proper when it received ANY ALPHA NUMERIC INPUT from an IR Blaster, even after a re-boot or power failure. The box could be off, and all I'd have to do is press 5-3 on my remote, and the unit would turn-on, and tune to channel 53.



> I'm sorry, but it's just a dumb idea, like amphibious cars and jet packs.


You are entitled to your opinion.



> And expensive, to boot.


I haven't priced one out. So I cannot respond quantitatively. I have no desire / need for an HD DVR at this time.



> All three of my TiVos are heavily customized. My HVAC control system was designed and built by me and suits my personal needs. My servers and most of my workstations are heavily customized by me. The work very well for me and suit my needs, but few other people would be satisfied with them, and very few would be inclined to (or capable of) the persistent management requirements or the need for tweaking. I like them, but would I be able to sell any of them? Not very many.


And that is my point. You are a super user. The mass market is not. They want something that just works, doesn't cost a lot out of pocket.



> That assumes you know there was a power outage. Often times I would not realize there had been a brief drop-out while I was at work or asleep until the next day or so. As I already mentioned, however, most happened with the 04:00 software upgrade from Time Warner.


As I replied earlier, NO. I DID NOT NEED TO KNOW THERE WAS A POWER OUTAGE. Once I change the settings on the STB, those setting stayed in the box's memory. The box would power-on and tune as I described earlier. Put that in your Funk & Wagnalls.



> We are talking about standards and the existence of bodies required to administer or produce them.
> 
> The FCC never required CableLabs to produce a bidirectional standard, so at least untyil recently they never have. (Has OCAP been ratified?) The result is multiple, incompatible SDV implementations. The Consumer Equipment manufacturers pressured the FCC to force CableLabs to produce a unidirectional standard, and the FCC caved in, ordering CableLabs to produce a UDCP standard, so they did, and now every UDCP can work in virtually any CATV system in the US. Unforetunately, many of the most desirable channels are now SDV, and the UDCP standard does not allow for SDV compatibility, nor is there any ratified standard which does. Last I heard, although implemented in a number of places, OCAP is only proposed, not ratified. Worse, it should not be allowed.


The AVERAGE END USER does not care about all of this.



> How was that flattering myself? I am a professional engineer, formerly one in the CATV industry.


By telling me that I shouldn't quit my day job. And that I'd never make it as a part time engineer. Like you live on top of a mountain and everyone turns to you like the dahli-llama... You don't know what I do for a living or what I have done in the past. I did not nor will not judge your profession.



> Not only would your suggestion not work well by anyone's standards, it would be very expensive, so that no one would want to buy it. How would that enhance TiVo's financial situation?


Already nobody wants to buy it.... Tivo is building a DVR that is also a cable tuner. The cable companies can provide this to the end user cheaper. If Tivo was cheaper (notice I didn't say better), they wouldn't be able to keep them in stock.



> TiVo doesn't compete with content providers. Perhaps you mean CATV providers? They don't really even compete with them, in the ordinary sense.


How about content deliverers... CableTV Companies, Phone Companies, and Satellite. Tivo must demonstrate that their solution is cheaper to the average end user than all of those guys.



> Since the standards FAVOR the TiVo (and other receiver manufacturers), you bet. How is that difficult to understand?


Does a Tivo come free from Tivo-fairy? Gee, my first STB is free from my cable company -- WINNER - Cable Company. Why should I pay $300 for a box the cable company will give me for free.

How much is service? Tivo? $12.95 per month (maybe more) Cable? $10. WINNER -- Cable / Sat Co. Hell, can't get Tivo with all SatCos now anyway.

Box is broken. Damn. Tivo? Under warranty? OK, Ship it back. Gotta pay for shipping... Oh wait, you broke the seal and customized your unit... Sorry, your SOL. Cable Co? No problem, bring it in to a walk-in center and we'll switch it out. No worries. WINNER -- Cable / Sat Co.

There is too much cost up front for the average user to go down the Tivo-path, now that Content Deliverers have boxes that provide the same basic functions.



> First of all it isn't the same functionality, by a very long shot. For just one small example, check out this link. If you were authorized (by me, of course) you could click on any one of the show titles there and have them immediately start transferring from my video server to the TiVo in my theater, from anywhere in the world. That's not a feature offered by the other DVRs. When a movie is announced to come out - before it even is in the theaters, let alone on DVD / Blue-Ray or in any TV schedule - I can (and do) set my Tivo to record it whenever and on whatever channel it is broadcast. No other DVR can do that.


Why would I want to be anywhere in the world and have a show pop up in my Home Theater where I can't watch it? Useless function. But I understand your point. Replays can display streamed shows form a video server on a TV. So there is at least one other DVR that can do that. And if I chose to set up WiRNS, I can set up those recordings with a Replay, too. At least Replays STREAM, and don't TRANSFER. Not sure if that is still the case, but that was a sticking point with me back in the day...

DNNA gave up the ghost because their financial people decided in 2006 that the stand-alone DVR market wasn't worth being in. They couldn't compete with content deliverer provided STBs.



> 'Care to re-read what you wrote? A monthly cost not a financial risk? There is no higher financial risk than money one knows one will be out. Even with the lottery one has little bit less than 1:1 odds of losing the money, but with a lease / rental, the risk is 100%. Whether the consumer properly understands that, or not, it is a fact, as is the fact a TiVo with a lifetime subscription will cost less as long as the TiVo lasts about 3 - 4 years. The risk it will fail (or be stolen, destroyed in a fire, etc) in less than 4 years is not zero, but nonetheless, there is a very good chance the TiVo will cost less or not much more than the leased DVR.


And before the development of digital transmissions, I'd agree. With a LT unit, you have equity in the box. And if you think you're gonna keep it that long, it's fine. Many people don't believe that. Why do you think car leases are so popular?

Given the choice, the masses will pay installments of $10 / mo to the cable company before they buy a tivo w/o a lifetime sub and def before they buy a tivo w/ lt. I didn't say the masses were smart. I just wrote what I think they will do. I know people who are AFRAID of paying up front because of the fear of breaking / theft / lightning / etc...



> That's obvious. Are you suggesting the senior management at TiVo does not know this? If you aren't then I rather fail to see your point. If you are, then I submit it is highly unlikely.


I am certain they know this (which is why they now have the $20 / mo. rent to own deal). Still too high to compete effectively. I wonder how much they lose on hardware.

In order to be financially successful, they will need to be able to provide a box to the LARGEST NUMBER OF AVERAGE users at a cost less than what the cable company / sat co can provide. I think that's tough to do.



> You just admitted your solution would be more expensive.


How? I gave a hypothetical example of a super bread slicer made out of uber expensive material, although great, could not sell. I never said that a HD DVT w/ component in / out would be more expensive than a tivo premiere.



> Kirk proved him wrong. Individuals are the only important unit of a society. Groups, no matter how large, never are. Of course, some companies seek to sell their wares to as wide a segment of the population a possible. Others deliberately seek to cater to a more vertical segment of the population. Despite the posts in this thread, the former does not automatically make the former company a success and the latter a failure.


The need of the one (Spock) was sacrificed for the needs of the many (the Crew). So, the largest group gets saved, and that would be non-tivo homes in this case. So you say the wants and desires of society should bow to a few super users? I don't think the majority cares about these standards.



> Consumers don't want that box. It was one of the most common complaints of subscribers. The DVR has modified that, somewhat, but consumers definitely don't want *TWO* boxes. It also has a snowball's chance in Hell of being approved by CableLabs, and without CableLabs approval, the CATV company does not have to allow you to hook it up to their system or troubleshoot any problems (and almost surely won't).


And that's why cable co and satco boxes penetrate more homes than HD tivos. They just want something that works. They don't want to deal with two people (deliverer and tivo).

And again, I believe that it's possible that the there is no market for a stand-alone DVR outside the niche market, no matter how superior that stand-alone DVR may be.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> So what happens when the CATV companies turn off the analog outputs, as they have wanted to do for a long time, and have just been given permission to do?
> 
> What happens when the STB manufacturers quit making units with analog outputs, which is already underway? Read my lips: component analog is dead. They just haven't buried it, yet.
> 
> You don't even need that, since it's now nothing but a brick.


Why would cable companies want to turn off analog outputs? It would render a lot of older TV sets useless. Will they pay me to recycle my sets?

I can see cable companies wanted to turn off analog transmissions from the head end to free up bandwidth, but not disabling analog output to a TV.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## vectorcatch (Nov 21, 2008)

dstoffa said:


> Why would cable companies want to turn off analog outputs? It would render a lot of older TV sets useless. Will they pay me to recycle my sets?
> 
> I can see cable companies wanted to turn off analog transmissions from the head end to free up bandwidth, but not disabling analog output to a TV.
> 
> ...


It's not the cable companies really, it is the MPAA and the content owners who don't want you to be able to use the "analog hole" to copy movies. They have been trying to get the FCC to allow them to turn off analog outputs for PPV and OnDemand (eventually on a per show basis even for normal TV) They claim the affected number is low, but I doubt anyone really knows. Although with the recent HDCP news this might not matter anymore.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> The problem with that is they are currently sell8ing the box at a loss, and making up for it in subscriptions.


What data do you have to support that statement?


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> TiVo is the Hummer of DVRs, with a minigun and armor plate installed. but most people (including you?) don't think it's any different than a Ford Escort.


I'm sorry, but I disagree. Tivo has become the sofa bed of DVR's. That is, it's a sofa and a bed, but's it's not great at either one. Yes. Tivo is great at being a DVR, but it fails to excel in every other aspect.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> AT&T started out as a telegraph company, you know. They are arguably the most successful telegraph company that ever was, and ever will be.


But technology evolved and we no longer need a telegraph. AT&T is an example of a company that grew out of control only to fail. I know people that worked at AT&T during it's heyday and it is mind-blowing what went on there. If the stockholders knew what was going on then, there would possible never have been an Enron fiasco.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Like many people, you seem to be failing to understand the difference between purpose and practical considerations. Success is tied to intent and purpose, not to practical considerations, no matter how essential those considerations may be. As a human being, I am irrevocably and inextricably tied to my metabolism. I absolutely must eat, drink, defecate, and urinate on a quite regular basis, or I will die, but my life would be a most desolate one indeed if its main purpose were to fulfill the needs of my bowels. A similar notion is true of business. If the purpose of every business were to make money, then every business would be a bank (or a mint). I am an engineer because I want to design things, and I work for a telecommunications company because I enjoy / am good at communications. The money they pay me for my work has importance, to be sure, but there are many, many far more important and fundamental considerations for my career than just making money. I could do just about anything (of which I am capable, of course) and make money.


Like many engineers, you seem to be failing to understand that a business is in business to make money; not to support a bunch of engineers. I've dealt with the engineer's mentality for many, many years. You simply must understand that you are working for a for-profit business and the purpose of that business is ultimately to make money PERIOD



lrhorer said:


> You have the same problem many people do. It's a major problem in our society, and a major reason we are liable to not be around much longer. It is exactly the same attitude which causes many - perhaps most - nations to fall apart, and as a nation we have already lasted longer than any other democracy in history.


Ever heard of communism? Your thoughts give me reason to be concerned.



lrhorer said:


> Indeed, if a market is shrinking, then the company - or at least the section of the company dealing with that market - must shrink or it will fail.


And what's the first department that gets shrunk? If you don't manufacture, it's R&D. Something is beginning to make sense now.



lrhorer said:


> You can say TiVo is not successful all you want...


TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. ....


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

jtreid said:


> Like many engineers, you seem to be failing to understand that a business is in business to make money; not to support a bunch of engineers. I've dealt with the engineer's mentality for many, many years. You simply must understand that you are working for a for-profit business and the purpose of that business is ultimately to make money PERIOD


I was like him once. Then I realized the world is not an ideal place, and you have to be realistic. You can design the best widget, but if it's made out of unobtanium, and costs way too much, then nobody will buy. I can't begin to tell you how many jobs companies I have worked for lost because of gross overbidding.



> TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. ....


Tivo makes a great DVR. Too bad the business model doesn't work.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> Why would cable companies want to turn off analog outputs? It would render a lot of older TV sets useless. Will they pay me to recycle my sets?
> 
> I can see cable companies wanted to turn off analog transmissions from the head end to free up bandwidth, but not disabling analog output to a TV.
> 
> ...


You don't want to use an IR blaster and analog outputs to record content.

Most people want HD content now to display on their HDTV. That is all digital. And comes with the ability to change channels, copy protection, and encryption. That's on a Firewire port. Which is supposed to work everywhere, but often does not.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> Yes, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel if the existing wheel works. In the 50's into the 70's it worked just fine.


You're still missing the point. There were a number of different technologies available, butthe industry was forced to conform to one set of standards.



dstoffa said:


> Well they aren't doing a good job since you write that they already don't exist. Who let that happen?


Mostly the FCC. The CATV companies ala CableLabs and the CE manufacturers bear much of the responsibility, as well.



dstoffa said:


> And does the AVERAGE END USER care. Not talking super-user here.... They want their stories. They don't care how.


Yes, they do. As I already pointed out, the requirement to have an STB was the #1 non-service related cojmpain of CATV customers when I worked for the CATV industry. Again and again people requested TVs which could receive CATV signals that did not require an external box.



dstoffa said:


> Yes it can. The cable company will provide me some box that will display a picture on my TV.


People - most notably wives - don't want that box.



dstoffa said:


> What do you mean it can't? A lot of people would be constantly calling tech support if the cable box didn't work. Are you certain of your response?


I mean you can't take a TV that would work with a Cisco headend and use it with a Motorola headend.



dstoffa said:


> I am sure that the CE manufacturers each have contracts with a number of cable companies.


They would rather have their ding-dongs cut off with a spoon. Whikle several - including of course TiVo - have aplied for and received Cable Labs certs, the only one of which I ajm aware that has any contracts with an MSO is TiVo.



dstoffa said:


> I am sure that no one STB manufacturer makes 50 versions of the same model.


Of course they don't. They each make their own proprietary box. (Actually, a handful, like Pace, do make multiple STBs compatible with different CATV manufacturers' systems.) We weren't talking aboyt CATV manufacturers. We were talking about CE manufacturers - Sony, Panasonic, GE, RCA, LG, etc.



dstoffa said:


> They just charge more to the cable company. And yes, they can pass that on-to consumers... but again, does the AVERAGE END USER care? They want their stories.


You've lost me entirely. CE manufacturers by definition don't sell squat to the CATV companies. Consume Equipment manufacturers sell - surprise surprise - to consumers. CATV equipment manufacturers sell to CATV companies.



dstoffa said:


> As I posted earlier, I solved that problem back in 2003, when I learned that my Scientific Atlanta SD4200 STB had a "Power-On" function that would turn the box on and tune proper when it received ANY ALPHA NUMERIC INPUT from an IR Blaster, even after a re-boot or power failure. The box could be off, and all I'd have to do is press 5-3 on my remote, and the unit would turn-on, and tune to channel 53.


That's not a solution. It only works if you know the box is shut off and you are standing in the same room with it. Otherwise, the TiVo goes on trying t9o record one show after another and gets nothing. As I say, I frequently lost 2 or 3 days' worth of recorded shows.



dstoffa said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.


It is the opinion of an engineer who knows what it takes to design and build a DVR, and what it costs to produce one.



dstoffa said:


> I haven't priced one out. So I cannot respond quantitatively. I have no desire / need for an HD DVR at this time.


Oh, brother. I rest my case.



dstoffa said:


> And that is my point. You are a super user. The mass market is not. They want something that just works, doesn't cost a lot out of pocket.


Again you completely fail to understand my point, so I'll just have to be blunt. No one but you would want to buy a DVR that implemented your solution, even if it were cheaper. It would be a lot more expensive than any of the other solutions already out there. Any company which bet its livlihood on such a design would be bankrupt within a year. It would perform poorly and lack many of the most desired features constantly requested by the average consumer. Please feel free to build and market such a device. Putting together the design would not be very difficult. To make a profit, however, you would have to sell the box for at least $600, and probably more like $750, and it would only record about 8 hours of HD video. I doubt you would sell two of them.



dstoffa said:


> As I replied earlier, NO. I DID NOT NEED TO KNOW THERE WAS A POWER OUTAGE. Once I change the settings on the STB, those setting stayed in the box's memory. The box would power-on and tune as I described earlier. Put that in your Funk & Wagnalls.


 Are you saying it would power on when it received a channel change requiest from the TiVo? I know of no such setting for any of the STBs with which I worked. If that is what you are saying, then I don't disbelieve the particular STB model supplied by your CATV company may have done so, but I know for a fact it was not true of many STB models.



dstoffa said:


> The AVERAGE END USER does not care about all of this.


Bull crap. Just browse this forum to see the outcry when CATV companies went to SDV. Any tiome a consumer cannot get all the channels for which they perceive they are paying, they get downright hostile. Far from being the one screaming about not getting all my channels, you can read my posts and see that I was the one on the forum who was being patient and understanding about the SDV rollout, even though San Antonio was one of the very first markets affected.



dstoffa said:


> By telling me that I shouldn't quit my day job. And that I'd never make it as a part time engineer. Like you live on top of a mountain and everyone turns to you like the dahli-llama... You don't know what I do for a living or what I have done in the past. I did not nor will not judge your profession.


I can tell you weren't a CATV engineer, unless you are just trying to get a rise out of me. No competent one would ever try to implement the design you are suggesting. I *AM* an engineer, and people *DO* come to me on a daily basis when they want designs that work. There's nothing god-like or even prohet-like in that. I do it for a living, and have for 30 years. Presumably you also do something for a living, and if I were to suggest the professionals in your business should do something perfectly silly, I am sure you would - quite rightly - call me on it.



dstoffa said:


> Already nobody wants to buy it.... Tivo is building a DVR that is also a cable tuner.


Since you hadn't noticed, so are all DVRs. Since the #1 desired feature of DVRs is dual tuners, TiVo would have to be insane not to. Apparently it has escaped your attention that almost all TV's have tuners, as well, except the very high end ones. That should tell you something.



dstoffa said:


> The cable companies can provide this to the end user cheaper.


They could, but they don't. Of course, there is really no reason (from their point of view) that they should.



dstoffa said:


> If Tivo was cheaper (notice I didn't say better), they wouldn't be able to keep them in stock.


I already demonstrated the TiVo *IS* cheaper.



dstoffa said:


> Does a Tivo come free from Tivo-fairy? Gee, my first STB is free from my cable company -- WINNER - Cable Company. Why should I pay $300 for a box the cable company will give me for free.


*NOTHING* is free, and if you think the CATV company is giving anything away free, then you are an idiot. It's possible you live in an area where the CATV company subsidizes the cost of the STB entirely with sub fees, but that is rare. TWC San Antonio charges $4.95 a month per STB and $19.95 a month for the first DVR plus $9.95 a month for additional units.

An STB costs them (I think) about $150 and a DVR costs them (I know for a fact) $450, and you can be absolutely certain they are getting those costs back from their subscribers.



dstoffa said:


> How much is service? Tivo? $12.95 per month (maybe more) Cable? $10.


What service? My CATV bill is $175 a month. I have 3 TiVos. With CATV leased DVRs, my bill would be just a few cents under $200. What's your point?



dstoffa said:


> Box is broken. Damn. Tivo? Under warranty? OK, Ship it back. Gotta pay for shipping... Oh wait, you broke the seal and customized your unit... Sorry, your SOL. Cable Co? No problem, bring it in to a walk-in center and we'll switch it out. No worries. WINNER -- Cable / Sat Co.


Bullcrap. Some people like renting / leasing. Others do not. You seem to haev a really bad case of believing the entire world has the same preferences you do. I assure you they do not, and for many people, in the above comparison, Cable loses big time. For others it does not.



dstoffa said:


> Why would I want to be anywhere in the world and have a show pop up in my Home Theater where I can't watch it? Useless function.


No one said it popped up anywhere. I suggest you quite trying to argue points when you have no comprehension of what those points are. Far from being useless, it is an extremely popular function.



dstoffa said:


> And before the development of digital transmissions, I'd agree. With a LT unit, you have equity in the box. And if you think you're gonna keep it that long, it's fine. Many people don't believe that. Why do you think car leases are so popular?


Most people do not lease cars. Some do, but most do not.



dstoffa said:


> Given the choice, the masses will pay installments of $10 / mo to the cable company before they buy a tivo w/o a lifetime sub and def before they buy a tivo w/ lt. I didn't say the masses were smart. I just wrote what I think they will do. I know people who are AFRAID of paying up front because of the fear of breaking / theft / lightning / etc...


The question is not what most people will do. The question is, "Will enough buy TiVos t9o keep TiVo in business?"



dstoffa said:


> In order to be financially successful, they will need to be able to provide a box to the LARGEST NUMBER OF AVERAGE users at a cost less than what the cable company / sat co can provide. I think that's tough to do.


No, they don't. If it were true, then no one could make a DVR, since the way things are shaping up no one - not Cisco, Motorola, Pace, Zenith, Jerrold, or anyone else is going to get more than 50% of the market. Very few markets have any player in them that has more than a 50% market share, yet most markets have many successful companies competing in them. In some markets no one even has a 1% penetration.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jtreid said:


> What data do you have to support that statement?


I recently obtained one of the quotes for a lot of 10,000 DVRs to be sold to one of the largest MSOs in the country. It was $450 per DVR. When I worked for the CATV company, the average life of an STB was 18 months. While I do not know for a fact their DVRs have a shorter lifespan, the DVR is much more complex and much more frail - or at least the hard drive is. Shipping and storage costs probably ad at least another $10 or more, and the software probably runs them at least $50 a unit, perhaps more. Finally, a trouble call to repalce the dead DVR costs about $75. Even if we assume a 24 month average lifespan, the CATV company would have to charge about $24 a month per DVR just to cover the cost of ownership. Few, if any, do. Where they make up the cost of the DVR is in IPPV and VOD fees, plus of course they load the cost of a basic subscription with part of it. O fcourse, various companies charge different amounts for DVR rental, but generally it is a loss leader, or close to it. It's an effective one. I've seen CATV bills of $600 for a month.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> Why would cable companies want to turn off analog outputs?


You obviously don't know much about the CATV industry. Look at the companies making up the MPAA. Then look up the companies that own the CATV companies. The CATV companies make a huge amount of money, but it is a pittance compared to the content owners, and they pull the strings.



dstoffa said:


> It would render a lot of older TV sets useless. Will they pay me to recycle my sets?


Of course not, but they are a lot more worried - paranoid, actually - about piracy than they are about your TV set.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> I was like him once.


I seriously doubt you were ever like me. The business model my two colleagues and I developed created a business that now is grossing over $1 billion a year, while almost every one of our competitors has filed chapter 13. Every one of them filed chapter 11 at least once. We never even came close.



dstoffa said:


> I can't begin to tell you how many jobs companies I have worked for lost because of gross overbidding.


By sticking to the business practices worked out by my boss, or original investor, and I, we only had one major layoff of 8%, when almost all the other companies in our sector laid off 30% or 40% of their workers, sometimes two or three times in a row. Of course, eventually they laid off 100%. We bought the assets of a couple of them for a pittance.



dstoffa said:


> Tivo makes a great DVR. Too bad the business model doesn't work.


Do me a favor and call me back when TiVo is bankrupt and the business you run has $250 million in the bank.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jtreid said:


> I'm sorry, but I disagree. Tivo has become the sofa bed of DVR's. That is, it's a sofa and a bed, but's it's not great at either one. Yes. Tivo is great at being a DVR, but it fails to excel in every other aspect.


What is YOUR evidence to support this? Name one DVR with better features, and when I say "name", I mean name the brand and list the features.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jtreid said:


> Like many engineers, you seem to be failing to understand that a business is in business to make money; not to support a bunch of engineers.


It is neither. A business is in business to supply goods and / or services to its consumers. Without that, it won't make a penny. It is also in business to provide employment to the people who make up the business. Without that across all businesses, no one will have any money to buy anything from any of the businesses, and once again the businesses won't make a penny. A business has to make money - at least on average over time - in order to stay in business. If the business focusses on making money more than on making salable products, it is very liable to fail.

As it happens, one of my primary duties is to make sure my company is profitable in each and every deal it makes. With the exception of one set of low cost products, I, along with my colleagues, scrutinize every single deal proposed by every salesman in the company and determine whether or not we can make money on it. If we can't, the salesman is not allowed to sell the product, period. I myself scrutinize about 400 proposed deals a year, and all of us put together scrutinize more than 50,000 proposed deals a year, ranging from about $250 a month to more than $150,000 a month. Regardless of the revenue, if we won't make at least 30% over the total cost to us throughout the life of the contract, we order the salesman not to sell the product, unless there is additional revenue to be had from the infrastructure we will be building for the project. In that case, occasionally we approve projects that by themselves make less than 30%, and in a few cases even approve projects that we know by themselves will fail to make back all the money from the investment. As you can see from the numbers, I have more than 100 colleagues in positions similar to mine in the company, but when we started, it was only me, my boss, one sales person, and a corporate investor. My boss and I presented the business plan to the investor, and he liked the notion, so he invested the money and we hired the sales person. We had to keep explaining the business plan to the sales person.

I know how to make money, and trying to make money is not a very good way to do it. Making a valuable product and refusing to sell it at a loss (overall) is. Worrying about how big or small one is is also a good way to go out of business. Worry instead about producing products your customers, both potential and existing, want to buy more than your competitor. Whether Tivo can continue to do that or not is another matter, but the fact they may not be the biggest kid on the block is irrelevant.



jtreid said:


> I've dealt with the engineer's mentality for many, many years. You simply must understand that you are working for a for-profit business and the purpose of that business is ultimately to make money PERIOD


A lot of people think that. If they run companies, they usually go bankrupt. I have also dealt with engineers who don't know how to make money, but then I have dealt with lots of sales personnel who haven't a clue how to make money, too. Many people don't understand the difference between profitable revenue and unprofitable revenue. That's what bankrupted most of my competitors, some of whom had vastly larger bankrolls than we did initially. We just knew when to walk away from a deal, and knew better than to base our covenants with the money lenders on revenue. We also know better than to listen to Wall Street analysts.



jtreid said:


> Ever heard of communism? Your thoughts give me reason to be concerned.


No. [/sarcasm] Why don't you explain it to us? I say that, because it is astounding how many people have no idea what communism is.

When I was young, all sorts of people were terrified that communism would take over the world. Being a prudent person, I felt I should know what it was, so I could help fight it. I read Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung. To this day, I don't know why everyone was so frightened. It's the biggest pile of horse crap I have ever seen. It's completely unworkable at almost every level. That was around 1965 - 1970. It was obvious to me then the Soviet Union and China would collapse. I will admit, though that I didn't expect the collapse to be quite so soon, and I never dreamed the Berlin Wall would come down in the 20th century. One note: six months after the Soviet Union started importing Pepsi Cola, their economy collapsed. Coincidence? I think not. 



jtreid said:


> TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. TiVo is not successful. ....


Ah, yes, clearly you subscribe to the Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz theory of economics: say it enough times and it will come true. Unfortunately, I'm not on speaking terms with Glenda the Good, so I'll have to keep on making money via my understanding of how to make money. In the mean time, as I said to the other poster, call us back when you have $250 million clear and free in the bank and TiVo is bankrupt. I'll wait by the phone.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> What is YOUR evidence to support this? Name one DVR with better features, and when I say "name", I mean name the brand and list the features.


You keep claiming that because there is nothing better, that Tivo has no faults. Tivo has faults and it's trying to be something that, frankly, is bringing it down. Get off the fact that no one has a better DVR. Perhaps this is the thinking that Tivo has. Since no one is trying to compete with us, we can just sit back and not try too hard.

And why would anyone want to compete with Tivo when there's no long-term future in it?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Worry instead about producing products your customers, both potential and existing, want to buy more than your competitor. Whether Tivo can continue to do that or not is another matter, but the fact they may not be the biggest kid on the block is irrelevant.


this is the crux of the matter for TiVo right now. I have asked many times over the 'innovative' DVR out there that is making money. Of course no one can point to that.

TiVo is caught in that hard spot of what innovations will sell more standalone DVRs and keep coming up with the answer of 'no innovation they have come up with yet'. There are plenty of things TiVo can do to make the current customer happy but if it has no ROI in the form of actual sales then so what.

I will ask again
So how could TiVo make a profit off of making a better product?
or conversely
explain why Digeo failed while making a DVR like the Moxi that has many features people in the forum touted as what TiVo should do


----------



## jmccorm (Oct 8, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> Somewhere along the lines TiVo shifted from being an innovative tech company who was constantly developing new exciting features that benefited it's users, to a company who focused mainly on money making schemes like pause ads, nielson ratings, etc... and finally to a company who's main focus is trying to get their software onto other companies DVRs.


As I was reading through this thread, this one response expressed the bulk of what I was going to say.

TiVo had its issues in the past ("what is a TiVo?" and such). Today, TiVo's problem is that they've made the user experience such an incredibly low priority.

"Hey! Maybe we should add some crazy new net-partner relationships, and we absolutely have to develop our eAdvertising business to promote our captive collection of marketable eyeballs!"

How about you focus on fixing a problem with the TiVo premier that you had in the first generation models? THEY'RE PAINFULLY SLOW. How about you fix the problem with the remove that you had with the first generation models? The directional pad IS A PAIN and a menace to navigation for many users. How about you put the USERS first and then once you've laid a solid foundation, try to make money off of that, rather than eroding your base?

Here is a more immediate (if somewhat less annoying) example of TiVo's lack-of-focus on the user. Are the TiVo apologists still rushing to defend these days? It is 8:30am. I should be watching the morning news. Instead, TiVo decided to apply a service update. "Preparing the service update... This may take up to an hour, possibly longer." So I've got no cable TV, no nothing until this unannounced and random outage is done.

I can understand the box being unavailable during the update. But this isn't rocket science. Let me choose the time for the outage. Or try to pick a better time, TiVo. And how badly are you hands _really_ tied when it comes to speed? I'm willing to bet there are efficiencies that can be picked up in the patching system you have running.

In the past, I've recommended TiVo to others, and they've bought in. Today, I'm not just giving TiVo a neutral recommendation. I'm recommending others to _stay away_ from TiVo.

PS: The TiVo update finished. When it came up, it re-announced FrameChannel (aka "some crazy new net-partner relationships" as I called it above) as if it was some brand-new feature. The message ended with the text "Link to framechannel" (no link present). Does no-one even bother with the basic product fit-and-finish issues anymore?


----------



## jmccorm (Oct 8, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> What is YOUR evidence to support this? Name one DVR with better features, and when I say "name", I mean name the brand and list the features.


I think this is part of the problem with TiVo. At one time, they got caught up in the feature game. "We've got more features than our competitors. Why, look at FrameChannel, for example! We've got more features than the competition!"

For many customers, it isn't about features.

It wasn't the lack of features that drove me from the Cox DVR. It was the inability to eliminate unwanted channels from the TV Guide Grid. It isn't the massive feature set that it keeping me glued to my TiVo. On the contrary, it is the incredibly slow interface (Premier) and the foolish directional controls on the remote that are pushing me away.

Or, you could say that TiVo is hurting in one of the greatest features. A soft feature that you don't see listed in bullet points. Usability (example: interface speed, error-prone directional control). User experience (example: mixed HD/SD menus, bugs, advertising).

Wow. Can you believe that even my cable company's DVR has them solidly beat in this category?

TiVo's competitors are pushing DVRs. If TiVo's competitors aren't making these basic mistakes, there isn't going to be a flood of people looking TiVo's way for an alternative. And there are going to be even less people if TiVo is making these mistakes, too.

So, you've got a point. In the absence of their competition making mistakes, TiVo has to win the feature game. But if the TiVo experience isn't user-focused... if they haven't nailed usability, they're going to continue to flounder.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Tivo was in a market they couldn't win with a product that was too expensive and not very well understood by consumers.


btw, pausing LIve TV was basically a lie with the Series 2 1-tuner Tivo. I mean I was almost never watching live tv unless I was recording a show which meant I couldn't pause live tv.

That was a major annoyance. 

Tivo is mostly dead. I like my Premiere+lifetime but only because I got a great deal on it. It's worth more than I paid for it on ebay right now. 

Otherwise a bit disappointed the experience doesn't seem to have improved much if any.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

jmccorm said:


> In the past, I've recommended TiVo to others, and they've bought in.


Just the other day, a co-worker said he was ready to go away from his Comcast DVR because of how screwed up it was and what he pays per month for it. He knew I am (used to be) a Tivo fan and asked me what I thought. I told him that Tivo was great. I've heard about the cable co's DVR. When I then told him about the current product and the issues and also the subscription cost, he quickly decided to not switch and just live with the Comcast DVR.

*THIS* is the crux of the matter. This is why Tivo is not successful. I can't even endorse nor persuade anyone anymore to move to Tivo as I've done in the past. *THAT* is what will kill Tivo. The loyal, long-time customers are losing faith.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Yes, they do. As I already pointed out, the requirement to have an STB was the #1 non-service related cojmpain of CATV customers when I worked for the CATV industry. Again and again people requested TVs which could receive CATV signals that did not require an external box.


How long ago was this? Since the advent of digital cable and the penetration of DBS Satellite, you NEED at STB to receive some if not all channels, especially if you want premium content. In addition, I have read that almost nobody markets and sells a TV with built in cable-card anymore. Apparently people's complaints about STB don't hold that much water.



> People - most notably wives - don't want that box.


THAT box, or any box. Because w/o that box, wifey can't watch Lifetime.



> I mean you can't take a TV that would work with a Cisco headend and use it with a Motorola headend.


So what you are saying here is that I can only buy a certain brand TV that will work on my cable system. The headend doesn't matter to the end user, provided that whatever box is provided by the cable / sat co is capable of sending a signal to my TV that my TV can understand, whether it be RF NTSC, Composite A/V, Component A/V, HDMI, DVI, etc. I want to say this is why every STB, DVD player, VCR, and gaming system puts out a signal that a TV can understand.



> Of course they don't. They each make their own proprietary box. (Actually, a handful, like Pace, do make multiple STBs compatible with different CATV manufacturers' systems.) We weren't talking about CATV manufacturers. We were talking about CE manufacturers - Sony, Panasonic, GE, RCA, LG, etc.


But stand alone DVR makers are competing with those companies...



> You've lost me entirely. CE manufacturers by definition don't sell squat to the CATV companies. Consume Equipment manufacturers sell - surprise surprise - to consumers. CATV equipment manufacturers sell to CATV companies.


I am under the impression that CE manufacturers sell something this is used by consumers. Whether the cable company pays for it or not, it gets used in the home, and not in some studio or re-transmission facility. So, if it's a DVR made by Tivo, that decodes a signal that can be displayed on my TV, or it's a DVR made by Scientific Atlanta that is provide to me by the cable company, the end user is a consumer. I consider them the same, since the consumer will be the end user.



> That's not a solution. It only works if you know the box is shut off and you are standing in the same room with it. Otherwise, the TiVo goes on trying t9o record one show after another and gets nothing. As I say, I frequently lost 2 or 3 days' worth of recorded shows.
> 
> Are you saying it would power on when it received a channel change request from the TiVo? I know of no such setting for any of the STBs with which I worked. If that is what you are saying, then I don't disbelieve the particular STB model supplied by your CATV company may have done so, but I know for a fact it was not true of many STB models.


That is exactly what I am saying. This works for Scientific Atlanta boxes. Using my SA remote, I press "Settings", then select "More Settings", and there is a setting for "Power-On" options. You can select between "Power" and "Power + Alpha-Numeric". If "Power" is chosen, the STB will only power on if the power button is pressed. If "Power + Alpha Numeric" is pressed, then the box will power on when either the Power button is pressed, or it receives an alpha-numeric key press. As I posted before, if I turn my STB OFF, then tell my DVR to tune to channel 5-3, it will send 5-3 through the IR blaster. The box will receive the 5-3, power on, then tune to channel 53. Once I set my box to operate this way, the IR blaster never failed (unless of course the box rebooted / updated itself during the recording of a show.)



> Again you completely fail to understand my point, so I'll just have to be blunt. No one but you would want to buy a DVR that implemented your solution, even if it were cheaper. It would be a lot more expensive than any of the other solutions already out there. Any company which bet its livelihood on such a design would be bankrupt within a year. It would perform poorly and lack many of the most desired features constantly requested by the average consumer. Please feel free to build and market such a device. Putting together the design would not be very difficult. To make a profit, however, you would have to sell the box for at least $600, and probably more like $750, and it would only record about 8 hours of HD video. I doubt you would sell two of them.


Then how would you propose that a 3rd party DVR maker design and construct a box that will work with any source thrown at it, be it OTA, CATV, DBS Sat, or IPTV, knowing that you will not get all those players to agree on anything, and knowing that it will take YEARS (if ever) for the government to force their hand?



> I can tell you weren't a CATV engineer, unless you are just trying to get a rise out of me. No competent one would ever try to implement the design you are suggesting. I *AM* an engineer, and people *DO* come to me on a daily basis when they want designs that work. There's nothing god-like or even prohet-like in that. I do it for a living, and have for 30 years. Presumably you also do something for a living, and if I were to suggest the professionals in your business should do something perfectly silly, I am sure you would - quite rightly - call me on it.


And I never said that I was a CATV engineer. I *AM* an engineer, too. People *DO* come to me daily (sometimes several times daily) to solve problems promptly and within a given budget. I know why people in my circle do things that are perfectly silly. Do I call them out on it? No. Sometimes one learns more from failure than being told.



> Since you hadn't noticed, so are all DVRs. Since the #1 desired feature of DVRs is dual tuners, TiVo would have to be insane not to. Apparently it has escaped your attention that almost all TV's have tuners, as well, except the very high end ones. That should tell you something.


Maybe I didn't write my thoughts accurately. In my opinion, a DVR should record content. It shouldn't have to descramble / decrypt it.



> They could, but they don't. Of course, there is really no reason (from their point of view) that they should.


Could? They do. What does DVR service cost from a DBS Sat Co / CATV Co versus Tivo?



> I already demonstrated the TiVo *IS* cheaper.


Again, how is Tivo cheaper? I am a subscriber to two different cable systems. Both offer the first box FREE with service. If I want DVR service, that's an extra $10 / month. Maybe systems you are familiar with charge per set. The first STB is also included with most DBS Sat Cos. So, if DVR service is $10 / month, and with a Tivo, I still need to: 1. Pay for reception, 2. Pay for the box, and 3. Pay my monthly sub or amoritize a LT sub, how is it cheaper in the near term?



> *NOTHING* is free, and if you think the CATV company is giving anything away free, then you are an idiot. It's possible you live in an area where the CATV company subsidizes the cost of the STB entirely with sub fees, but that is rare. TWC San Antonio charges $4.95 a month per STB and $19.95 a month for the first DVR plus $9.95 a month for additional units.


Of course nothing is free. But if my cable-company is gonna charge me for a STB whether I take it or not, I might as well take it and forgo the Tivo and take the STB from the Cable-Co. As I wrote earlier, on my systems, the first STB is free with Digital Service.



> An STB costs them (I think) about $150 and a DVR costs them (I know for a fact) $450, and you can be absolutely certain they are getting those costs back from their subscribers.


Agreed, and you pay whether you take the box or not, so why not take it?



> What service? My CATV bill is $175 a month. I have 3 TiVos. With CATV leased DVRs, my bill would be just a few cents under $200. What's your point?


You write that the cost of leased DVRs would add $25 / month to your bill. How much do those 3 Tivo cost over a given time period? I would think paying $8.33 per month per leased DVR would be cheaper than paying for a HD Tvio + service per month. Can you get a HD Tivo w/ serivce for $8.33 per month?



> Bullcrap. Some people like renting / leasing. Others do not. You seem to haev a really bad case of believing the entire world has the same preferences you do. I assure you they do not, and for many people, in the above comparison, Cable loses big time. For others it does not.


I never stated my preferences. You assume. I still believe that they majority of users will rent a DVR from the content deliverer than buy a stand-alone DVR. My engineer techie buddies buck the trend -- we believe in equity -- but most don't.

I buy my cars outright. I own my own home outright. I have owned my Replays (w/ LT) and am going on my 8th year with them now. (I got rid of my Tivo and went with RTV because RTV did ethernet out of the box). I believe in ownership when ownership makes sense. I've upgraded the hard drives myself. I've repaired a unit when lightning struck it. I don't think the average user would have gone through what I have gone through. Are you saying that the majority of people would rather buy their box outright and be responsible for all aspects of it themselves than rent / lease one and not have to worry about it?



> No one said it popped up anywhere. I suggest you quite trying to argue points when you have no comprehension of what those points are. Far from being useless, it is an extremely popular function.


You wrote that from anywhere in the world, I can login to my home LAN, and begin the transfer of a show to my home theater, and I can schedule a recording from anywhere at anytime for any show. My point about it popping up is that I see no need for a function that allows me, sitting in my hotel room half a continent away, to tell Tivo 1 in my home theater to accept and display a show sitting on a media server in my home, where I sure can't watch it from my hotel room. Maybe you have an exotic fish tank in your home theater, and they get bored, so you put a movie on for them. Good for the fish. As for remote programming, I wrote that Replays can do this via WiRNS. In addition, DirecTV and Cablevision offer DVR programming from the Internet built in. I am sure that other DVRs do, too. And with the DTV and CV solution, I don't need to worry about firewalls and tunnels and ssh and such. Heck, even the DTV DVR can be programmed from a cell phone...



> Most people do not lease cars. Some do, but most do not.


Not by me. People get more car for less money. It makes them feel special to drive a car they could not normally buy -- so they lease. Maybe it's different in your area, but leasing is common where I am.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jtreid said:


> The loyal, long-time customers are losing faith.


loyal long time customers are ones that would spend 800$ on the TiVo S3 and certainly 300$ for the TiVo HD. Sales show that loyal long term customers define themselves diferently and TiVo has lost faith in the long term customer.

Now TiVo is making deals with MSOs instead to supply their DVRs. Would more customers have bought TiVo DVRs if they made them shinier? I still contend no one has made a case for that, especially since the cable industry has such a high tech barrier in the form of cable cards/SDV that can be a bear to make work and the DBS broadcasters have an insurmountable barrier in the form of no common open access.

*we all in the forum need to get the reality that there simply is no large 3rd party standalone DVR market*


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ferrumpneuma said:


> Too bad no one ever marketed something as good as the TCF vaporware TiVo. Who knows, it may have been a big seller.:up::up::up:


well Ok I will temper my statement somewhat 

if a 
6 tuner analog/digital/OTA
RAID array 6 TB
HD menu (each screen snaps up in less than 100 miliseconds)
any and all media feeds
ability to add custom media feeds
no DRM
DLNA hybrid that discovers your smartphone even 
BluRay burner

could be sold for 500$ then a decent market would emerge
could be sold for 300$ then a huge market would emerge
could be sold for 100$ -well duh.

but I think most any company may have trouble with a price point people would pay for that


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> btw, pausing LIve TV was basically a lie with the Series 2 1-tuner Tivo. I mean I was almost never watching live tv unless I was recording a show which meant I couldn't pause live tv.


What are you talking about? Live TV acts the same whether your recording the show or not. Technically, the Tivo is recording live TV at all times via the buffer. What you see on the TV screen has already been recorded on the hard drive.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

steve614 said:


> What are you talking about? Live TV acts the same whether your recording the show or not. Technically, the Tivo is recording live TV at all times via the buffer. What you see on the TV screen has already been recorded on the hard drive.


On a single tuner TiVo trick TV only works if you are tuned to the same channel you are recording, so if your going to watch live why record the same thing. You can watch a show that you recorded in the past and record a new show at the same time.
To put it another way, you can't watch trick TV on channel B and record channel A at the same time on any single tuner TiVo.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jtreid said:


> You keep claiming that because there is nothing better, that Tivo has no faults.


I never said it had no faults. It's conflict resolution is badly in need of a rework, as just a few minutes spent in TiVo Suggestion Avenue will readily demonstrate. Although not TiVo's fault, the TA is not as stable as it should be, by a wide margin. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, though, because the TA's instability makes the entire system unstable. It's NPL is far too underpowered. The SDK has languished, and it is the 3rd party applications, along with its recording features that really set TiVo way apart from the competition.



jtreid said:


> Tivo has faults and it's trying to be something that, frankly, is bringing it down. Get off the fact that no one has a better DVR. Perhaps this is the thinking that Tivo has.


What, I should yearn to spend my money on a worse one? Mediocrity is nearly something like the ultimate evil, and you are espousing it as a laudable goal.



jtreid said:


> Since no one is trying to compete with us, we can just sit back and not try too hard.


Name three solvent DVR manufacturers who will sell you a DVR.

Well?

I'm waiting.

Any time now.

Is the list so long you just don't know where to start?

Here, I'll get you started: Moxi.

Your turn.



OK, so now the field is down to Moxi and TiVo. Explain to me, again, how Moxi is more successful than TiVo?



jtreid said:


> And why would anyone want to compete with Tivo when there's no long-term future in it?


<Sigh> 'Same tired old song, just a different singer. Like I said, call us when Tivo is bankrupt.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> this is the crux of the matter for TiVo right now. I have asked many times over the 'innovative' DVR out there that is making money. Of course no one can point to that.


Why should there be one?



ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo is caught in that hard spot of what innovations will sell more standalone DVRs and keep coming up with the answer of 'no innovation they have come up with yet'. There are plenty of things TiVo can do to make the current customer happy but if it has no ROI in the form of actual sales then so what.


It's really not that hard of a spot. I haven't seen all that much in the way of innovative silverware, either, but companies like Oneida and Chicago Cutlery seem to be doing just fine. Most of the blather I see about innovation isjust that: blather.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I will ask again
> So how could TiVo make a profit off of making a better product?
> or conversely


Well, the short - but really rather non-responsive to tell the truth - answer is if the "better" product is both less expensive for them and appeals more to the public at large, then increased profits are a cinch. Actually coming up with ideas that will make the unit less expensive to produce and yet more appealing is the trick. With the exception of the one thing I mentioned - allowing the consumer to pay off the hardware in payments rather than up front, I really can't think of much, but then I am not the armchair industrialist, here, claiming that I know what will make TiVo more profitable.



ZeoTiVo said:


> explain why Digeo failed while making a DVR like the Moxi that has many features people in the forum touted as what TiVo should do


That's easy to explain. Their armchair expertise notwithstanding, most of the forum member's ideas were perfunctorily considered at best. Add to that the fact you had an inexperienced start-up battling with a well entrenched, experienced incumbent in a market that is not only already well saturated but also quite narrow, and you have a good recipe for failure. While the average consumer does not know how much better the TiVo can suit their needs (many of which they don't even know they have in the first place), at least the average homeowner knows the name, "TiVo". Outside this forum, most people have never even heard of a Moxi.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

lessd said:


> On a single tuner TiVo trick TV only works if you are tuned to the same channel you are recording, so if your going to watch live why record the same thing. You can watch a show that you recorded in the past and record a new show at the same time.
> To put it another way, you can't watch trick TV on channel B and record channel A at the same time on any single tuner TiVo.


I don't know what exactly that poster was talking about.
He/she implied (to me) that trick play didn't work if you happened to be watching live while the show is being recorded.
You only have one tuner. If you are watching a show "live", trickplay functions work whether or not the show is being recorded due to a season pass, wishlist, or whatever.
If that poster was talking about having to switch to the TV tuner to watch *real* live TV, then of course he/she wouldn't be able to pause it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jmccorm said:


> TiVo had its issues in the past ("what is a TiVo?" and such). Today, TiVo's problem is that they've made the user experience such an incredibly low priority.


I don't know that they have done any thing of the sort, but I agree the user experience is important. I doubt, however, that I woud agree with what you consider a good user experience. The best user experience is none at all. Ideally the user should not be aware of the existence of the TiVo at all. A perfect TiVo would be one that has no UI, no screens with any company logos or ads of any sort, no guides, schedules, not even a remote control. In the ideal, the user would simply sit down and the system would begin showing him what he wants, when he wants it, without any form of prompting, searching, or selecting. Of course, no such system exists, yet, but the TiVo is far, far closer to this ideal than the 19" B&W TV sets with manual channel selectors with which I grew up. Further down that road is wre we need to head.



jmccorm said:


> How about you focus on fixing a problem with the TiVo premier that you had in the first generation models? THEY'RE PAINFULLY SLOW.


I cannot in conscience recommend a Premier to any existing TiVo owner, and I hesitate to recommend one to a potential new owner. I suppose that's OK, though, because I also never recommended a Series II to anyone.



jmccorm said:


> How about you fix the problem with the remove that you had with the first generation models?


"Problem with the remove"? Huh?



jmccorm said:


> The directional pad IS A PAIN and a menace to navigation for many users.


I don't find it to be such, either on the TiVo or any of the other devices I have which employ it. "Enhancing the user experience" doesn't really mean exclusively implementing something that some users like and others do not.



jmccorm said:


> Here is a more immediate (if somewhat less annoying) example of TiVo's lack-of-focus on the user. Are the TiVo apologists still rushing to defend these days? It is 8:30am. I should be watching the morning news. Instead, TiVo decided to apply a service update. "Preparing the service update... This may take up to an hour, possibly longer." So I've got no cable TV, no nothing until this unannounced and random outage is done.


Only if you have only one Tivo and only if you don't have a TV with multiple inputs.



jmccorm said:


> I can understand the box being unavailable during the update. But this isn't rocket science. Let me choose the time for the outage.


You can. That's not rocket science, eitehr.



jmccorm said:


> Or try to pick a better time, TiVo.


What, exactly, is a better time? I never watch TV at 08:30, and my Tivos only rarely record then. It's a pretty good time, if you ask me. They do try to not update when you have recordings scheduled.



jmccorm said:


> And how badly are you hands _really_ tied when it comes to speed? I'm willing to bet there are efficiencies that can be picked up in the patching system you have running.


.
You mean the upgrade? 'Not much. It's a robust, carefully methodical, fully redundant OS transfer. That takes some time. More to the point, it's only once every three months. Such a schedule hardly looms large in the minds of most consumers.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jmccorm said:


> I think this is part of the problem with TiVo. At one time, they got caught up in the feature game. "We've got more features than our competitors. Why, look at FrameChannel, for example! We've got more features than the competition!"
> 
> For many customers, it isn't about features.
> 
> It wasn't the lack of features that drove me from the Cox DVR. It was the inability to eliminate unwanted channels from the TV Guide Grid.


So it was the lack of features that drove you away. In your case, perhaps it was only a single, over-arching feature, but still fully part and parcel of the respective feature sets. Others no doubt have the same outlook, but focus one some other deal-breaker feature. Yet others do not focus on a single feature, but look more at the overall collection of features. In my case, there are at least six major, individually 100% deal-breaker features the TiVo has at least one of which (usually 5 or 6 of which) are missing from every other DVR.



jmccorm said:


> It isn't the massive feature set that it keeping me glued to my TiVo. On the contrary, it is the incredibly slow interface (Premier) and the foolish directional controls on the remote that are pushing me away.


I can't really speak much to the Premier one way or the other, since I don't have one, but I do know it is missing at least one of the 6 deal-breakers. I also have seen nothing at all to recommend it over the S3, except for a faster processor, half of which isn't being used.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jtreid said:


> Just the other day, a co-worker said he was ready to go away from his Comcast DVR because of how screwed up it was and what he pays per month for it. He knew I am (used to be) a Tivo fan and asked me what I thought. I told him that Tivo was great. I've heard about the cable co's DVR. When I then told him about the current product and the issues and also the subscription cost, he quickly decided to not switch and just live with the Comcast DVR.


Given your posts in this thread, I'm not surprised. Presuming you were actually trying to encourage him to go with Tivo, and further presuming your tone was anything like your tone in this thread, then it's no wonder he decided not to switch. I thought I was the world's worst salesman, but if your response to him was anything remotely like your posts in this thread, then you make me look like the greatest salesman ever, and I couldn't sell a life jacket to a drowning millionaire.



jtreid said:


> *THIS* is the crux of the matter. This is why Tivo is not successful. I can't even endorse nor persuade anyone anymore to move to Tivo as I've done in the past. *THAT* is what will kill Tivo. The loyal, long-time customers are losing faith.


So because you don't like (or no longer like) somethig, it can't be successful?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> *we all in the forum need to get the reality that there simply is no large 3rd party standalone DVR market*


I've never said anything differently. Why should there be? The fact in no way makes TiVo unsuccessful. There are market sectors out there with tens or even hundreds of millions of consumers,and there are market sectors out there with fewer than 10 consumers. No matter how small the market sector may be, if a company can sustain a fluid existence meeting the demands of that sector, then it is a success. Any other assessment is just self serving, egocentric hogwash.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> justapixel said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of of the day, it's the happy moments in life that count, not the big manufactured productions. Being generous with your love and time brings more rewards than you can know.


Oh, amen, brother. Although justapixel was speaking on a very different topic, this quote is very appropriate to this thread. Profit means nothing if what one has sold is their integrity, their compassion, their humanity, or their purpose in life.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dstoffa said:


> How long ago was this? Since the advent of digital cable and the penetration of DBS Satellite, you NEED at STB to receive some if not all channels, especially if you want premium content. In addition, I have read that almost nobody markets and sells a TV with built in cable-card anymore.


Because they are UDCPs. Please do us all a favor and read enough to understand the issues before pontificating.



dstoffa said:


> So what you are saying here is that I can only buy a certain brand TV that will work on my cable system.


Would someone else please clue him in? My explanations obviously are not getting through to him.



dstoffa said:


> But stand alone DVR makers are competing with those companies...


They are not selling to the same purchasers. Saying Tivo is not successful because it's market - stand alone DVR purchasers - isn't as large as the more captive CATV manufacturer's market is absurd.



dstoffa said:


> I am under the impression that CE manufacturers sell something this is used by consumers.


Your impression is completely wrong. CE manufacturers sell to retailers who in turn sell retail to consumers. CATV manufacturers sell wholesale to CATV companies. They are as different as markets can be.



dstoffa said:


> Whether the cable company pays for it or not, it gets used in the home, and not in some studio or re-transmission facility. So, if it's a DVR made by Tivo, that decodes a signal that can be displayed on my TV, or it's a DVR made by Scientific Atlanta that is provide to me by the cable company, the end user is a consumer. I consider them the same, since the consumer will be the end user.


That's utter nonsense.



dstoffa said:


> That is exactly what I am saying. This works for Scientific Atlanta boxes. Using my SA remote, I press "Settings", then select "More Settings", and there is a setting for "Power-On" options. You can select between "Power" and "Power + Alpha-Numeric". If "Power" is chosen, the STB will only power on if the power button is pressed. If "Power + Alpha Numeric" is pressed, then the box will power on when either the Power button is pressed, or it receives an alpha-numeric key press.


And how many other STBs offer this feature?

Don't bother answering. It's largely moot. As I said, a DVR which records from component video hasn't a snowball's chance of obtaining CableLabs approval, *even* if it weren't more expensive, and *even* if no one wanted it because it only has one tuner, and *even* if it worked with macrovision and the component outputs weren't going away.



dstoffa said:


> Then how would you propose that a 3rd party DVR maker design and construct a box that will work with any source thrown at it, be it OTA, CATV, DBS Sat, or IPTV, knowing that you will not get all those players to agree on anything, and knowing that it will take YEARS (if ever) for the government to force their hand?


It's already taken decades, but you've made my point for me. The only way it will ever happen is if it becomes law.



dstoffa said:


> Of course nothing is free. But if my cable-company is gonna charge me for a STB whether I take it or not, I might as well take it and forgo the Tivo and take the STB from the Cable-Co. As I wrote earlier, on my systems, the first STB is free with Digital Service.


The systems who deliver service to you are not the norm. Most charge for STBs.



dstoffa said:


> You write that the cost of leased DVRs would add $25 / month to your bill. How much do those 3 Tivo cost over a given time period? I would think paying $8.33 per month per leased DVR would be cheaper than paying for a HD Tvio + service per month. Can you get a HD Tivo w/ serivce for $8.33 per month?


I've already gone over that. Read the thread.



dstoffa said:


> I've repaired a unit when lightning struck it. I don't think the average user would have gone through what I have gone through. Are you saying that the majority of people would rather buy their box outright and be responsible for all aspects of it themselves than rent / lease one and not have to worry about it?


No, I very distinctly said, "Some do and some do not."



dstoffa said:


> My point about it popping up is that I see no need for a function that allows me, sitting in my hotel room half a continent away, to tell Tivo 1 in my home theater to accept and display a show sitting on a media server in my home, where I sure can't watch it from my hotel room.


1. You've obviously never seen a SlingBox.

2. At this point, I'm not sure why I am bothering, but I will give you an example from this very afternoon. One of my close friends - a former colleague and now a customer - called me right at noon today and set up an evening for dinner out and a movie this Sunday at my house with him, his wife, and his sister-in-law. Without that feature, we would have come back from dinner, sat down in the theater, and they would have proceeded to squabble for upwards of 30 to 45 minutes over what they wanted to watch. Sometimes having a large video library is a two edged sword. In any case, they finally would have settled upon a movie, at which point I would hunt through the NPL to find it and start the transfer. Shortly there after, having turned off the lights and settled everyone in, we would start watching the movie. Now, however, they can bicker all they like over which movie to see, but having selected it, they click on it and it transfers to the TiVo in total long before they head this way. Now when we get back to my house afte dinner, we will sit down almost immediately and start the movie. Indeed, with this application, making it a double feature is practical. Without it, forget it.



dstoffa said:


> Maybe you have an exotic fish tank in your home theater, and they get bored, so you put a movie on for them.


Please bother to read what I write. I never said anything about playing the video remotely, although it is possible, and with a SlingBox it is desirable.



dstoffa said:


> As for remote programming, I wrote that Replays can do this via WiRNS.


Oh, yes, I forgot. ReplayTV is the DVR manufacturer who is actually much more successful than TiVo. 



dstoffa said:


> In addition, DirecTV and Cablevision offer DVR programming from the Internet built in.


I can't effectively speak to that. Perhaps someone else can.



dstoffa said:


> Heck, even the DTV DVR can be programmed from a cell phone...


So can the TiVo. Why anyone would want to is a bit puzzling to me, but clearly they do.



dstoffa said:


> Not by me. People get more car for less money. It makes them feel special to drive a car they could not normally buy -- so they lease. Maybe it's different in your area, but leasing is common where I am.


Why is it you cannot understand the difference between "common" and "ubiquitous". Most people do not lease cars, let alone does everyone. Leasing is for people who want to lease. Buying is for people who do not.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

steve614 said:


> I don't know what exactly that poster was talking about.
> He/she implied (to me) that trick play didn't work if you happened to be watching live while the show is being recorded.
> You only have one tuner. If you are watching a show "live", trickplay functions work whether or not the show is being recorded due to a season pass, wishlist, or whatever.
> If that poster was talking about having to switch to the TV tuner to watch *real* live TV, then of course he/she wouldn't be able to pause it.


I think the point went over your head. 

..which was that the 1-tuner meant pausing live tv was rarely done (in my experience) and thus it was pretty much a marketing lie to me. Yes technically the feature was there, but wasn't practical on the SEries 2 1-tuner Tivo in my experience. 

I got into the habit of watching live tv on the tv tuner because my tivo was always recording something else or about to record something else. Why bother using the Tivo tuner for live TV?

I suppose others viewed it differently. For example, one never really had to record much of anything on the Tivo and could have used it nearly exclusively to pause live tv. The tiny storage space certainly did not discourage this.

But, for me at least, it wasn't until I finally got a 2-tuner DVR that I really started to pause live TV.


----------



## jmatero (Apr 9, 2003)

I'm convinced TiVo will end up being absorbed buy a cable company or fade away. I love my TiVos but once AppleTv gets an app store and the remaining networks I'm kissing cable and TiVo goodbye. 
I don't watch sports
I watch movies/tv now from netflix for 8.99/mo
I don't need to see a tv show the day it's broadcast .99/per
I'll rent new releases from AppleTV

My TiVo is a VCR. Now that so much Of the HD content I "tape" is (or will be soon) available instantly via the web, it just doesn't make sense.

Why hasn't TiVo been successful? Well, look at it this way: the whole premise of TiVo was "television your way". In other words, it let you take content that was broadcast on a fixed schedule and allowed you to watch it whenever you wanted... And FF through the commercials. With companies now letting you watch movies and tv commercial free on demand, TiVo becomes a product that is answering a question most consumers are no longer asking.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jmatero said:


> I'm convinced TiVo will end up being absorbed buy a cable company or fade away. I love my TiVos but once AppleTv gets an app store and the remaining networks I'm kissing cable and TiVo goodbye.
> I don't watch sports
> I watch movies/tv now from netflix for 8.99/mo
> I don't need to see a tv show the day it's broadcast .99/per
> ...


If you think Internet providers are going to allow people to use TBs of band width and not make them pay more for it, I have some swamp land that you should invest in.

Where it really makes sense to dump your cable/Sat company and goto Netflix and other streaming sources is when you add OTA to the mix. TiVo becomes the center piece of this type of setup and does it better than anything else.

I mostly watch OTA and have a bottom end Sat sub but could easily live without it or replace it with Netflix. Either way I would never give up OTA & TiVo and try to stream it all from the Internet.


----------



## jmccorm (Oct 8, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> I don't know that they have done any thing of the sort, but I agree the user experience is important. I doubt, however, that I woud agree with what you consider a good user experience.


Re: "The user experience" - I consider the following as examples of a bad user experience (again, Premier here, but some of these are hold-overs from the first generation TiVo I had). If you disagree with them, no problem. You disagree:


Bad directional control on the remote causing unintended menu choices
Incredibly sluggish interface
Advertising embedded in the interface

While that list can easily be expanded, it is a good stopping point because those three items share something else in common. First, they are all under TiVo's direct control. Second, these problems didn't exist in another environment that I was familiar with: the cable company's DVR. And that's who TiVo has to compete with.



lrhorer said:


> "Problem with the remove"? Huh?


Remote. I think you figured that out though...



lrhorer said:


> I don't find it to be such, either on the TiVo or any of the other devices I have which employ it.


You are an experienced user who, either by natural ability or by experience, manages to work the buttons correctly every time. Great! But it isn't a remote with a discrete button for each direction. It is all too easy to go down instead of right, left instead of down, etc. Tivo doesn't use discrete buttons for directional movement, and the obvious result: unwanted input errors.



lrhorer said:


> Only if you have only one Tivo and only if you don't have a TV with multiple inputs.


RE: Outage - Yes! I agree that if you aren't using the TiVo, then you're not going to have a problem with the TiVo.

The rest of your response basically boils down to, "Hey, the time is great! Can you make something better and solve TiVo's problem for them? The upgrade method? Rock solid! And it rarely happens! It is nothing." Fine. I appreciate that you don't like the minor example (that happened as I was posting) that related to the user experience.

Hey, I've got another immediate example of problems with the user experience for you. So I go to TiVo's website to check out what Web Videos that I can subscribe to. So that was "Find TV Shows" then "Web Videos". No complaints so far.

The problem was in the content. On a "What are web videos?" page, TiVo describes it like this:

You can:

* Download just one episode of a video podcast or get a Season Pass® and all episodes will appear in your "Now Playing List"
* Watch new web videos every day
...etc...​
Reality? Wow. What a nightmare. For something like the Onion News Network, how they describe it is how it actually is. But for most of the web videos, not really. The episodes don't have the years listed, just day and month, and probably with good reason.

Going through these, I found so many that have been abandoned long ago. Season passes were silly. There were quite a number that produced just a handful of episodes and then stopped. I remember coming across one that just had a single episode. I remember coming across one that you couldn't even investigate because TiVo's page for it didn't exist. Pages full of abandoned feeds.

So here is a feature where TiVo says you can subscribe to web content and have it automatically have new episodes downloaded to your box. The problem is that they haven't put forth any real effort to maintain the Web Video section, so you've got tons of stale content and missed user expectations.

That's a bad user experience. If you're going to add a new feature to your service, you need to perform the upkeep on it. Advertising a feature and then not delivering (on their very own website, no less) is a huge letdown.

Of course, you could always roll your own RSS feeds to do your own Web Video, but if TiVo is offering a cultivated list inside of a walled garden, then they need to do just that. Cultivate.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Well, the short - but really rather non-responsive to tell the truth - answer is if the "better" product is both less expensive for them and appeals more to the public at large, then increased profits are a cinch.
> 
> in a market that is not only already well saturated but also quite narrow, and you have a good recipe for failure.


Your reply is simply inconsistent. TiVo can, and has, focused on less expensive to make.
But how are they going to appeal to the public at large when it is a narrow market. That is all I am asking and the reality many are not seeing. The groupthink here is that we would buy more TiVo DVRs if they did this or that with them and that is true, but the group of people that are like those in this forum is a subset of an already narrow market



lrhorer said:


> I've never said anything differently. Why should there be? The fact in no way makes TiVo unsuccessful.


correct, I am not the one who said TiVo was unsucessful


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Given your posts in this thread, I'm not surprised. Presuming you were actually trying to encourage him to go with Tivo, and further presuming your tone was anything like your tone in this thread, then it's no wonder he decided not to switch. I thought I was the world's worst salesman, but if your response to him was anything remotely like your posts in this thread, then you make me look like the greatest salesman ever, and I couldn't sell a life jacket to a drowning millionaire.
> 
> So because you don't like (or no longer like) somethig, it can't be successful?


It is no longer successful for me. My tone has nothing to do with the basic fact that the Premiere (which you have no experience with) is a hodgepodge box. Keep in mind that the Premier is the box any first-timer will buy; not an S3 or HD. The Premier should have been a significant improvement over its predecessors. It is not. What was it's purpose? The HD, IMO, was an improvement over the S3 in that it could support M-cards. That, to me, was a success, but probably irrelevant to any first-timer buying an HD. We that have been around since the early days of the S2 and those before me with the S1 have seen Tivo trying to figure out where they are going. I think some of us feel that we just don't know where that is and we're paying for it.

As I've said before, Tivo continues to be great at what I bought it for which is a DVR. It's everything else they are trying to do (and I emphasize trying because that's where they fail) that concerns me. It's been stated by several that at some point in the future, the DVR will become a thing of the past. If that is the case and Tivo wants to succeed, then they must get better at the other stuff. And getting better at the other stuff does not seem to be on their radar.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> loyal long time customers are ones that would spend 800$ on the TiVo S3 and certainly 300$ for the TiVo HD. Sales show that loyal long term customers define themselves diferently and TiVo has lost faith in the long term customer.
> 
> Now TiVo is making deals with MSOs instead to supply their DVRs. Would more customers have bought TiVo DVRs if they made them shinier? I still contend no one has made a case for that, especially since the cable industry has such a high tech barrier in the form of cable cards/SDV that can be a bear to make work and the DBS broadcasters have an insurmountable barrier in the form of no common open access.
> 
> *we all in the forum need to get the reality that there simply is no large 3rd party standalone DVR market*


Yes, I am one of those that paid $700 for an S3 and $500 for three S2's and $300 for and HD and $350 for a PXL and lifetime subs. Yes, I define myself differently in that no one in their right mind would spend that kind of money and pay a subscription fee for each box for what others perceive they can get from the cable company. I, and many of you, saw Tivo for what it was. It was the trail blazer in the DVR market. It set the bar. It is still the best DVR out there. But that's where I draw the line. The bugs, glitches, lock-ups, hard-drive issues and cost simply make it something for the tech savvy. If I weren't around, my family would not have a Tivo and probably never would have heard of them. We, the long-time loyal customer, are the sales people for Tivo's DVR and it's getting really tough for me to sell this product anymore.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jtreid said:


> We, the long-time loyal customer, are the sales people for Tivo's DVR and it's getting really tough for me to sell this product anymore.


and that is a thing of the past now. There is simply not a market needing sales people. Why do you think TiVo stopped the rebates?


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and that is a thing of the past now. There is simply not a market needing sales people. Why do you think TiVo stopped the rebates?


What is a thing of the past? Tivo continues to add features to the box. This morning they announced Pandora and internet radio. I could buy a Roku (I have one) or listen to internet radio on my PC. Why does Tivo continue to add features to a box that has no market? If (BIG IF) Tivo could add features and add them right, then maybe people could see the value in the all-in-one box, but that's again where they fail. They've added some really cool stuff, but it's just so clunky and bug-ridden I'd rather use something else for anything other than a DVR.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

jtreid said:


> ..I could buy a Roku (I have one) or listen to internet radio on my PC...


Roku and a PC are an additional spend.



jtreid said:


> ..I'd rather use something else for anything other than a DVR.


You'd have to by multiple something elses to do what the TiVo does.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jtreid said:


> Why does Tivo continue to add features to a box that has no market? If (BIG IF) Tivo could add features and add them right, then maybe people could see the value in the all-in-one box, but that's again where they fail. They've added some really cool stuff, but it's just so clunky and bug-ridden I'd rather use something else for anything other than a DVR.


There is a market just not a big market, still a market that TiVo has.

yes, TiVo makes its interfaces clunky. They are years behind on Flash, though partly due to the fact they were hoping to have tru2way but watched the cable companies dither that hope away.

Still - my contention is, and no one has given a decent counter claim to it, that even if TiVo had the Netflix interface of roku or Wii or PS3, had full HD menus that were speedy, could add in inetrnet radio feeds easily, could pull in Hulu, etc.. there subscription numbers for standalones would not rise enough to cover the cost of making that happen.

What TiVo NEEDS is that they could put out a box with digital only tuners that could be used for Cable and satellite and OTA and get things like VOD from those braodcasters. Until the FCC gets off its ass and makes that happen, then it certainly wont come form the broadcasters (why should it) and otherwise TiVo will stay stuck in a narrow market


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> What TiVo NEEDS is that they could put out a box with digital only tuners that could be used for Cable and satellite and OTA and get things like VOD from those braodcasters. Until the FCC gets off its ass and makes that happen, then it certainly wont come form the broadcasters (why should it) and otherwise TiVo will stay stuck in a narrow market


I agree that until TiVo can sell the general public something that works seamlessly with "any" provider they want to use it with, TiVo will be trapped in a small market.

I am not certain it needs to be one box and I am not certain there needs to be a universal encryption product for cable and the 2 sat providers. There does however have to be a FCC mandate that TiVo (or any other third party STB provider) be able to build systems that use the existing encryption products.

Having to put 4 (or more) different types of digital tuners into a box might not be very cost effective (OTA, cable, dish, & direct, at&t, all use different type of "tuner" setups). It might be more effective if TiVo had a controller box and detached "tuners" similar to Silicondust's networked HDHome Run units. Then you could just buy what ever you needed.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

I am not pumping sunshine up anybody's skirt/shirt here, but there is enough outside of the box thinking right here in this tiny little thread for the past week that would pull TiVo Inc away from the ledge. The problem is lack of vision, leadership, and balls.

It's as if any suggestions of upgrading the TiVo's hardware to do its task cleanly with the power it needs to expand its features advantageously in the future or any cooperative attempt with any tech company that's not in reality killing it is out of the question with this current TiVo leadership.

Its as if cable has their own private little activated kill cell embedded in TiVo's command structure.

And guess what, we are caught holding their junk as well as our own!

Yet, I foolishly hope that the launch of Pandora takes TiVo to that first step in the right direction.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> there is enough outside of the box thinking right here in this tiny little thread for the past week that would pull TiVo Inc away from the ledge.


I missed that myself - could you quote the stuff that would sell enough new subs to cover the cost of doing it?


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I missed that myself - could you quote the stuff that would sell enough new subs to cover the cost of doing it?


Ok, I will take this out of the box idea.

"It might be more effective if TiVo had a controller box ... Then you could just buy what ever you needed."

You make a bare bone TiVo box that is build-able, CPU, hardrive, LED. Exploit the elephant in the room. Make a TiVo box for the hobbyist nerd in us all. People are breaking open the TiVo box more that any other, use that fact and turn it to an advantage!

no charge


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> Ok, I will take this out of the box idea.
> 
> "It might be more effective if TiVo had a controller box ... Then you could just buy what ever you needed."
> 
> ...


again - might be cool for those that think like us in this forum, but as for opening the narrow market TiVo finds itself in - it is a nonstarter.
The original idea you quoted from was assuming that satellite was forced to open up its access and thus the market is opened far wider

PS - TiVo on the PC was not exactly a barn burner


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I missed that myself - could you quote the stuff that would sell enough new subs to cover the cost of doing it?


ZeoTiVo I think you have the problem nailed, if, as somebody said, the MSOs pay $450 for their DVRs in lots of 10,000 what chance does TiVo have with a retail market that has a hard time selling a TiVo for $300, TiVos cost must be close to $200 for any Series 3, less than 1/2 what the MSO pays, to add in VOD, MCS now an external USB box supplied by the MSO, would only increase the cost to TiVo, the stand alone DVR is a small market and will remain so, TiVo may be able to build a custom MSO box, but the customer could not purchase it or set up service like lifetime as the box would only work for that MSO. TiVo may easily survive for the foreseeable future, a future that nobody knows for sure what will happen.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> Roku and a PC are an additional spend.


And you get what you pay for. The fact is, I bought a blu-ray player that supported Netflix just so I could stream Netflix without wanting to seek out and destroy the software engineers that implemented Netflix on Tivo when it came out. Lock-ups, restarts and jumps out of the stream were intolerable. It still is not stable and the interface is like using DOS on a PC of the 80's. I'll say it again. If they would just do it right, it could be something.



orangeboy said:


> You'd have to by multiple something elses to do what the TiVo does.


If I bought a product to stream Netflix and it performed the way Netflix does on Tivo, I'd race back to the store where I bought it and demand my money back. If I bought a device to play music over my A/V center from my PC that does it the way Tivo does, I'd return it. There is not one thing other than being a DVR that Tivo does that I find to be a pleasurable experience. Sure, when I have to, I do use the other features, but it's not a great experience.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

jtreid said:


> And you get what you pay for. The fact is, I bought a blu-ray player that supported Netflix just so I could stream Netflix without wanting to seek out and destroy the software engineers that implemented Netflix on Tivo when it came out. Lock-ups, restarts and jumps out of the stream were intolerable. It still is not stable and the interface is like using DOS on a PC of the 80's. I'll say it again. If they would just do it right, it could be something.
> 
> If I bought a product to stream Netflix and it performed the way Netflix does on Tivo, I'd race back to the store where I bought it and demand my money back. If I bought a device to play music over my A/V center from my PC that does it the way Tivo does, I'd return it. There is not one thing other than being a DVR that Tivo does that I find to be a pleasurable experience. Sure, when I have to, I do use the other features, but it's not a great experience.


Could it be a *do all very well *box is not possible at TiVos price point or is just the software that needs fixing ?


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lessd said:


> Could it be a *do all very well *box is not possible at TiVos price point or is just the software that needs fixing ?


I think the software just needs fixing.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jtreid said:


> I think the software just needs fixing.


TiVo does have the classic "coded themselves into a legacy corner" problem as well. 
The premier with flash is supposed to get them out of the corner but they are not exactly moving very fast on that front.
This does still however, IMO, point to the problem of a narrow market in which TiVo can not exactly get ROI by spending tons of money on Software engineers


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

jtreid said:


> I think the software just needs fixing.


I hope you correct but if the effort to fix the software is too expensive to get any type of ROI on this effort, what then, as TiVo has never charged for software as a line item on the Series 3 or 4 TiVos.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

lessd said:


> ZeoTiVo I think you have the problem nailed, if, as somebody said, the MSOs pay $450 for their DVRs in lots of 10,000 what chance does TiVo have with a retail market that has a hard time selling a TiVo for $300, TiVos cost must be close to $200 for any Series 3, less than 1/2 what the MSO pays, to add in VOD, MCS now an external USB box supplied by the MSO, would only increase the cost to TiVo, the stand alone DVR is a small market and will remain so, TiVo may be able to build a custom MSO box, but the customer could not purchase it or set up service like lifetime as the box would only work for that MSO. TiVo may easily survive for the foreseeable future, a future that nobody knows for sure what will happen.


Cost I think is the #1 problem. The #2 problem is Tivo doesn't differentiate itself from its other competitors. I just did a cost analysis for my home.

1. DirecTV is cheapest by far and has the most features, including MRV that actually works anywhere in the country.

2. With Verizon FIOS, it will take me 3 years just to break even on my Premiere purchase vs. renting their DVR. And that's including my $199 special lifetime service discount that most people aren't eligible for. At the end of those 3 years, with Tivo I have an old, outdated box (if it's still working). With Verizon, I just turn in the old box at any time and get a new box with new features for no additional cost.

3. TWC is the most expensive, but the break even cost for its DVR vs. Tivo Premiere is beyond 6 years.

If I look at the cost, I can't justify getting a Tivo Premiere unless the box is free and I just pay for the service.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> ...With Verizon, I just turn in the old box at any time and get a new box with new features for no additional cost...


Other than the continued monthly rental fee. Unless there is no monthly fee with Verizon?


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> This does still however, IMO, point to the problem of a narrow market in which TiVo can not exactly get ROI by spending tons of money on Software engineers


Ahhhh, if what you say is true, then this is very disappointing. That being said and previously that Tivo can't make money selling hardware means that Tivo is milking the proverbial cow. We're not really going to see any major improvements...ever.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jtreid said:


> Ahhhh, if what you say is true, then this is very disappointing. That being said and previously that Tivo can't make money selling hardware means that Tivo is milking the proverbial cow. We're not really going to see any major improvements...ever.


TiVo does now make money on the hardware sold direct by TiVo. So they can find a profitable model but only if they watch the money they spend carefully.
To me this signifies exactly what we see - incremental improvements based off some internal priority list.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

jtreid said:


> If I bought a product to stream Netflix and it performed the way Netflix does on Tivo, I'd race back to the store where I bought it and demand my money back. If I bought a device to play music over my A/V center from my PC that does it the way Tivo does, I'd return it. There is not one thing other than being a DVR that Tivo does that I find to be a pleasurable experience. Sure, when I have to, I do use the other features, but it's not a great experience.


Sad truth.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

orangeboy said:


> Other than the continued monthly rental fee. Unless there is no monthly fee with Verizon?


There is a monthly rental fee with the Verizon box. But you pay Tivo one giant fee every 4 years or so to get a new box.

Verizon's warranty is infinite. Tivo's is 90 days. Verizon's box supports PPV and VOD. Tivo's does not. Verizon supports MRV. Soon, Tivo won't. Verizon's box costs more, but it has more features that I would use. It's a wash.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> There is a monthly rental fee with the Verizon box. But you pay Tivo one giant fee every 4 years or so to get a new box.
> 
> Verizon's warranty is infinite. Tivo's is 90 days. Verizon's box supports PPV and VOD. Tivo's does not. Verizon supports MRV. Soon, Tivo won't. Verizon's box costs more, but it has more features that I would use. It's a wash.


Verizon supports MVR, but hard drive is only 160gb and you can't initiate a recording from any of the other boxes except main box. 160gb is pretty darn low for hd shows on 1 tv never mind hd shows for 2 tvs.

Main MVR box is $20/month too. Although only need $10 non-dvr hd boxes after that.

Pretty much agree with you though, but what if you get a Premiere for $150 plus $200 lifetime?

That's where I changed my mind. Figure I could sell it at anytime in next few years and come out ahead.


----------



## jmccorm (Oct 8, 2000)

jtreid said:


> I think the software just needs fixing.


It is like TiVo is chasing down features as if they were bullet points to add to a sales presentation. They work hard enough to get the feature in place so that they can market it, but then they stop short of actually making it _good_.

Now that someone else mentioned it, wow, TiVo really does have crappy Netflix integration. I don't think they care, though. They got their bullet point, right?


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

jtreid said:


> It is no longer successful for me. My tone has nothing to do with the basic fact that the Premiere (which you have no experience with) is a hodgepodge box. Keep in mind that the Premier is the box any first-timer will buy; not an S3 or HD. The Premier should have been a significant improvement over its predecessors. It is not. What was it's purpose? The HD, IMO, was an improvement over the S3 in that it could support M-cards. That, to me, was a success, but probably irrelevant to any first-timer buying an HD. We that have been around since the early days of the S2 and those before me with the S1 have seen Tivo trying to figure out where they are going. I think some of us feel that we just don't know where that is and we're paying for it.
> 
> As I've said before, Tivo continues to be great at what I bought it for which is a DVR. It's everything else they are trying to do (and I emphasize trying because that's where they fail) that concerns me. It's been stated by several that at some point in the future, the DVR will become a thing of the past. If that is the case and Tivo wants to succeed, then they must get better at the other stuff. And getting better at the other stuff does not seem to be on their radar.


I pretty much agree with you. When I first got a TiVo Series 1 in the early 2000s, it was a wonderful step-up from taping shows on a VCR -- something I started doing in the 1980s. I loved the search, and the Seasons Passes and the computer-like listings. It was the best thing out! There were lots of idiosyncracies, but, like with all software, we expected those glitches or illogical clicks, or problems to be fixed as the developers became aware of them, and as the concept of time-shifting became more mainstream.

TiVo DID fix a few things, and made some advances, but forgot to streamline most things or improve their original product.

They added all sorts of bells and whistles and new features (all nice for some people) but they didn't get around to improving the initial software. It pretty much works the same as it did when it came out, accomodating for different hardware and different technology (e.g., HDTV).

TiVo vigorously defended its product, thus actively preventing some development by others, but it didn't improve itself.

There are so many ways TiVo could have gone and could go now--certainly this community has offered more that enough ideas and complaints for TiVo to steam the competition and dominate the field, but they have become the stodgy-old-f**ts of the industry that they developed.

Instead of improving the software, they give us Yahoo weather and YouTube and other nice add-ons that I, for one, have no interest in, and I reckon I'm not alone. I won't go into the improvements they could have made to the software and to the online planning possibilities, as these have been covered greatly on TiVo Community ad nauseum.

I think the developers' hubris and their refusal to listen to their customers is the reason they are not as successful as they could have been.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

megory said:


> I think the developers' hubris and their refusal to listen to their customers is the reason they are not as successful as they could have been.


I think you've got it wrong. Most probably the correct explanation is:

I think *top management's* hubris and their refusal to listen to their customers is the reason they are not as successful as they could have been.​
E.g. it wasn't the developers who pushed for cr*p like Yahoo weather, it was management's desire to "make deals".

OTOH, without being a fly on the wall, it's hard to know whether developers thought the Premiere was ready to ship or if management told them to ship it anyway.


----------



## jmccorm (Oct 8, 2000)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> OTOH, without being a fly on the wall, it's hard to know whether developers thought the Premiere was ready to ship or if management told them to ship it anyway.


I'd take the opposite position on that one. I just can't see a group of developers making the following argument to twist management's arm to send a product out the door early: "You know, we've only got one CPU working, and we haven't even finished making all the menus in high definition, the whole thing is sluggish as hell, we've got bugs everywhere, but this puppy is ready to carry the TiVo banner!".

They ran out of time or they ran out of money, and/or the management was just plain incompetent.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I would think they probably realized it wouldn't be done soon enough and they had already planned to be out of TiVo HD stock around Christmas time. There are rumors that the Premiere was ready to launch in November 2009.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369664,00.asp



> Increasingly, TiVo's advantage looks to be its interface, rather than the capabilities the company is offering, a topic [Joe Miller, senior vice president of consumer sales and marketing,] returned to several times during an interview this week. That doesn't mean that TiVo will abandon its DVR business, but it does mean that hardware may play a lesser role at the company.
> 
> "You know, the software's our core competence, and if you look at some of the deals we've done, it's really the thing that we do well," Miller said. "And I don't think we lay around at night thinking of innovative hardware design. We use the hardware to render the service, which is the software. Software's in our blood; it's what we do well.


The article basically speaks for itself. Here's Engadget's take on it. It's hard to disagree with them:



> To be completely frank, TiVo has held the gold standard for DVR software for over a decade, but that's mostly because no one successfully stepped up to the plate -- not even TiVo itself, whose Premiere interface shipped the definition of half-baked. So when the company suggests that software is one of its strengths, please pardon a few chuckles from our corner of the room.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Oh I definitely agree. TiVo claims its strength is software, but we have seen how long it takes for them to do anything software related. 

This combined with all the various features they could be adding that are software only yet TiVo doesn't. 

If I didn't prefer playback on my TiVos compared to other media devices, I would have dumped them.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Tivo is just going to license their core recording tech. and make remotes and license the Tivo character. 

Those are its strengths.


----------



## net114 (Dec 29, 2000)

I think the real question is why has Tivo not been MORE successful? 

They have managed to keep selling retail DVRs and been the (almost) sole company to do so for a decade. There's Moxy, but no other company has kept such a long track record of releasing products. 

Sure, there's a lot of things they could do to be more successful, but I don't think the right question is why they have NOT been successful.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

> So when the company suggests that software is one of its strengths, please pardon a few chuckles from our corner of the room.


A few chuckles? I think, instead, "suggestions" like this one from TiVo are exactly why the acronym *ROFLMAO* was invented. But I suppose Engadget was being polite.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

megory said:


> There are so many ways TiVo could have gone and could go now--certainly this community has offered more that enough ideas and complaints for TiVo to steam the competition and dominate the field, but they have become the stodgy-old-f**ts of the industry that they developed.


yet again I ask - exactly what 3rd party DVR being sold to consumers is selling more DVRs than TiVo?
What competition is TiVo needing to dominate

PS - if the Netflix interface is an example of TiVo software core competence then umm, yeah - a few chuckles from me as well


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

This company must have one of the most regretful Board of Directors in existence today. 

They continue to remain still while a bunch of incapable an impotent individuals continue to misdirect them to bankruptcy. The CEO of TiVo, Tom Rogers and his gang of cronies have invested in a fruitless mission of time, money, and material resources in effort to sell their Board of Directors the sucker's school of thought of putting all their eggs in one basket and cut all other business options. CEO of TiVo, Tom Rogers and his gang of cronies have lead them into the very business model of what not to do to make a company profitable.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> This company must have one of the most regretful Board of Directors in existence today.
> 
> They continue to remain still while a bunch of incapable an impotent individuals continue to misdirect them to bankruptcy. The CEO of TiVo, Tom Rogers and his gang of cronies have invested in a fruitless mission of time, money, and material resources in effort to sell their Board of Directors the sucker's school of thought of putting all their eggs in one basket and cut all other business options. CEO of TiVo, Tom Rogers and his gang of cronies have lead them into the very business model of what not to do to make a company profitable.


TiVo is far closer to profitability today than ever.
The deals made have diversified TiVo into international markets.
Making standalone DVRs with upfront cost is never likely to make TiVo a profit.

Could you explain exactly what you are seeing that negates these facts. Not a defense of anything, just throwing that annoying reality based on facts into this thread again


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo is far closer to profitability today than ever.
> The deals made have diversified TiVo into international markets.
> Making standalone DVRs with upfront cost is never likely to make TiVo a profit.
> 
> Could you explain exactly what you are seeing that negates these facts. Not a defense of anything, just throwing that annoying reality based on facts into this thread again


Expandability without competent innovation will not payoff in the long run.

Feel free to disagree, but Iam going back to work.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yet again I ask - exactly what 3rd party DVR being sold to consumers is selling more DVRs than TiVo?
> What competition is TiVo needing to dominate
> 
> PS - if the Netflix interface is an example of TiVo software core competence then umm, yeah - a few chuckles from me as well


At this point I would have to say the cable companies. I know that isnt exactly what you mean but they are adding features that TiVo users are requesting and have requested for years. Look at 1.9 for Verizon Dvrs. They already have streaming like every other provider but now are adding external drive support which wont be limited to one drive. They are adding cooperative tuning iirc and a couple other things I am now forgetting.

When we see some win 7 embedded devices though some details have already come out which should be at CES I think TiVo may have a true competitor especially when millions of homes already have extenders in the form of 360s. I also think Allvid could seriously present competition TiVo isnt and wont be ready for or able to handle if it truly works as described.

I think I just may be in one of the negative stages of the 7 stages of TiVo though. It just gets depressing when everyone but TiVo seems to see how much better they could and should be all while not saying things like mentioned in the article. It would be like Microsoft claiming hardware is there strength while the red ring issues are still going on.

* sent from my phone so ignore any grammatical and spelling mistakes.
aiming


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> At this point I would have to say the cable companies. I know that isnt exactly what you mean


it is not what I mean at all. cable companies are a distinctly different business model.

I have already noted that TiVo is NOT innovating very fast at all. Netflix interface is limited, no streaming, etc..

However folks are barking up the wrong tree whenever they look to standalone DVRs as same wide open market versus the narrow market it is, and no one has yet to make a case that innovating faster by TiVo would actually produce an acceptable ROI in the form of standalone subscription sales.

Digeo failed in the form of Moxi
I will be interested in what win7 does, but I predict that in the form of folks actually using win7 media center as a DVR that sales will not grow much there either.

So people here want a DVR that is shiny, understandable, but the market has not exactly shown any interest in shiny DVRs and simply because TiVo is not producing what we want, does not mean they would succeed as a company if they did


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> it is not what I mean at all. cable companies are a distinctly different business model.
> 
> I have already noted that TiVo is NOT innovating very fast at all. Netflix interface is limited, no streaming, etc..
> 
> ...


I agree and realize it wasn't what you meant, but as they add features TiVo doesn't have and TiVo users want it becomes less painful to go with the cable DVR over TiVo.

I think some of the ROI though would come from common features such as streaming which is a huge negative for TiVO for many people. I realize not all of these advanced features would pay off, but you sometimes have to wonder what they are working on software wise since new features are so slow to roll out and the ones that do aren't always finished. I mean it is only 6months after release of the Premiere.

I don't think sales of embedded 7 will be huge or skyrocket, but the implementation leaves a lot of options. We have already seen two devices I believe and the final version of embedded 7 with cable card support isn't even out yet. Imagine a Bluray player with embedded 7, a 320gb drive and ota tuners with no recurring fee. It not only works with your Xbox 360 but also your laptop, desktop pc, and windows home server. All of this with one flat fee off the shelf at Best Buy. Obviously until the devices get out there we don't know cost, but I can definitely see potential and can't wait for CES.

I don't know I think until the Allvid solution is finalized we won't ever have the potential for a truly competitive DVR market, but by then we may not need it as more and more content becomes on demand through places like Netflix.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> I agree and realize it wasn't what you meant, but as they add features TiVo doesn't have and TiVo users want it becomes less painful to go with the cable DVR over TiVo.
> 
> I think some of the ROI though would come from common features such as streaming which is a huge negative for TiVO for many people. I realize not all of these advanced features would pay off,


agreed, but the biggest lack in a cable company DVR for me is the room to hold a lot of recordings. Since I can upgrade my hard drive - I can hold 12 movies, whole seasons of 5 or so shows and so on. There are some shows my wife and I like to watch one after the other. Ironically TWC in my area has no concept at all of watching a show somewhere else in the house so that becomes the second big drawback. Also I can MRV movie rips from my PC to any TiVo in the house and that is a huge use in our household. So I record analog cable with no copy protection and can thus MRV it anywhere in the house as well and that is my specific CON with TiVo but then again cable company company would not let me copy/stream anything anywhere so I lose my movie server.

HTPC can do all the above but by the time win7 came along and even the hint of being able to record from cable card without some expensive OEM setup I was already happily invested in TiVo and the cost to do all the above at 4 TVs in the house is going to be a bit more than a 300$ PC from best buy. 

so I can see that streaming and better Netflix interface would be great innovations but they would not mean squat to my Dad and folks like him who use a cable company DVR really and truly simply to pause TV for a phone call or bathroom break. The market is just that narrow.

innocentFreak, you want features and are willing to pay for them but unless TiVo put out a 4 tuner model anything else is really noise for you as you will at some point be happily using win7 and likely never looking back. how many features would TiVo have to dramatically upgrade to start selling more subscriptions?

and yes, at some point our kids will get a laugh out of the fact we used to record things so we could watch them when we wanted.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Are the Premieres flying off the shelf because they sport a Video Window and Free Space Indicator, two features that have been requested for years?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so I can see that streaming and better Netflix interface would be great innovations but they would not mean squat to my Dad and folks like him who use a cable company DVR really and truly simply to pause TV for a phone call or bathroom break. The market is just that narrow.
> 
> innocentFreak, you want features and are willing to pay for them but unless TiVo put out a 4 tuner model anything else is really noise for you as you will at some point be happily using win7 and likely never looking back. how many features would TiVo have to dramatically upgrade to start selling more subscriptions?


I agree somewhat. My mom doesn't use any of the extra features of the TiVo but vastly preferred it over the FiOS DVR. Things that would improve her use are conflict management and some sort of tool that walked her through conflicts. She still doesn't really grasp the conflict management and season pass manager aspect, but gets that sometimes her shows aren't recorded. I have explained it to her several times, but it is almost backward logic to her. She prefers say Terriers on FOX to Private Practice, but doesn't understand really that she needs to put Private Practice above Terriers since it only airs once. I just used two shows as an example and these may not even conflict. She also records different shows than I do so it isn't something I can fix off the top of my head without looking at a guide in front of me.

Nah I will always have at least one TiVo for reasons you mention. I still prefer playback on TiVo, and I use it for many of the things you do even though with Media Center I could just stream it without transferring shows. Transfers are so fast I don't even wait for it and now with someone who added Pytivo metadata to a tool my transfers are even better.

I don't see other features as noise because they don't have 2 more tuners lol, though it may seem like that from our past discussions. I think my problem which has always been my problem is I see something and my first thought is how it could be made better even when it works great. Take Pandora, I love they finally added Pandora, but with my first use I already saw things I would have done differently and added such as the ability to scroll through previous played songs like you can on the website to rate them. The rew and FF buttons don't do anything so it could have navigated them and displayed them just like the discovery bar.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> Are the Premieres flying off the shelf because they sport a Video Window and Free Space Indicator, two features that have been requested for years?


When playing catchup, manufacturers rarely get accolades.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> She still doesn't really grasp the conflict management and season pass manager aspect, but gets that sometimes her shows aren't recorded. I have explained it to her several times, but it is almost backward logic to her.


It would slow the process down a little, but wouldn't be too hard to check conflicting shows to see if an alternate showing is occurring for the conflicting show and then ask the user if they want to delay the recording until the second airing.

I'd also like new season passes to initially appear as high up in the list as they can without causing a conflict, instead of at the bottom or the top.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> It would slow the process down a little, but wouldn't be too hard to check conflicting shows to see if an alternate showing is occurring for the conflicting show and then ask the user if they want to delay the recording until the second airing.
> 
> I'd also like new season passes to initially appear as high up in the list as they can without causing a conflict, instead of at the bottom or the top.


Exactly. It could even be something you could turn off for advanced users. It would pop up when adding a season pass or I could see an option to analyze your entire season pass manager though that would probably be better for something like tivo.com or tivo desktop for the processing power. If it prompted you and walked you through fixing conflicts every time you added a show it wouldnt be really necessary. Of course the average dvr user may not care if they miss a show.


----------



## jhowell (Sep 19, 2006)

Sometimes conflicts aren&#8217;t apparent when a season pass is created, but come up later as show schedules change and shows on hiatus come back on the air. I would prefer an optional setting to change the scheduling algorithm so that it records a lower priority episode in a conflict situation whenever the higher priority one appears again in the upcoming schedule but the lower priority one doesn&#8217;t. I would choose this option if it was available.

ETA: Regarding the main topic of this thread, I think TiVo management blew it when they failed to make deals with the cable providers to become their DVR provider. I think they may have gotten greedy by wanting to be both a hardware and service provider. It might have been better to make a small profit each on a large volume of DVRs.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

jhowell said:


> Sometimes conflicts arent apparent when a season pass is created, but come up later as show schedules change and shows on hiatus come back on the air. I would prefer an optional setting to change the scheduling algorithm so that it records a lower priority episode in a conflict situation whenever the higher priority one appears again in the upcoming schedule but the lower priority one doesnt. I would choose this option if it was available.
> 
> ETA: Regarding the main topic of this thread, I think TiVo management blew it when they failed to make deals with the cable providers to become their DVR provider. I think they may have gotten greedy by wanting to be both a hardware and service provider. It might have been better to make a small profit each on a large volume of DVRs.


All they would have to do is weight the show that doesn't have repeating entries in the guide with a higher priority in that case, otherwise get the one with the highest priority in the Season Pass list.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I always wanted a 3rd option between "save until I delete" and "save until space needed."

And that would be:

Stop recording if number of episodes to be kept is met, but delete if you need the space. Great for shows in syndication that you might keep around for something to watch on a rainy day emergency, but don't care if you miss 2 or 10 episodes here and there.

One thing disappointing about the Premiere is how little the DVR software has changed. 

I suppose Tivo figures consumers can barely figure out the features they have so why make them even more complicated. But they could have hid all that stuff under advanced options and satisfied their diehard userbase.

Not sure I blame Tivo though. I think their hands are tied. There's no money in this space when the cable companies control the set top box market.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Stop recording if number of episodes to be kept is met, but delete if you need the space. Great for shows in syndication that you might keep around for something to watch on a rainy day emergency, but don't care if you miss 2 or 10 episodes here and there.


That option has been there for quite a while. When you set up a Season Pass or Wish List simply set the "Keep at most" value to whatever you want ("x") and then set the "save until space needed." At that point the TiVo will only keep the last "x" recordings.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> Not sure I blame Tivo though. I think their hands are tied. There's no money in this space when the cable companies control the set top box market.


exactly


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Not sure I blame Tivo though. I think their hands are tied. There's no money in this space when the cable companies control the set top box market.


That's it, blame the Cable for TiVo dying on the tech vine. TiVo management is just another innocent victim of circumstance. How could they possibly know that you have to put out the best product made from the latest engineering science in order to have it deliver on the goods or that technology alters all free-enterprise business patterns and plans. 

If I only bought stock in these guys when it was down!


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

morac said:


> That option has been there for quite a while. When you set up a Season Pass or Wish List simply set the "Keep at most" value to whatever you want ("x") and then set the "save until space needed." At that point the TiVo will only keep the last "x" recordings.


Yeah, but I want Tivo to stop recording more episodes of a show if the limit is reached. I don't want it to drop the earliest recording of a show and start recording the latest episode.

At the same time I want Tivo to feel free to delete episodes of this show if it needs space for another show (that doesn't have this option checked.)

IN my experience in 6 years with my Tivo I have recorded quite a few shows that fit this definition. It could be Judge Judy or it could be reruns of Seinfeld or Law and Order or something like Diners, Dives and Drive-ins or Modern Marvels.

These are shows that are not necessarily a priority for me to watch, but are shows I like to have on my Tivo for those times when I don't have anything else better to watch. These shows aren't time or timeline sensitive. Often they are syndicated.

I don't need Tivo to constantly record these shows. Why tie up a tuner and work the hard drive that much is my thought.

And why use "save until I delete" when that ties up alot of space that Tivo sometimes needs for higher priority shows?

Anyway maybe I'm the only one that has found themselves using their Tivo is this manner and needing another "save" option.

Or maybe I'm missing something after all these years.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Joe3 said:


> That's it, blame the Cable for TiVo dying on the tech vine. TiVo management is just another innocent victim of circumstance. How could they possibly know that you have to put out the best product made from the latest engineering science in order to have it deliver on the goods or that technology alters all free-enterprise business patterns and plans.
> 
> If I only bought stock in these guys when it was down!


Tivo was the best product on the market though and look where it got them.

Meanwhile cable and satellite won not with the best product but with control of set box technology needed to access their services.

IN some businesses it doesn't matter how bright the management is - the business is still doomed. In this case the cable and satellite companies hold all the cards.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

TiVo's CEO Tom Rogers is paid pretty good and the rest of that management team. They don't need any more excuses or any more bailouts. 

Look at the Video On Demand Menu. Forget about any tech problems, the menu has items that are listed that are dated or in bankruptcy for crying out loud!

They push out Pandora and Hulu-Plus, big deal. If long and recent past accounts of tech roll outs is any indication, Whoopee! 
They still can't delete "Jaman" from their Menu. 

Remember their wily order a pizza pie chew over project!

Yeah, defend the geniuses who thought they could make money in the pizza pie business.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> TiVo's CEO Tom Rogers is paid pretty good and the rest of that management team. They don't need any more excuses or any more bailouts.


what does that even mean? What excuses? What bailout?

if you just want to rant then go to happy hour. We get that you dislike how TiVo is run, and no one has claimed TiVo is some innovator powerhouse but you still only offer up over broad and some plain inaccurate statements that add nothing to the conversation.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Joe3 said:


> TiVo's CEO Tom Rogers is paid pretty good and the rest of that management team. They don't need any more excuses or any more bailouts.
> 
> Look at the Video On Demand Menu. Forget about any tech problems, the menu has items that are listed that are dated or in bankruptcy for crying out loud!
> 
> ...


No one is denying Tivo doesn't have problems.

You're preaching to the choir.

The question is how much of it is Tivo's fault?

I don't see any other successful 3rd party dvr makers out there.

And I don't see Tivo sitting on billions of dollars, making money every year and not losing customers.

This tells me it's not so much Tivo. IT's the cable/satellite companies stranglehold on the set top box market that has ultimately done Tivo in.

If you stop making money then you have to cut back in r&d. When cut back in r&d you stop improving your products. When you stop improving your products the competition catches up. IN this case there is no 3rd party competition. Just satellite and cable tv competition. And their products are hardly considered superior although they are getting to be good enough.

It's a vicious cycle. Tivo seems like they've been in this hunkered down mode for years now. Hoping to win that lawsuit and get into the business of licensing their tech or hoping the government steps in and levels the playing field.

Anything to stay alive to fight another day. It's a slow downward spiral though. They haven't hit bottom yet.

Anyway you can't say losing the satellite market hasn't hurt Tivo. Tivo could easily make a satellite set top box, but they can't. They aren't allowed to. So overnight they lost 40+ million possible customers.

You can't say not being able to offer video on demand like the cable company can on their boxes doesn't hurt Tivo. You can't say that the hassle of cable cards hasn't hurt Tivo. Nor can you say that the hassle of sdv tuning adapter hasn't hurt Tivo. ......

These are hurdles that the 1st party cable set top box competition doesn't have to overcome because the cable companies control the set top box technology. NOt Tivo's fault.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> I don't need Tivo to constantly record these shows. Why tie up a tuner and work the hard drive that much is my thought.
> ...
> Or maybe I'm missing something after all these years.


Yeah, I think you're missing something. Several things:

1) TiVo often makes design decisions in favor of simplicity, rather than complexity. You're asking for another "keep until" mode that would only confuse most people.

2) You can always prioritize those Season Passes very low. That way you won't "tie up" the tuner.

3) The TiVo is *always* "working" the hard drive. Let me be perfectly clear: *TiVo always buffers 1/2 hour on each tuner*, whether you are "recording" or not. The only way to keep it from doing that is to switch the tuners to channels you don't receive (which is a technique occasionally used by people to slightly speed up TiVo to TiVo file transfers).


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

To call Tivo unsuccessful is to not understand what Tivo does as a whole.
Comparing Tivo to cable DVR's is just insane. The two are vastly different.

The cable company doesn't want you transferring your TV to your PC, so they disallow it. Tivo? Not so much.

The cable company doesn't want you streaming from your PC to your TV, so they disallow it. Tivo? Not so much.

The cable company doesn't let you "own" your hardware, they charge you insane monthly rates to use their hardware. Tivo? Well, you own the hardware, and the software is charged for, understandably.

The cable company doesn't want you using that 30 second skip. They know it affects their ad revenue. Tivo? Hey, go for it!!

Now, understandably, Tivo's not for everyone. Not everyone wants to deal with maintaining hardware, networking tivo to their PC, using the PC as a hub to transfer TV around, etc, BUT, Tivo's pretty well there!! Unsuccessful? Try again. An 'unsuccessful' company wouldn't be around 10+ years and have hardware in multiple countries, as well as post some pretty decent profits over the years.

Unsuccessful? Think again. Tivo's pretty reasonably successful by any reasonable standard.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

twhiting9275 said:


> Unsuccessful? Think again. Tivo's pretty reasonably successful by any reasonable standard.


Define success in absolute terms.

Tivo is a Tucker automobile.

Was the Tucker a success because it incorporated seat belts, disc brakes, shatterproof glass, and pop-out windshields *years* before the other auto-makers, even though only 50 cars were made, and the company went bankrupt?

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

dstoffa said:


> Define success in absolute terms.


10 + years of innovation = success
top 3 corporate officers making $3m+ = success
Enterprise value of 812m = success
Cash of 242m = success

Anyone arguing with the above needs to really re-evaluate their version of 'success', because this is most definitely 'success'.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dstoffa said:


> Define success in absolute terms.
> 
> Tivo is a Tucker automobile.
> 
> ...


I don't think TiVo will every be a say Dell in terms of Dell 20 years after its first IPO, or explode like Google did, but I don't think it's a Tucker ether, TiVo in more in the middle now it may or may not break out from what it is now (with 3rd pty deals) or limp along for the next 10 or 20 years. TV for most part will most likely not change much over the next 20 years, TV over the Internet will remain a niche market, a bigger one than it is today but still a small niche market. The number of available cable channels is at a point that most people can't follow all of them, and miss some good TV because they just did not know. If there is a better way for TiVo to spend their money I don't think anybody on this form will come up with it with any certainty, they may make a good guess and be correct but unless TiVo did that suggestion and moved out of the middle we would never know. I will be surprised if anybody (on this form) will have the obvious *eureka* suggestion for TiVo.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

twhiting9275 said:


> 10 + years of innovation = success
> top 3 corporate officers making $3m+ = success
> Enterprise value of 812m = success
> Cash of 242m = success
> ...


Then how come Tivo's EPS is most always in the RED? That would seem that they aren't able to generate enough income to meet expenses, no?

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

dstoffa said:


> Then how come Tivo's EPS is most always in the RED? That would seem that they aren't able to generate enough income to meet expenses, no?


Hello? Have you MET the economy? Everything is crap right now, Tivo is no exception.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Oh cry me a river.

TIVO: There is no money in a standalone DVR.

REALITY: Meanwhile,
3 new Roku boxes, Boxee is revised before it's big release, WDTVLive is getting rave reviews, AppleTV is revised and pre-selling pretty good. Not to mention the 40+ other devices like Popcorn Hour, etc..

Sorry.. but I still say Tivo failed to capitalize on it's name brand recognition and customer base to expand beyond the DVR to become a more media friendly and more powerful device. The sharks saw blood in the water and are now eating TV's customer base up. Consumers must now choose between a great mp3, streaming movie player and a clunky digital VCR. And for obvious reasons, the Digital VCR is losing. Tivo is scrambling to sign on as Cablecos DVR option.. as more and more people leave Cablecos behind.

The only real surprise in all of this was Tivo's customer base was SCREAMING at Tivo warning that this would happen, and still do.. that the writing was on the wall.. and nobody did anything at Tivo and just let the marketshare they hold fall apart. They saw money in patents and contracts and not in making what the consumers wanted.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> Anyway you can't say losing the satellite market hasn't hurt Tivo. Tivo could easily make a satellite set top box, but they can't. They aren't allowed to. So overnight they lost 40+ million possible customers.


Ummm.. the new HD DirecTivo is finally due early next year. They are gathering beta testers for it now, so they are serious.

As far as Dish goes, maybe you shouldn't sue someone you want to do business with. Just a thought. 

Tivo's main problem is that no one wants to buy a DVR. Doing that is very expensive. They really just want a cheap monthly rental.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

twhiting9275 said:


> Hello? Have you MET the economy? Everything is crap right now, Tivo is no exception.


But it has been so for a LONG time, current economy excluded. Except for the 12 months ending in January 2009, Tivo has been losing money. Tivo was losing 55 cents per share for the 12 months leading up to Jan 31, 2007. Economy was not tanking back in January 2007, especially the 12 months prior.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

bschuler2007 said:


> Oh cry me a river.
> 
> TIVO: There is no money in a standalone DVR.
> 
> ...


The problem is none of those other products are DVRs. Also if TiVo released some type of media streamer they would then have to deal with explaining why it can't stream from a TiVo. If TiVos could stream then it makes perfect sense assuming they could do it cheap enough to not only stream, but work as a good media streamer. Of course then they would also have to been more quick in releasing and developing a new flashier UI since I doubt the old UI would work as a Media Streamer with most of the menus being text based. Then again I am used to things like My Movies and Media Browser so I haven't used the stand alone media streamers.


----------



## wisny (Sep 6, 2010)

TiVo has had a tough recession. They've been losing subscribers like crazy. This alarms me, b/c I just signed up for a lifetime sub last month 

Is this article and Steve Jobs right, it's hard to make money selling boxes when cable/satellite give them away for free or a low monthly rental?

TiVo Sheds Another 125,000 Subscribers  Steve Jobs Is Right: Its Hard To Sell Boxes When Cable/Sat Cos. Give Them Away










More TiVo articles:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/new-technology/tivo


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

wisny said:


> Is this article and Steve Jobs right, it's hard to make money selling boxes when cable/satellite give them away for free or a low monthly rental?


The article isn't really an "article" more like an observation, and a biased one at that.



> the business model of selling hardware directly has always seemed nutty to us.


The truth:
Cable boxes are great, if you're into doing what the cable company tells you to do, and never expanding beyond their tiny brain. Those of us with Tivos know this and realize this.

What do I mean?
A cable box is severely limiting in that it does not allow you to archive shows, stream shows, transfer shows from A to B. The cable box tells you what you can do, when you can do it, and never expands.

A Tivo box is just the opposite. With Tivo, you get updates, you get multi-room transfers, you get on demand services through multiple providers, you get so much that it's just crazy! The cost for these updates? Just about the same that the cable company wants for their boxes. The only difference? Tivos LAST. My first Tivo was picked up 4 years ago (an s2), and it works still today. If I had another room and TV in the house, I'd probably keep it active, but since it's pretty much useless any more I'm passing on that sub in Nov. My second? Almost 2 years ago, Jan '09, an HD. That thing blows the s2 away, and it's still working, just like the S2, with zero issues. My latest? A premiere just out of box last night. I have every expectation that will last as long as the first, if not longer.

With Tivo, you OWN the equipment, you're getting a valued service. With cable, you're just getting a dumb box that you can't do a damn thing with except record.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

wisny said:


> Is this article and Steve Jobs right, it's hard to make money selling boxes when cable/satellite give them away for free or a low monthly rental?


Yes.

Imagine if the cell phone industry worked the same way. Would the iPhone sell like it does, if you had to pay the full retail price for the iPhone, if you had to pay a recurring fee on top of your bill for the sim card like you have to with cable to rent a cable card, you could still make calls, but you couldn't access the web or text message or use voice mail except through a separate plan through Apple since the technology only allowed you to make calls? Meanwhile if you used the AT&T phone you could do all of the above and you got the phone almost for free.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bschuler2007 said:


> Oh cry me a river.
> 
> TIVO: There is no money in a standalone DVR.
> 
> ...


umm - you do realize that not a one of those is a standalone DVR, not a one of those needs to incorporate cable cards or tuners or Guide data reliable enough to record well from or dealing with two constantly recording streams of media.
So great those guys can make a box for WAY less than 99$ and focus on the interface with no legacy code to wrangle with.
Also - can you define selling well? are they selling in the millions?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The cable company can still limit what a TiVo box can do. Just ask all those Time Warner subscribers who can't do multi-room transfers and people with SDV tuning adapters which flake out periodically.

As long as TiVo is dependent on the cable companies they can't really innovate beyond their streaming partnerships. Technically the cable companies could make the TiVo completely unusable as a DVR if they wanted to which would turn the TiVo box into an overpriced Roku box or Apple TV with a monthly subscription (though OTA recording would still work).


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

morac said:


> The cable company can still limit what a TiVo box can do.


Partially, yes, but they will never be able to fully control what the box can do.



morac said:


> Just ask all those Time Warner subscribers who can't do multi-room transfers


That's between the cable company and their agreements, honestly. it sucks, but copyright is copyright and will vary from provider to provider. That's one of the reasons I'm thankful to be where I'm at, I have yet to run into this



morac said:


> and people with SDV tuning adapters which flake out periodically.


Cablecards do the same thing, it's called hardware, and it sucks but it's part of the game, unfortunately


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> what does that even mean? What excuses? What bailout?
> 
> if you just want to rant then go to happy hour. We get that you dislike how TiVo is run, and no one has claimed TiVo is some innovator powerhouse but you still only offer up over broad and some plain inaccurate statements that add nothing to the conversation.


I may not be making myself clear, but it seems they are a lot of excuses being made here in defense of bad management decisions at TiVo.

These excuses bail out TiVo's top management so they do not have to face the consequences of their bad decisions. I believe we have bailed out enough Wall-street CEO's to last a lifetime and we do not need to bail out the well paid TiVo CEO, Tom Rogers or shield him from the consequences of his speculative decisions. In business there is no such thing as excuses only mismanagement.

The example of poor management in any company, anywhere and at anytime is when that company releases a "half baked" product that is not working correctly. Do I have to state the obvious?

This is not a broad inaccurate statement but my educated view that TiVo's CEO, Tom Rogers and his cronies have got to go before its too late and our TiVo turns into a brick.

Just like the CEO of NBC-Universal, Fred Silverman who had to go for his bad business decisions so does TiVo's CEO, Tom Rogers and his cronies for nearly ruining the Company for being an ambulance chaser lawyer in a tech company for not seeing problems until it was too late, for failing to keep up the tech for not being able to inspire and keep the best software/hardware engineers for not having a basic sense of how you make a product look desirable.

Many of us regrettably are leaving TiVo, but it is clear to me that TiVo's CEO, Tom Rogers and his cronies should be going out the door and not the TiVo costumers.

I am hanging on just a little longer to see if TiVo will continue to choke on excuses or find someone with the talent who can lead a tech company.

The TiVo costumers walking out the door are not living with anymore excuses. The question is will TiVo do what other successful companies have done and show CEO Tom Rogers and his cronies the door and replace them with people who can get the job done without rationalizing why it's not done.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

The biggest problem is that the competition has gotten better.

Back in the day, TiVo was the only box that just worked. Dish DVRs were crap, cable companies didn't even have DVRs and when they did they were also crap. Crap meaning, they wouldn't record by name, they'd miss things, etc.

Now? My HR24 is pretty damn good. Sure, tivo is better in some ways, but so is the HR24. Same with Dish. It's tough for TiVo to go head to head with a WAY less expensive DVR that does almost as good of a job...


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> The biggest problem is that the competition has gotten better.


Exactly. So, Tivo needs to get better themselves. However, it's hard to get better when your customers whine and complain all the time about features you're trying to add. It's a neverending battle, and eventually they have to realize you just can't please everyone, and throw the naysayers under the bus.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Adam1115 said:


> The biggest problem is that the competition has gotten better.
> 
> Back in the day, TiVo was the only box that just worked. Dish DVRs were crap, cable companies didn't even have DVRs and when they did they were also crap. Crap meaning, they wouldn't record by name, they'd miss things, etc.
> 
> Now? My HR24 is pretty damn good. Sure, tivo is better in some ways, but so is the HR24. Same with Dish. It's tough for TiVo to go head to head with a WAY less expensive DVR that does almost as good of a job...


Tivo is shut out of the Satellite TV market. It doesn't matter how good Tivo is to a Satellite subscriber.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Joe3 said:


> Many of us regrettably are leaving TiVo


And replacing it with what? If you're on cable, you only have a couple of choices other than Tivo - the craptacular cable DVR or an HTPC setup, either of which can be worse than Tivo depending on how well it works.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> The biggest problem is that the competition has gotten better.
> 
> Back in the day, TiVo was the only box that just worked. Dish DVRs were crap, cable companies didn't even have DVRs and when they did they were also crap. Crap meaning, they wouldn't record by name, they'd miss things, etc.
> 
> Now? My HR24 is pretty damn good. Sure, tivo is better in some ways, but so is the HR24. Same with Dish. It's tough for TiVo to go head to head with a WAY less expensive DVR that does almost as good of a job...


Satellite would be great if it didn't go out in my area anytime there's a thunderstorm nearby, which happens a lot. Not to mention that there are tons of places where you can't get sat because of trees, apartment rules, etc.

Comcast cable, on the other hand, is rock-solid, as are my Tivos.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

twhiting9275 said:


> Exactly. So, Tivo needs to get better themselves. However, it's hard to get better when your customers whine and complain all the time about features you're trying to add. It's a neverending battle, and eventually they have to realize you just can't please everyone, and throw the naysayers under the bus.


You just lost my interest with this statement. You're waving the Tivo flag pretty vigorously, but now you call anyone that disagrees with your views whining. You never were a good debater I suppose. Ignore...


----------



## SpiritualPoet (Jan 14, 2007)

TiVo has not been "adopted" by more people for the following reasons (not in any special order):

1. Unfamiliarity.
2. Uninformed store personnel.
3. No automated on-screen demonstrations through television receivers in retail stores. (Also: no national commercials from TiVo)
4. A sour economy.
5. More people watch rented DVDs and downloaded content than network television.
6. A multitude of cable channels from which to watch live programming.
7. Many people are not interested in time shifting but watch t.v. as a last resort at the end of their day for shorter periods of time than ever before. Television viewing is no longer "essential" in the lives of many people. Viewership is down across the board.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> And replacing it with what? If you're on cable, you only have a couple of choices other than Tivo - the craptacular cable DVR or an HTPC setup, either of which can be worse than Tivo depending on how well it works.


TiVo's numbers have been falling. They are being beat by the above mentioned competition that has put a better team on the field for their entertainment delivery communication system than the TiVo management who rather chase lawsuits than costumers to hide the fact they are incompetent failures in product development and design and are after all these years resting on the laurels of its original founder.

TiVo CEO, Tom Rogers and his cronies belong in the current record business not running a tech company. The record business that has been dying a slow death for years. There litigating is one of their core businesses. A top revenue sources built-in to their business model.

The failing record business is not the direction that a technology company should follow.

Management is why TiVo is not flourishing now.


----------



## wisny (Sep 6, 2010)

Joe3 said:


> TiVo's numbers have been falling. They are being beat by the above mentioned competition that has put a better team on the field for their entertainment delivery communication system than the TiVo management who rather chase lawsuits than costumers to hide the fact they are incompetent failures in product development and design and are after all these years resting on the laurels of its original founder.
> 
> TiVo CEO, Tom Rogers and his cronies belong in the current record business not running a tech company. The record business that has been dying a slow death for years. There litigating is one of their core businesses. A top revenue sources built-in to their business model.
> 
> ...


TiVo's numbers have been falling, but how do you know they're getting beat by the competition? What are the numbers for cable and satellite? Are those numbers rising, or falling?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> TiVo's numbers have been falling. They are being beat by the above mentioned competition that has put a better team on the field for their entertainment delivery communication system than the TiVo management


So are you going to provide any specifics yet? You do realize that even half baked the TiVo DVR has way more innovation and features than any cable DVR and few people are going the HTPC route (though this forum skews heavily for HTPC users simply because they get into the tech and are online in more numbers).

So are you saying that a cable company that already sends a big fat digital cable bill to its customers can beat TiVo due to the fact they can just bring out a DVR and hook it up all with just some added charges on the monthly bill. Well DUH my son's high school finance class could compete on that.

Apple has said they would not even touch the standalone DVR space and they do have a kick butt management team. The only other 2 companies to seriously try and compete in the standalone DVR space both failed. Replay folded after trying to stand up to the cable industry and was smacked down. Digeo could not sell enough Moxi's and sold itself off. TiVo has managed to stay solvent for 10 years. That is not making it the darling of Wall Street but it is simply hard to even survive in the space TiVo is in.

Should management put more of its resources into this standalone market and fully bake the premiere at the expense of following up on making deals with MSO's that have that ready made customer base already being billed, mentioned above?

let me provide the one solid detail to your case for you. Lots of subscribers are leaving via DirectTV - TiVo made a deal with DirecTV to provide a new HD DirectTiVo but has failed to produce it.
Now the counter argument - since TiVo is in a deal with another company they do not have sole control and need to meet DirectTV specs which are currently in a state of great flux. This likely is draining more resources than planned but getting that DirectTiVo out the door would be the number one thing to do to help subscriber numbers.

so I am sure TiVo management is eagerly awaiting your next pearls of wisdom on what they are doing wrong.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

wisny said:


> TiVo's numbers have been falling, but how do you know they're getting beat by the competition? What are the numbers for cable and satellite? Are those numbers rising, or falling?


You forgot the most important one, the internet.

TiVo can still beat all its competition. The window is closing fast for this to happen and it can't happen with the current top management because they have proven time and time again with countless mistakes they don't know how to run a tech company in today's economic system.

TiVo's leadership works like a bunch a frightened little mice when it's TiVo's technological potential that's the scary giant in the room. They're numbers show they are running things half-baked and half-assed backwards for a tech company.
.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Tivo IS still beating almost all the DVR competition on a technical basis today, but I agree that the more they add what most would consider to be peripheral features (Pandora etc.) and the less they concentrate on making the video and DVR experience the best it can be, the more they will fall behind in the future.

At some point they decided financially that it didn't make sense to keep the DVR at the top of the game, and it's sad. There are tons of threads here on missing features that many folks would consider important, as opposed to the almost total lack of innovation and new features released for the Premiere.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I am sure Tivo will always be a dominate force in the steam car segment, umm.. I mean DVR segment.

For right now all the media streamers are drinking Tivo's milkshake cuz for the younger crowd, cable is dead. Tivo needs to be much more than your grandpa's DVR to compete, and that isn't gonna happen unless they buy Boxee or WDLive.

http://newteevee.com/2010/08/23/the...feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+newteevee+(NewTeeVee)


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

bschuler2007 said:


> I am sure Tivo will always be a dominate force in the steam car segment, umm.. I mean DVR segment.
> 
> For right now all the media streamers are drinking Tivo's milkshake cuz for the younger crowd, cable is dead. Tivo needs to be much more than your grandpa's DVR to compete, and that isn't gonna happen unless they buy Boxee or WDLive.
> 
> http://newteevee.com/2010/08/23/the...feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+newteevee+(NewTeeVee)


They really don't have to buy anybody else. They just have to do what Boxee or WDLive do better. But they can't do that until they do what they do better and they can't do that because TiVo is not guided there and has the wrong leadership to take them there starting with TiVo's CEO, Tom Rogers.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> Tivo is shut out of the Satellite TV market. It doesn't matter how good Tivo is to a Satellite subscriber.


I keep telling people, the new DirecTivo is finally coming (for real) in the beginning half of next year. That is the exact opposite of "shut out". But you can believe whatever you want to I guess.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

twhiting9275 said:


> A Tivo box is just the opposite. With Tivo, you get updates, you get multi-room transfers, you get on demand services through multiple providers, you get so much that it's just crazy! The cost for these updates? Just about the same that the cable company wants for their boxes. The only difference? Tivos LAST.
> ...
> With Tivo, you OWN the equipment, you're getting a valued service. With cable, you're just getting a dumb box that you can't do a damn thing with except record.


Multi-room transfers don't work where I live. CATV on-demand isn't supported. I already have access to other on-demand services in my TV/gaming console. I have to call to order VOD -- how lame. My cable box has other features that Tivos don't have. Also, CableCard + Tivo service fees are only slightly less than TWC's DVR monthly lease. The break even point for FIOS is over three years. That's a long time.

You make owning the box sound like a good thing. Tivos only have a 90-day warranty. Boxes fail all the time. What do you do if it breaks on day #91? Also, eventually you'll want the newest box with the newest features, and you'll have to buy a new one. When renting, you just turn in the old box and get a new one at no additional charge.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> Yes.
> 
> Imagine if the cell phone industry worked the same way. Would the iPhone sell like it does, if you had to pay the full retail price for the iPhone, if you had to pay a recurring fee on top of your bill for the sim card like you have to with cable to rent a cable card, you could still make calls, but you couldn't access the web or text message or use voice mail except through a separate plan through Apple since the technology only allowed you to make calls? Meanwhile if you used the AT&T phone you could do all of the above and you got the phone almost for free.


Even better, after two years, when your model of iPhone is obsolete, you can get a new one with all the latest features at low cost. Not to mention getting a cheap replacement if you accidentally drop it down a flight of stairs. Not that I've ever done that.


----------



## wisny (Sep 6, 2010)

BobCamp1 said:


> Multi-room transfers don't work where I live. CATV on-demand isn't supported. I already have access to other on-demand services in my TV/gaming console. I have to call to order VOD -- how lame. My cable box has other features that Tivos don't have. Also, CableCard + Tivo service fees are only slightly less than TWC's DVR monthly lease. The break even point for FIOS is over three years. That's a long time.
> 
> You make owning the box sound like a good thing. Tivos only have a 90-day warranty. Boxes fail all the time. What do you do if it breaks on day #91? Also, eventually you'll want the newest box with the newest features, and you'll have to buy a new one. When renting, you just turn in the old box and get a new one at no additional charge.


So, basically, your argument for renting over owning is that it is a good thing to buy a very expensive insurance policy? Because that's basically the argument here - the box might fail, and if it does, the cable company will replace it. Do you rent a dvd player rather than buy b/c it might fail? Gaming system? Computer? If you pay a rental fee forever, and never own your equipment, you're paying over and over and over and over.

When you own the equipment, when you upgrade, you can sell to recover some costs, or you can keep the old stuff and have mutltiple boxes. When you rent the equipment, when you upgrade, you give back the box, get a newer, better box, and keep on paying and paying and paying.

Doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> They really don't have to buy anybody else. They just have to do what Boxee or WDLive do better. But they can't do that until they do what they do better and they can't do that because TiVo is not guided there and has the wrong leadership to take them there starting with TiVo's CEO, Tom Rogers.


so you going to get some numbers to show that Boxee or WDlive are actually doing well or not?

Do you think the money spent by TiVo to do that would result in increased revenues such that the investment of resources pays off?

To make a cogent business argument these are the kinds of details needed


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

I think the main barrier to entry for people is the cost of Tivo service -- $12.99/month is hard for most people to accept and lifetime is prohibitively expensive for the average consumer. Perhaps Tivo needs to stop charging for the guide data -- especially now that modem banks are unnecessary and internet servers can be maintained at far lower cost. Then to generate revenue streams: (1) increase the cost and availability of ads in the interface to reflect the increased user base from box sales-(2) switch to an application model and encourage developers to produce apps in a store setting like android and ipod; (3) increase use of digital delivery of content via amazon, etc. where Tivo gets a portion of proceeds for digital downloads and (4) charge for "advanced" feature add-ons--including an ad-free software option-- and *major* software updates like Windows, while still providing security/and bug fix updates for free. Maybe it will work and maybe it won't... but Tivo needs to try something new and undergo a radical paradigm shift if it wants to survive.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So are you saying that a cable company that already sends a big fat digital cable bill to its customers can beat TiVo due to the fact they can just bring out a DVR and hook it up all with just some added charges on the monthly bill.


Yes. It's more convenient to pay one bill. The cable company's DVR is pre assembled and will probably work right out of the box. With Tivo the customer has to acquire the DVR and then pay a fee to have the cable company technician complete the assembly by installing the cable card. Then the customer is responsible for Quality Assurance and reporting assembly defects to the cable company.

Anyone who would be happy if they could just use a VCR with digital cable should probably just get the cable company DVR.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

The problem is that it is much less expensive for the average family to choose any inferior product (cable DVR) than attain the unaffordable "best" product. This is the primary reason Vizio is the most sold brand of TV: *it is less expensive than the competition.*

Furthermore, the fact that Vizio is still the most returned brand of HDTV at Costcos and most likely a general agreement that the high end Sony and Samsungs are superior products, people just want a device that is affordable and gets the job done. Yes, they may droll at the $2600 HDTV and even the TiVo, but they just can't afford or justify the higher cost and go economical and are satisfied with their choice of economy.

Keep in mind that the masses live month to month, so all the "in the long run TiVo may be less expensive" arguments are irrelevant as the masses can't or don't shell out big bucks up front for a device that they can get from cable or sat for free and incur a modest monthly fee. That is the *ONLY* way Joe Blow and Joe Six-pack can _afford _to get any DVR in their home and they learn to live with what they have, and many really don't care for all the "expandability" of products like TiVo, still the choice for the affluent and rich.

Didn't anybody on this forum grow up in a family that could only afford SPAM and not quality meat. No matter how much we hated it, we were told to shut up and eat it because it was all we could afford and if his or her royal highness children want steak, then can go out and get it themselves. Now, shut up and eat your dinner. Cable DVR is SPAM while TiVo is a fine steak.

Sure tell them all the great extras or things TiVo does or allows, and, yeah, they want one, too, and the first question they will ask is "how much is it?" Once you tell them, the response is a curt, "Forget it. Too much money. We can't afford that. We'll stick with what we have. The cable DVR works well enough for us, anyway." That is why TiVo is desperately suing Dish Network/Echostar, AT&T, and Verizon. Yeah, they all infringe on TiVo's patents. Sure they do.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

BobCamp1 said:


> You make owning the box sound like a good thing.


Because it is!


BobCamp1 said:


> Tivos only have a 90-day warranty. Boxes fail all the time. What do you do if it breaks on day #91?


Extended warranty, though, honestly (and this is speaking from personal experience), you will rarely have that problem. I'm going on my 3rd box right now. How many of those have had issues? None, though I'm starting to notice the Premiere reboot issue individuals are talking about, but that's software supposedly, not hardware.
I picked up my first tivo 6 years ago (an S2), and have only recently tucked it away and disconnected it. Why? Not because it failed me, no, no, but because it was no longer needed.

My second Tivo? 2 years ago, an HD. When I purchased an HD TV, it was time to move the S2 to the bedroom. Is it still running? Absolutely.

Third Tivo? 2 weeks ago (premiere), so I can't comment on the stability of that hardware, but I can easily say that by going from past experience, the expectation is that this one will last quite as long as the first.

The point? Tivo's don't crap out after 90 days, as a general rule. Of course, with hardware, there's always going to be issues and bugs, but typically, they live long and fruitful lives.



BobCamp1 said:


> Also, eventually you'll want the newest box with the newest features, and you'll have to buy a new one. When renting, you just turn in the old box and get a new one at no additional charge.


Two points here:
#1 - Hardware only gets updated like this every few years. Just like your computer, you'll eventually want to upgrade, get the latest and greatest. What happens to the old? Well, most people won't find much use for them, or recycle the parts, but some do. So, by your logic, renting a computer is much more appropriate, as well?

#2 - This is the cable company you're talking about here. They won't guarantee you the latest and greatest model of anything.

I'm not denying the fact that cable boxen have things Tivo doesn't on them, but no cable provider (that I'm aware of) will allow streaming or transfers to your computer. Some may have Netflix, Hulu, etc on there, but most won't.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

twhiting9275 said:


> The point? Tivo's don't crap out after 90 days, as a general rule. Of course, with hardware, there's always going to be issues and bugs, but typically, they live long and fruitful lives.
> ...
> 
> Two points here:
> ...


Tivos live long, but YOUR Tivo might not.

Also, many companies now lease PCs because they need a tech. refresh every three years and it's cheaper to lease than to own. They also don't need to keep a lot of cash on hand for repairs or new purchases. A user gets a new cell phone on average every 18 months. DVRs get increased hard drive space, new features, and updates to allow compatibility with the cable system.

If you want the latest hi-tech gadgets, then buy a nice expensive DVR. But if you just want a basic DVR, leasing the box is very attractive. Most people just want a basic DVR.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> DVRs get increased hard drive space, new features, and updates to allow compatibility with the cable system.


I put a 1TB drive in my 2 TiVo HD soon after I bought it. My Series 2 DT and 240 model both have 750meg drive. I ahve never lacked for drive space on a TiVo.

My 240 model could not do MRV when I got it but now it can and also pull movie rips from my PC same as well. My TiVo HD can do that AND stream direct from Netflix with no PC in the middle or get movies/shows from Amazon. There is You tube as well and 360 radio, rhapsody etc..

can you please point me to the cable DVR that I would want to 'upgrade' to 

PS - my 240 model is going strong 5 years in - I swapped out the power supply once from a spare parts TiVo I had. No loss of shows and only about an hour of my time with no hassle with cable company.
I had one hard drive go bad - I put the original drive back in and then shopped for an inexpensive drive and put another 750 gig drive in. I lost some shows but any shows I really want to watch I record across multiple TiVo DVRs since I have so much room. Total downtime of about 2 hour Total, most of that spent do the drive upgrade on replacement since I had recorded some shows and had season passes set back the way I liked them.

in both scenarios above - I would have waited on cable company to get another DVR with a minimum of a few days of downtime, would have lost all settings both times and all shows the first time as well.

Is this what you are trying to tell me would be the better service from leasing from cable company


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

You're not using cable cards are you? I think you would have had to have your cable cards re paired when you replaced your hard drive if you were using cable cards.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

It depends on the device and company. 
You'd also think they wouldn't let me switch card from tivo to tivo without throwing a fit, but, no, I haven't had a single problem since I upgraded on Tuesday


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> You're not using cable cards are you? I think you would have had to have your cable cards re paired when you replaced your hard drive if you were using cable cards.


possibly, not sure if the host ID uses the hard drive in its generation.

but hey, cable companies could make that a simple phone call and some have others would make me wait a few days.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> but hey, cable companies could make that a simple phone call and some have others would make me wait a few days.


And some make you go through Herculean trials to get cards paired.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> possibly, not sure if the host ID uses the hard drive in its generation.
> 
> but hey, cable companies could make that a simple phone call and some have others would make me wait a few days.


Tivo is a much easier product to use if you don't have to use cable cards. The cable company DVR is already fully assembled and the customer doesn't have to manage the final assembly with the pairing of the cable cards. Your experience would probably not have been as pleasant if you were using cable cards.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> Tivo is a much easier product to use if you don't have to use cable cards. The cable company DVR is already fully assembled and the customer doesn't have to manage the final assembly with the pairing of the cable cards. Your experience would probably not have been as pleasant if you were using cable cards.


so because the cable company can not deliver a good product and/or install cable cards like they should I should just give them more of my money to settle on their product which does NOT do all the things I routinely use on my TiVo DVR. Is that your counter argument? 
BTW this is like the 5th thread you try and contradict me in. Your agenda is showing.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Yeah, I think you're missing something. Several things:
> 
> 1) TiVo often makes design decisions in favor of simplicity, rather than complexity. You're asking for another "keep until" mode that would only confuse most people.
> 
> ...


Never knew about #3 or well sort of did Ig uess now that I think about it. NIce to know. Guess my option wouldn't save the hard drive. I will not worry about that now.

#2 well it still means its using the tuner to record something and it ties it up when wife or kids want to watch tv live and pause live tv. They don't know what shows they can interrupt. They are trained to not interrupt any. You can't even have full live tv on a 3rd input because channels are now all scrambled. (not paying for a box or having a shtty DTA laying around for that and a DTA means another remote and only sd channels etc.)

Anyway a 3rd save option means i don't have to manually manage by save until I delete recordings of shows that I don't care too much about, but just want on the Tivo for rainy day watching.

I realize that Tivo wants to keep things simple. And I agree for the most part. This is one thing I would add based on my 5 years of using the thing. It would only give you 3 save options. 1 more than before.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I put a 1TB drive in my 2 TiVo HD soon after I bought it. My Series 2 DT and 240 model both have 750meg drive. I ahve never lacked for drive space on a TiVo.
> 
> My 240 model could not do MRV when I got it but now it can and also pull movie rips from my PC same as well. My TiVo HD can do that AND stream direct from Netflix with no PC in the middle or get movies/shows from Amazon. There is You tube as well and 360 radio, rhapsody etc..
> 
> ...


It should be noted that by being analog only you cannot get any of the channels in the digital or HD tier except those using clear QAM. You do have the option of getting OTA HD content on your Series 3 and better TiVo's though.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> You do have the option of getting OTA HD content on your Series 3 and better TiVo's though.


correct - I use OTA for my HD stuff - yet less money I send to TWC that would screw me with the CCI flag if I went to digital channel recording anyway


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so because the cable company can not deliver a good product and/or install cable cards like they should I should just give them more of my money to settle on their product which does NOT do all the things I routinely use on my TiVo DVR. Is that your counter argument?
> BTW this is like the 5th thread you try and contradict me in. Your agenda is showing.


I thought this was just a friendly debate. I didn't mean to offend you.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I put a 1TB drive in my 2 TiVo HD soon after I bought it. My Series 2 DT and 240 model both have 750meg drive. I ahve never lacked for drive space on a TiVo.
> 
> PS - my 240 model is going strong 5 years in - I swapped out the power supply once from a spare parts TiVo I had.
> 
> ...


Yes. Most people don't know how to fix electronics. You have hacked your Tivo. You have upgraded your hard drive and replaced a bad power supply all by yourself. Good for you. Most people will not even attempt to take the case off. There are no local authorized Tivo repair shops. If someone else (online) repairs it for you, you have to pay to have it shipped both ways, pay for the repair, and you are missing the DVR in the meantime.

As far as the widgets go, my gaming console does that as well. So will my new DVD player and TV. Other people don't care about these widgets. Why would they pay more for features they'll never use?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> I thought this was just a friendly debate. I didn't mean to offend you.


My mistake then. I guess it just looked the way it did as I posted on 5 or so threads and you happened in right after I did that and the result was your replying and debating right after me in 5 or so threads. No worries.



BobCamp1 said:


> Yes. Most people don't know how to fix electronics.


point taken that for a lot of users they have to call TiVo or some third party. However my main point that the cable company also has no 30 minutes or less service agreement and that the cable companies are not exactly blazing innovative trails on their DVRs stands.
I do agree that the cable company offers the insurmountable competitive edge of offering one stop delivery and service but they are not offering anything superior at all - just a 'good enough' and one place to call.

as for Netflix and all. Sure it can be on different pieces of hardwware, and sure I can go through the hassle of explaining how to get to it all with my wife and kids -or I can simply have it all show up in now playing or TiVo search and not explain anything at all. I have the end goal of lots of media showing up in one easy to use place including broadcast TV that I watch when I want to - trying to convince me there is no value in that or that leasing will alleviate my future upgrade worries is pretty silly and pointless.


----------



## Chuckster1953 (Sep 8, 2008)

1. TiVo Management has become too focused on becoming big brother then on innovation. They seem to be more worried about intellectual property rights then on making their product a must have item for consumers. 

Take the Premier unit. It is basically a Series-3/HD with a more glitzy, abet slower, user interface. It does nothing more of any significance to make me want to run out and spend big bucks to buy one to replace my Series-3/HD box. 

However, when I got my HD TV, it was worth upgrading from my Series-2 for the HD capabilities and for the ability to stream my Netflix to my TV. And also being able to view YouTube videos is really nice when you get bored with network programming. 

2. TiVo needs to get the word out to the everyday consumer why their box is so much better then the cable/satellite companies... For starters, Netflix, YouTube, plus the ability to transfer saved shows to other media such as iPods, DVD, PC, etc. 

Remember the old Macintosh/Vista commercials of not long ago. Were there was the fat IBM suit and the young slim Apple guy. Imagine that very same commercial with TiVo verses the Cable Companies DVR??? 

3. TiVo needs to be significantly competitively priced to draw the average Joe Blow away from cable companies marketing. It should be just one fee that is at or less then what it costs to subscribe from the cable company. 

TiVo has made one step in the right direction by combining a Premier Box with the subscription for a set monthly fee with a two year contract. Now they need to advertise this to the average consumer as "Why TiVo is better then a cable DVR" or "With Cable DVR's, you can&#8217;t do this... But with TiVo you can!" or "Buy a new TiVo DVR and no price increase for the next 2 years... Can your cable company say that?" or "Don't have cable or satellite? You can still save your favorite TV shows while away without having to buy cable!"

4. TiVo needs to take a lesson from Apple as it needs to be plug and play right out of the box, no extras to buy&#8230; No cable cards, no Tuning adaptors, etc&#8230;. Simple to use, but has all the features right there for the power user when needed, as the average consumer needs it simple and easy with no hassles. 

I understand that some of these limitations are the results of the cable companies trying to monopolize the industry, but TiVo needs to be more of an advocate for their customers with the cable companies when there are problems with cable accessories. It should not just be the customer leading the individual charge in the fight against them. 

Hopefully, when Built in CableCard Firmware gets approved, an all in one box will become a reality.

5. TiVo needs to be a NET top box and no longer a set top box. If the Premier would have had Internet access to the TV Network websites where there is a host of free programs for viewing, then I would have considered it a truly PREMEIR box and upgraded. As it is, the Premier box is just a Series-3/HD box, Version 2.0. Several TV&#8217;s are now incorporating Internet access built in for Netflix, Twitter, FaceBook, MySpace and the like. TiVo could leverage that to those of us with TV&#8217;s that don&#8217;t, plus being able to record your TV shows as well. &#8220;TiVo as your window to the world&#8221; type ad campaign

6. TiVo needs to improve their testing and quality standards much, much more&#8230; Issues of grey/black screens, sound problems, cable cards, and tuning adaptors with Series-3/HD, made the cable salesman job an easy commission to sell there inferior DVR subscription over TiVo. TiVo literally handed their customers to the cable companies. From all the wide and disparate problems I have read about, it would seem to me that the Beta testing of the Series-3/HD units did not go out to a wide enough sample population for a long enough time period to adequately test it under the varied, but common user conditions that are out there.

In years past, I have done some Beta testing, where I was given the product to test, plus as an incentive, if I actively participated and did my homework, I was rewarded with a new version of the final product when it was released or some other perk at no charge. I never would have made minimum wage for all the hours I had put in for what I received in return, but it was neat to be on the &#8220;cutting edge&#8221; and feeling pride in the product, which made me promote it amongst others, resulting in more sales for the company. Seems I written a review or two as well&#8230; 

7. TiVo needs to get their act together, or they will loose out completely. Maybe if TiVo&#8217;s stock gets low enough, Steve Jobs would buy it out&#8230; He then would have access to all of TiVo&#8217;s patients without the worry for royalties. With Apple&#8217;s penchant for innovation and advertising, along with their media connections through iTunes, he could kick some real cable butt!! 

Think of a DVR that has the power and features of an iPad connected to your TV, wirelessly controlled by a keyless remote that is similar to an iPod touch. (That could emulate the look of any remote out there on its screen to control all your devices with just truly just one remote! Or be able to make your own custom remote for the devices that just you have?) Wirelessly connect your mobile device and automatically download your saved programming and take it with you without the need for a PC. 

With all of the audio and video content that is currently available at the iTunes store, you could rent or buy a media selection (like Amazon or BlockBuster) or have it streamed (like Rhapsody or Netflix). That would give cable&#8217;s SDV some real competition as Apple would have access to both hardware and content.

Just some thoughts to inspire more thinking and conversation&#8230;

CHUCKSTER

PS: Tivo... Are you listening????


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Chuckster1953 said:


> CHUCK


About time you posted.....


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Chuckster1953 said:


> 1. TiVo Management has become too focused on becoming big brother then on innovation. They seem to be more worried about intellectual property rights then on making their product a must have item for consumers.


Tivo has HAD to become more focused on big brother and rights, BECAUSE of their consumers. Their consumers are the ones that redistribute programs without permissions. I'm not saying they're the only ones, but Tivo has to protect themselves and this is the only way they can.

As far as innovation:
The premiere and the HD are two completely different beasts. While I see the comparison between the two, they are completely different. For starters, the menu for the premiere is completely redesigned, and adaptable, as opposed to the old way of doing things.



Chuckster1953 said:


> Take the Premier unit. It is basically a Series-3/HD with a more glitzy, abet slower, user interface. It does nothing more of any significance to make me want to run out and spend big bucks to buy one to replace my Series-3/HD box.


The premiere supports full 1080p (not that the cable channels do yet), has a PIP option (yeah, not that good), discovery bar (again, not that good), disk space meter (something they should have been doing for years), and much more. Not innovative? Think again. Add to this the fact that the premiere can handle close to twice the recording size of the HD/Series 3, and premiere is definitely where it's at. Just an S3/HD box? Think again!



Chuckster1953 said:


> 3. TiVo needs to be significantly competitively priced to draw the average Joe Blow away from cable companies marketing. It should be just one fee that is at or less then what it costs to subscribe from the cable company.


Which they've done, as you acknowledged.



Chuckster1953 said:


> 4. TiVo needs to take a lesson from Apple as it needs to be plug and play right out of the box, no extras to buy No cable cards, no Tuning adaptors, etc. Simple to use, but has all the features right there for the power user when needed, as the average consumer needs it simple and easy with no hassles.


Out of the box, Tivo is functional, plug it in, scan for channels and play. The 'power user' will always need additional things such as cable cards, home networks, etc, to gain the full functionality out of a Tivo, but this isn't different from being, say a PC power user, or something else. Out of the box, the Tivo works



Chuckster1953 said:


> 5. TiVo needs to be a NET top box and no longer a set top box. If the Premier would have had Internet access to the TV Network websites where there is a host of free programs for viewing, then I would have considered it a truly PREMEIR box and upgraded. As it is, the Premier box is just a Series-3/HD box, Version 2.0. Several TVs are now incorporating Internet access built in for Netflix, Twitter, FaceBook, MySpace and the like. TiVo could leverage that to those of us with TVs that dont, plus being able to record your TV shows as well. TiVo as your window to the world type ad campaign


Tivo doesn't need to do any of that. Their focus is not on "internet browsing", their focus is on the TV, on entertainment. You want an internet browser, look to your TV, Xbox, PS3, whatever else you have. That's not Tivo's purpose. In fact, they can only HURT themselves by doing this.



Chuckster1953 said:


> 6. TiVo needs to improve their testing and quality standards much, much more Issues of grey/black screens, sound problems, cable cards, and tuning adaptors with Series-3/HD, made the cable salesman job an easy commission to sell there inferior DVR subscription over TiVo. TiVo literally handed their customers to the cable companies. From all the wide and disparate problems I have read about, it would seem to me that the Beta testing of the Series-3/HD units did not go out to a wide enough sample population for a long enough time period to adequately test it under the varied, but common user conditions that are out there.


You act as if these issues were the fault of Tivo. They're not, they're the fault of the hardware used, such as cable cards, tuning adapters, etc. Tivo, in and of itself is rock solid, but the adapters that these techs bring out are more often than not recycled, old, bad devices. You can't blame TIVO for the installer's deliberate sabotage.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

twhiting9275 said:


> Out of the box, Tivo is functional, plug it in, scan for channels and play. The 'power user' will always need additional things such as cable cards


Many cable companies have done away with most of the analog channels, because they use up much more bandwidth than digital channels. I can't get much more than the broadcast channels with guide data unless I have cable cards. I can pick up several QAM digital channels, but there is no guide data for them. Tivo is not fully functional with digital cable unless you have cable cards.


----------



## Chuckster1953 (Sep 8, 2008)

shwru980r said:


> Many cable companies have done away with most of the analog channels, because they use up much more bandwidth than digital channels. I can't get much more than the broadcast channels with guide data unless I have cable cards. I can pick up several QAM digital channels, but there is no guide data for them. Tivo is not fully functional with digital cable unless you have cable cards.


I have two properties with different cable companies. With the exception of OTA programming, CableCards would be required by either of them to get any form of HD programming with functional guide data.

CHUCK


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

twhiting9275 said:


> The premiere supports full 1080p (not that the cable channels do yet), has a PIP option (yeah, not that good), discovery bar (again, not that good), disk space meter (something they should have been doing for years), and much more. Not innovative? Think again. Add to this the fact that the premiere can handle close to twice the recording size of the HD/Series 3, and premiere is definitely where it's at. Just an S3/HD box? Think again!


LOL, nothing you mentioned here is innovative, it's basically HD 2.0 as Chuck said. It's just faster hardware coupled with a buggy HDUI right now, which still doesn't have the second CPU core enabled. Now if they had done more tuners, added co-op scheduling and single view of all DVRs, MRV streaming, etc. then you might have an argument. But they didn't, so what we're likely going to get is going to be a collection of marginally useful web apps like Pandora (i.e., not more DVR functionality which is the core of a Tivo). And most of these could have been done on the S3/HDs.

Put down the Kool-Aid mug.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

twhiting9275 said:


> The premiere and the HD are two completely different beasts. While I see the comparison between the two, they are completely different. For starters, the menu for the premiere is completely redesigned, and adaptable, as opposed to the old way of doing things.


Really?!?!? Please!!!



twhiting9275 said:


> The premiere supports full 1080p (not that the cable channels do yet), has a PIP option (yeah, not that good), discovery bar (again, not that good), disk space meter (something they should have been doing for years), and much more. Not innovative? Think again.


What are you smoking?



twhiting9275 said:


> The 'power user' will always need additional things such as cable cards, home networks, etc, to gain the full functionality out of a Tivo, but this isn't different from being, say a PC power user, or something else. Out of the box, the Tivo works


Power user??? The Premiere will not function without this "Power User" home network you speak of. It has no modem; no way to call home without a broadband connection a.k.a. "home network". Your credibility is beginning to suffer. Sure out of the box, Tivo powers up, but I know many people that could never activate a Premiere because they do not have a home network or if they have broadband, know how to set up a home network.



twhiting9275 said:


> Tivo doesn't need to do any of that. Their focus is not on "internet browsing", their focus is on the TV, on entertainment. You want an internet browser, look to your TV, Xbox, PS3, whatever else you have. That's not Tivo's purpose. In fact, they can only HURT themselves by doing this.


As they continue to do by adding pointless features and not improving their software.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

jtreid said:


> Power user??? The Premiere will not function without this "Power User" home network you speak of. It has no modem; no way to call home without a broadband connection a.k.a. "home network". *Your credibility is...*


Incorrect. Some of the features will be limited, but it certainly WILL FUNCTION. What's that about throwing stones and glass houses?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> Incorrect. Some of the features will be limited, but it certainly WILL FUNCTION. What's that about throwing stones and glass houses?


Without a broadband connection or buying the optional modem, the Premiere simply won't work since there's no way to complete guided setup. So he is correct.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

all the new TVs and Blu-ray players are looking for broadband now a days as well. TiVo works out of the box with an easy set of screens to hook to the home network.

If someone does not have a home network and gets a TiVo premiere then they really have not thought about what they were buying - TiVo is pretty resigned to not being that 99$ impulse buy anymore.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I saw GoogleTV showcased last night on a show(big promos lately). The one thing that got me was the guy said he designed it as (paraphrase), "I am sitting here, now why would I get up to use the computer/internet?" and worked on implementing that.

I almost crapped myself. A company designing a product from a use view versus adding features and seeing if anyone finds any use for it. Sadly, that's revolutionary.

Just tossing that into the mix.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> Incorrect. Some of the features will be limited, but it certainly WILL FUNCTION. What's that about throwing stones and glass houses?


Basically it will be an LED power supply. Perhaps you can enlighten us stone throwers. Without guided setup, what "limited" features are available?


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> all the new TVs and Blu-ray players are looking for broadband now a days as well. TiVo works out of the box with an easy set of screens to hook to the home network.
> 
> If someone does not have a home network and gets a TiVo premiere then they really have not thought about what they were buying - TiVo is pretty resigned to not being that 99$ impulse buy anymore.


My point was having a home network is not a "power user" thing to have anymore, but the general public does not necessarily have the capability to set up a home network. Q.E.D. The Geek Squad.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jtreid said:


> My point was having a home network is not a "power user" thing to have anymore, but the general public does not necessarily have the capability to set up a home network. Q.E.D. The Geek Squad.


Yep, they get to pay the Geek Squad to come do what we know is a mediocre job of it.

But the internet is coming to a living room near you  and there is no stopping it. The list of *useful* products using broadband is only growing


----------



## Chuckster1953 (Sep 8, 2008)

twhiting9275 said:


> You act as if these issues were the fault of Tivo. They're not, they're the fault of the hardware used, such as cable cards, tuning adapters, etc. *Tivo, in and of itself is rock solid*, but the adapters that these techs bring out are more often than not recycled, old, bad devices. You can't blame TIVO for the installer's deliberate sabotage.


I really need to throw up the BS flag on this one... As Tivo has some very real issues (and acknowledged by many other users and by TiVo customer support as well)

I have a TiVo HD unit that is connected to TWC analog cable, the internet, my tv, my surround sound, and nothing else... No cable cards... No tuning adaptors... About as basic an HD installation you can have... And at times it failed to do what it was purchased to do... DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDING.

I have had both grey/black screen issues and audio drop outs for some time. I have jumped thru all kinds of hoops with TiVo support and let them string me out until the box was out of warrenty, then have to pay $80 to exchange it. I am now on my third box. I have had the cable company out to replaced all my coax from the pole and thru my house with brand new quad-shield RG-6 and checked signal levels more then once. I have done Kick Starts, resets, in line attenuators, in line amplifiers, etc... Hopefully the 11.0j software will correct the problem. _Yet my Series-2 set in that exact same spot before and never even hiccuped once_.

Prior to me using it, my son had it at college and was using CableCards... had nothing but trouble with it... TiVo would blame the CableCards and Charter would blame TiVo and no resolution... So the next time he moved, he told both of them to take a flying F__K and got satillite and their DVR... TiVo lost another customer.. And makes me glad I did not get cable HD as originally planned.

Now I am reading hints that the Premier is have some memory issues... Glad I didn't jump on that band wagon right away either like TiVo wanted... They tried so hard to get me to upgrade to one... Makes me wonder if the Premier was more about fixing hardware issues then anything else???

CHUCK


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> point taken that for a lot of users they have to call TiVo or some third party. However my main point that the cable company also has no 30 minutes or less service agreement and that the cable companies are not exactly blazing innovative trails on their DVRs stands.
> I do agree that the cable company offers the insurmountable competitive edge of offering one stop delivery and service but they are not offering anything superior at all - just a 'good enough' and one place to call.


Well, with Cablevision on Long Island, if my box breaks, and the walk-in centers are open, I can simply disconnect it, and bring it in for an exchange. It might not be 30 minutes, but its sure to be less than an hour provided there aren't 50 people in front of me to pay a bill. I swapped out a SD box for an HD box in under 15 minutes my last trip.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## wisny (Sep 6, 2010)

bschuler2007 said:


> I saw GoogleTV showcased last night on a show(big promos lately). The one thing that got me was the guy said he designed it as (paraphrase), "I am sitting here, now why would I get up to use the computer/internet?" and worked on implementing that.
> 
> I almost crapped myself. A company designing a product from a use view versus adding features and seeing if anyone finds any use for it. Sadly, that's revolutionary.
> 
> Just tossing that into the mix.


IA! Reminds me of the guy behind Dyson.

btw, what show did you see it on. mebbe I'l tivo it


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

bschuler2007 said:


> I saw GoogleTV showcased last night on a show(big promos lately). The one thing that got me was the guy said he designed it as (paraphrase), "I am sitting here, now why would I get up to use the computer/internet?" and worked on implementing that.


 I wouldn't drink that glass of kool-aid just yet.

I think it's more like where else can we put our search bar and siphon off profits from its use and from placing little tiny classified ads next to its results?

And like the Google guy never had a laptop in this day and age? WE have this thing called wireless. You don't have to get up and go to the study to use your computer and the internet. 

Not to mention this is the same gtv Google asks you to control with your internet surfing phone or with a full-sized keyboard (never mind that you'll need a mouse to use the "full internet.")

I do agree with your general statement though that products should be designed around usage (and features should be added based on how those are used in the wild.)

I'm shocked Tivo has stagnated so much in the 6+ yrs I've been a customer. They've arguably gone backward even save for the fact I can record hi-def now.

I saw the subscriber chart for Tivo that someone posted here. I came in right at the peak of sub ads. Within 12 months they started losing subs. And it hasn't stopped since. IT's probably about the time they lost the satellite market.

Also about the time HD started making headwinds. IF I remember right Tivo HD boxes were very expensive then. Didn't one box push $1000 or something?

My Dad almost exchanged his Series 2 lifetime for one, but the price was just too much. (got him into tivo, but not he just uses Comcast boxes. To him they are pretty much the same at least he's never complained about them. They record his shows. )


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Also about the time HD started making headwinds. IF I remember right Tivo HD boxes were very expensive then. Didn't one box push $1000 or something?


I believe the original DirecTiVo HD model was around $1000. The original Series 3 was $800.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> My Dad almost exchanged his Series 2 lifetime for one, but the price was just too much. (got him into tivo, but now he just uses Comcast boxes. To him they are pretty much the same at least he's never complained about them. They record his shows. )


this in a nut shell is what TiVo facing. This is why spending too much on innovation will actually hurt the company. This is not a market space that can be easily expanded to sell to such folks.

oh and yes - the loss of DirectTV was what really pushed down on the subs


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

jtreid said:


> My point was having a home network is not a "power user" thing to have anymore, but the general public does not necessarily have the capability to set up a home network. Q.E.D. The Geek Squad.


Is being a "power user" really required to plug the USB phone line adapter into the back of the box?


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> LOL, nothing you mentioned here is innovative, it's basically HD 2.0 as Chuck said.


Where exactly has Tivo done any of those before? Oh yeah, they haven't. Even their competition can't put all of that together in one box.



jtreid said:


> What are you smoking?


Try the truth



jtreid said:


> Power user??? The Premiere will not function without this "Power User" home network you speak of.


Home networking is not a "power user" function. It's as simple as plug and play, with every broadband router.



jtreid said:


> As they continue to do by adding pointless features and not improving their software.


They're improving their software quite well. Just because it's not as improved as YOU'D like to see it doesn't mean they're not improving it, it just means that it's not as improved as YOU'D like to see it. There's a difference.



Chuckster1953 said:


> I really need to throw up the BS flag on this one... As Tivo has some very real issues (and acknowledged by many other users and by TiVo customer support as well)


YOUR issues are not Tivo's issues, they're issues in your local area. As a whole, the HD is quite stable and sturdy, just as the S2 is. Are there going to be problems? Well, of course there are, this is technology, nothing goes 100% according to plan, but those problems are not the MAJORITY, they are the MINORITY.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

twhiting9275 said:


> Home networking is not a "power user" function. It's as simple as plug and play, with every broadband router.


Geeze! Would you get off your soapbox now. My mother doesn't even know what broadband is; much less a router or a router with a switch. She does, however, have a DirectTV DVR that she is quite adept at using.



twhiting9275 said:


> They're improving their software quite well.


No, they are not. You are obviously not familiar with the many unimproved aspects of the software. The only thing that has changed since I got involved with Tivo is the one, buggy, slow, HD menu in the Premiere. Tivo puts out a feature and moves on.



twhiting9275 said:


> YOUR issues are not Tivo's issues, they're issues in your local area. As a whole, the HD is quite stable and sturdy, just as the S2 is. Are there going to be problems? Well, of course there are, this is technology, nothing goes 100% according to plan, but those problems are not the MAJORITY, they are the MINORITY.


Smoking a bit of that Tivo ganja mon? Try some rose colored glasses too.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jtreid said:


> Geeze! Would you get off your soapbox now. My mother doesn't even know what broadband is; much less a router or a router with a switch. She does, however, have a DirectTV DVR that she is quite adept at using.


My Father could not go to Best Buy either and pick out the stuff to make a home network.
However he can call his ISP (some local company) and they came and setup everything needed for wired and wireless. He can call them for troubleshooting help and has.

I could call roadrunner and they would setup wireless for me as well for pretty cheap.

Having some broadband in the house is not a major stumbling block and many products are coming on the market that use broadband. Moca is fine but really late to the game of solving such general network issues.

People may well just call for broadcaster DVR but it is not because of broadband hassles


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

twhiting9275 said:


> Where exactly has Tivo done any of those before? Oh yeah, they haven't. Even their competition can't put all of that together in one box.


The only thing even remotely 'innovative' in what you mentioned is the discovery bar, which currently leaves a lot to be desired and which will probably just be used to feed more ads anyway. Everything else (free space, live video window, more HD space) has been done elsewhere (hint - take a look at the Moxi). And Tivo still doesn't have recording indicators in the guide fer cryin out loud, which every other DVR has.

Innovative? Not yet. Maybe someday if the promise of the HDUI is ever realized, but not now. And it's still missing a lot of desirable, core DVR features that folks here have been asking for.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> The only thing even remotely 'innovative' in what you mentioned is the discovery bar, which currently leaves a lot to be desired and which will probably just be used to feed more ads anyway. Everything else (free space, live video window, more HD space) has been done elsewhere (hint - take a look at the Moxi).


yeah and that search that Moxi has that integrates Netflix and Amazon unbox and others along with the ability to start watching from any of those services right from the search screen is just like the google TiVo or the way Boxee shows all the stuff you can record off broadcast TV........... oh wait
only one device has all that in one box with the easy to navigate screens. How innovative.

Once TiVo gets its act together on getting the premier to run fast then I am still not seeing someone coming up with the argument on just how TiVo is behind.
I would note that the S3 and TiVo HD had the same speed issues when they first came out and now they are the speed measuring stick as the menu performance issues were worked out.

TiVo is bringing the web and my cable TV together in one box my whole family can intuitively use. Mark my words this is not the last you will see of the Web and TiVo working together.


----------



## wisny (Sep 6, 2010)

ZeoTiVo said:


> .... TiVo is bringing the web and my cable TV together in one box my whole family can intuitively use. Mark my words this is not the last you will see of the Web and TiVo working together.


:up: cool beans!


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Tivo in the right hands could be that great intuitive all around platform.

Now though? It's too slow and clunky except for the core DVR stuff. Even that is showing some age with next to no innovation since the Series 2 days.

oh, btw, why doesn't Tivo make Tivos without a hard drive. Put in a small amount of flash memory. Enough for the OS, updates and to record a show or part of show to get folks started and for testing/troubleshooting purposes.

Let customers buy their own hard drive. That way they could get the cost way down. Customers could add whatever capacity they wanted to and easily replace it or expand it. I'm sure reliability would go up quite a bit too.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> Tivo in the right hands could be that great intuitive all around platform.


so point us all to the "all around platform" that has out innovated all others


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so point us all to the "all around platform" that has out innovated all others


I'll let you know when I find it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> I'll let you know when I find it.


And that is the point - in the standalone DVR market - there is none.
among other DVRs, some come close on DVR functions now, but overall no real innovation.

All I have seen of a realistic nature in this thread points to the fact that TiVo actually is pretty innovative still but that alone simply is not going to open up some wider market


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> And that is the point - in the standalone DVR market - there is none.
> among other DVRs, some come close on DVR functions now, but overall no real innovation.
> 
> All I have seen of a realistic nature in this thread points to the fact that TiVo actually is pretty innovative still but that alone simply is not going to open up some wider market


You're right. I mean it's not like they aren't innovative at all. They were first to market with putting some internet content (internet-delivered content at least) next to broadcast content in search results afaik.

That's innovative I guess right?

But it's the lack of polish that makes it very difficult to see that. HDUI is too slow to enjoy this new feature. Remote isn't setup for typing searches either. You need to get the slide-out keyboard remote.

DVR tech remains pretty much the same as SEries 2 days as far as I'm concerned. IT's core capabilities are great, but starting to show its age when cable company dvrs get features Tivo doesn't have.

The Tivo Guide is nice in that you can edit it for the channels you want displayed, but it's a relic of 10 years ago at the same time. It could show more than it does. The filters could quicker to access. You should be make a channel a favorite or not right from that interface. You can't.

And the extra tivo features like Netflix, renting movies/shows, and computer streaming are all better done on other devices like the new ATV.

This is why I say in the right hands it could be great. And you would see a better all around platform. You would see more innovation.

AGain though it's difficult to say where the satellite/cable handcuffs end and where Tivo's inability to go beyond the core DVR tech begins.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> You're right. I mean it's not like they aren't innovative at all. They were first to market with putting some internet content (internet-delivered content at least) next to broadcast content in search results afaik.
> 
> That's innovative I guess right?
> 
> But it's the lack of polish that makes it very difficult to see that. HDUI is too slow to enjoy this new feature. Remote isn't setup for typing searches either. You need to get the slide-out keyboard remote.


At the end of the day, one must consider the law of diminishing returns. How much more better will Tivo have to be in order to draw in more customers? How much more 'extras' will be required? What will the cost of those extras be? Will the incorporation of the extras result in a cost that steers customers to other DVR's?

I am certain there is a sweet spot somewhere, and it's probably not where power users want it to be.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> But it's the lack of polish that makes it very difficult to see that.


 yup. When people say 'not innovative' all they really mean is that the TiVo DVR is not shiny and fast. That is then where the ROI argument comes in. Apple makes a living off shiny but they know they can expand the market with shiny. I still have yet to see the first hint of an argument made that shiny will expand the DVR market. I think a shiny TiVo would make us all happy, but sell very few extra TiVo DVRs. Thus 'no shiny' or 'bad technology management' come off the table as to why TiVo is not increasing subs or making an expected profit each quarter.



> IT's core capabilities are great, but starting to show its age when cable company dvrs get features Tivo doesn't have.


 aside from the obvious VOD/PPV interactivity versus cable card and SDV dongle what features do cable company DVRs have that TiVo does not?
I can think of showing recordings in guide screen...


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

The way some talk about Apple around here you may think it's a product you'd find in the now junked Sharper Image. The company sold junk that looked good through dozens of retail stores throughout the United States for years, but on February 19, 2008, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The product being sold has to work as promoted. Otherwise, being first doesn't mean a dam thing. Being first is not innovative. There was a first MP3 player that did work as promoted unlike the TiVo, but even it working no one associates Roxie with being innovative but they do associate innovation with Apple's I-Pod. The difference is the board of directors of a company and its CEO.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yup. When people say 'not innovative' all they really mean is that the TiVo DVR is not shiny and fast. That is then where the ROI argument comes in. Apple makes a living off shiny but they know they can expand the market with shiny. I still have yet to see the first hint of an argument made that shiny will expand the DVR market. I think a shiny TiVo would make us all happy, but sell very few extra TiVo DVRs. Thus 'no shiny' or 'bad technology management' come off the table as to why TiVo is not increasing subs or making an expected profit each quarter.
> 
> aside from the obvious VOD/PPV interactivity versus cable card and SDV dongle what features do cable company DVRs have that TiVo does not?
> I can think of showing recordings in guide screen...


Well I wouldn't quite put it like that.  I'm not sure why you picked the word "shiny." Where did that come from?  What does it mean?

I certainly think responsive, intuitive works well and as advertised and fast will help sell one DVR over another. That's how I see most Apple products so does that mean "shiny" in your world?

When people say not innovative they mean Tivo hasn't done enough. I don't think they are talking in absolutes as in doesn't have any new features or innovations at all. It's a general sense that they are stagnating.

It seems fairly obvious Tivo has remained pretty stagnant in even key areas. Why doesn't the TV guide show more info? Why can't I change KXBLI to NBC in the guide? Why can't I quickly access filters for the guide? Why don't they have a cure for recording the same show (episode) every time in airs in one day? Why don't we have MRV? ......

And sure folks also say Tivo lacks innovation because some of the new stuff doesn't work well (aka is slow to respond and crashes.) Most ideas are the easy part. It's execution that counts. NIce Tivo has some ideas, but where's the execution?

What's the point then if alot of the extra Tivo stuff doesn't work very well? I mean why are they putting these features of the side of the box at all if they don't help sell the box? They must help sell it then right? So no excuse not to do them well.

If Tivo did them well Tivo would offer even more value. But as it stands it's hard to really recommend a Tivo for anything other than core DVR features. And because Tivo has stagnated there for years and years the competition is now good enough.

Streaming boxes are more numerous than ever in the marketplace. I wouldn't need an ATV if Tivo's streaming features worked great. I wouldn't need it for Netflix is Tivo's Netflix implementation wasn't barely working and barebones.

And you'd see many more happy customers and happy reviews if the HDUI was responsive. Not sure how that would not transfer into more sales.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> I say why add anything to it all then? Why are they putting these features of the side of the box if they don't help sell the box?
> 
> No one is using them since they don't work well.


Tivo is starting to become a Discount Department Store. One thing that has a lot of things, but not the best things. And that is what I feel will hurt them in the long run. There is a reason why Alexander's, EJ Korvettes, Gertz, and A&S are out of business.

You need to find your niche and serve it the best you can. You'll never be able to satisfy everyone all the time. If the majority of people want a box that will record their shows, then your box better be the best one out there at a reasonable price.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dstoffa said:


> Tivo is starting to become a Discount Department Store. One thing that has a lot of things, but not the best things. And that is what I feel will hurt them in the long run. There is a reason why Alexander's, EJ Korvettes, Gertz, and A&S are out of business.
> 
> You need to find your niche and serve it the best you can. You'll never be able to satisfy everyone all the time. If the majority of people want a box that will record their shows, then your box better be the best one out there at a reasonable price.


Good analogy.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

The difference between TiVo and Apple is that Apple makes hardware that isn't built like some cheap Dell plastic crap, and it works properly. Apple enjoys a 30&#37; margin on the hardware and actually makes a profit. TiVo sells a unit made in Mexico with under-developed software, cheezy hardware, and the death-knell of any consumer device: a monthly subscription. Tivo needs to decide what to do; do you want the mexicans at walmart or the audiophiles? Either sell e a $99 box with a subscription or a $999 box with lifetime service. You will never succeed with the $299 box with subscription. You're too pricey for Joe Schmoe, and too cheap for people who want high-end equipment.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> dstoffa said:
> 
> 
> > Tivo is starting to become a Discount Department Store. One thing that has a lot of things, but not the best things. And that is what I feel will hurt them in the long run. There is a reason why Alexander's, EJ Korvettes, Gertz, and A&S are out of business.
> ...


I think Sam Walton would disagree.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> I think Sam Walton would disagree.


Sam Walton went in with a different goal than those Discount Department Stores. He stayed true to his core business, and didn't start adding different goals just because he wanted to be the one-all. He was the one-all from the get-go.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> Well I wouldn't quite put it like that.  I'm not sure why you picked the word "shiny." Where did that come from?  What does it mean?


shiny is that perception you get when looking at an iPad. It is slick and simple looking with a UI that is appealing to the eye. It does help overcome buyer resistance to a gadget that is not a need and keep those 30% margins.
Note however that Apple can not sell its shiny AppleTv and had to deep discount it to try and get some volume going. I doubt they have that 30% margin on the new AppleTV.



> I certainly think responsive, intuitive works well and as advertised and fast will help sell one DVR over another.


 to people like you and me who dig into what the box can do. To the guy getting sticker shock at Best Buy as his main source of research, and then reads about the subscription need on the box - not so much. Especially when he thinks, I will just call the cable company later and see what they offer.



> That's how I see most Apple products so does that mean "shiny" in your world?
> 
> When people say not innovative they mean Tivo hasn't done enough. I don't think they are talking in absolutes as in doesn't have any new features or innovations at all. It's a general sense that they are stagnating.
> 
> It seems fairly obvious Tivo has remained pretty stagnant in even key areas. Why doesn't the TV guide show more info? Why can't I change KXBLI to NBC in the guide? Why can't I quickly access filters for the guide? Why don't they have a cure for recording the same show (episode) every time in airs in one day? Why don't we have MRV? ......


 umm, my TiVo you hit enter on the guide and have access to all the filters, an extra couple of remote clicks I guess is your issue? My TiVo gives me the option of recoding the same episode or not recording it. I have never had it record the same episode within 28 days. We have MRV an it works great - it is copy though and copy protection flags thwart that. Streaming would be welcome but it is not a simple switch it on kind of thing for legacy boxes.



> And sure folks also say Tivo lacks innovation because some of the new stuff doesn't work well (aka is slow to respond and crashes.) Most ideas are the easy part. It's execution that counts. NIce Tivo has some ideas, but where's the execution?
> 
> What's the point then if alot of the extra Tivo stuff doesn't work very well?


 I have 8 or 9 TiVo boxes I have used 5 of which get regular use now. I have had some gray screen a few times and 1 or 2 netflix crashes. Do I start a thread on how my TiVo DVrs are wroking well? Arronwt tried for a while to note that his many DVRs worked great - people got tired of hearing it. People want to post about their porblems in this forum and not hear from those with working boxes. This leads to the perception that many TiVo DVRs are not working which is a false perception.
The reality you do have is that HD UI was slow out of the gate. Guess what - so was the TiVo HD and I could go back and match up a whole bunch of TiVo HD is horrible, don't buy one posts. Now TiVo HD is mature and has speed. Premiere will get there as well.

Which leads back to my point that you kind of tried to answer - even if premiere was heralded as the second coming and was all HD with sub second response - who was going to buy it?

That is right - us folks who already have TiVo DVRs. I think TiVo makes money on the premiere at 300$ but we all know that subscription count is the business model. even a fast, shiny premiere at 300$ or even 20$ a month is not going to cure that subscription count
until
you can bring it home, hook it up and start using it to get all the channels you get now without waiting on the cable company to come and put their paws all over it. That is the real issue and what TiVo should spend its resources on for long term growth and survival.
oh and make sure other folks do not just mimic the time warp idea that lead to the famous TiVo trick play.

I mean why are they putting these features of the side of the box at all if they don't help sell the box? They must help sell it then right? So no excuse not to do them well.

If Tivo did them well Tivo would offer even more value. But as it stands it's hard to really recommend a Tivo for anything other than core DVR features. And because Tivo has stagnated there for years and years the competition is now good enough.

Streaming boxes are more numerous than ever in the marketplace. I wouldn't need an ATV if Tivo's streaming features worked great. I wouldn't need it for Netflix is Tivo's Netflix implementation wasn't barely working and barebones.

And you'd see many more happy customers and happy reviews if the HDUI was responsive. Not sure how that would not transfer into more sales.[/QUOTE]



dstoffa said:


> Tivo is starting to become a Discount Department Store. One thing that has a lot of things, but not the best things. And that is what I feel will hurt them in the long run. There is a reason why Alexander's, EJ Korvettes, Gertz, and A&S are out of business.
> 
> You need to find your niche and serve it the best you can. You'll never be able to satisfy everyone all the time. If the majority of people want a box that will record their shows, then your box better be the best one out there at a reasonable price.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> If the majority of people want a box that will record their shows, then your box better be the best one out there at a reasonable price.


how do you define reasonable price when the competition already bills the person 50$ a month minimum and then ads on 10 or 15$ a month for the DVR in various fees but can advertise the DVR as just a small increase in your bill since the fees are things like extra outlet 

I also will ask for the billionth time - where is this DVR that does a better job of recording than TiVo?


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> how do you define reasonable price when the competition already bills the person 50$ a month minimum and then ads on 10 or 15$ a month for the DVR in various fees but can advertise the DVR as just a small increase in your bill since the fees are things like extra outlet


Reasonable price? You pay for the subscription to your pay TV service regardless. If you want a DVR, too, your choices are to go with the pay-tv provider's DVR, or get a Tivo. Now, what is the cost of each? $10 for the cable company, $20 for the tivo? If the Tivo costs twice as much as the provider supplied DVR, then the masses aren't going to pay the price. Some cable companies provide the first Set Top Box free. Only extra outlets cost additional fees. So that's one more factor in the economic equation.

If Tivo can charge a fee comparable to what the cable company is charging, that to me, would be 'reasonable' for many. That's how they'll get subscriptions. The cost of the hardware + the subscription is what will turn customers away.



> I also will ask for the billionth time - where is this DVR that does a better job of recording than TiVo?


Is price no object? That is the problem. I never stated that Tivo isn't the best DVR out there. All I've stated is that when you do a cost-benefit analysis, it's tough to convince someone to choose Tivo over the cable-co's DVR.

Sometimes you just have to realize that there may be no market for the best.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Note however that Apple can not sell its shiny AppleTv and had to deep discount it to try and get some volume going. I doubt they have that 30% margin on the new AppleTV.


Apple TV is already selling out at Apple Stores nationwide


> the set-top box is selling at a pace at least one quarter to one third that of the iPad, or at least 1 million units a quarter.


I would not describe "selling ... 1 million units a quarter" as "can not sell".

Apple TV Parts May Cost Less Than $64


> CEO Steve Job's redesigned "hobby" device is 80 percent smaller and much more profitable to sell, says iSuppli


And, selling a box for $99 when the parts cost less than $64 may not yield a 30% margin for Apple, but clearly they're not losing money on it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> We have MRV an it works great - it is copy though and copy protection flags thwart that. Streaming would be welcome but it is not a simple switch it on kind of thing for legacy boxes.


You keep saying this, but it's only half right. MRV as designed doesn't work in many environments with the same line up that cable DVR's have. If all you want is over the air or analog cable MRV works fine, but the latter is going away and TiVo hasn't future proofed their machines to fix it. At some point in order to use MRV (If TiVo ever decides to re-implement it) you'll have to buy all new boxes that support it.

Right now I wouldn't recommend TiVo to anyone that needs more than one. It's just too much a PITA and too costly without MRV. (Assuming you add boxes in the same room to avoid conflicts, and duplicate that number in other rooms to record the same content)


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Apple TV is already selling out at Apple Stores nationwide
> 
> I would not describe "selling ... 1 million units a quarter" as "can not sell".
> 
> ...


Steve Jobs himself called AppleTV a hobbyist product.
I also directly said "had to deep discount it to try and get some volume going" so yes they are now selling more and I also said "doubt they have that 30% margin on the new AppleTV" and so yes - the yare now selling more. The guys who say "DVR market has no business model" clearly understand how to sell the things they can sell.

So did you have a point or just want to disagree with me by proving all the things in my post


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> You keep saying this, but it's only half right.


How can I be half right when I clearly stated the copy protection flag limitation


Zeo said it if you just read before replying said:


> it is copy though and copy protection flags thwart that


now back to the original theme - Moxi has streaming and cheap stream only clients. Why are Moxi subs not flying out the door on this innovation?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

NotVeryWitty said:


> And, selling a box for $99 when the parts cost less than $64 may not yield a 30% margin for Apple, but clearly they're not losing money on it.


Unless you just use Apple TV for netflix streaming, you will be paying every time you watch something. The netflix streaming on apple tv doesn't show the video when you fast forward or rewind. I would return the unit if I found that out after I bought it. That's unacceptable to me. I'm not sure if they show video for fastforward and rewind on the paid content.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> How can I be half right when I clearly stated the copy protection flag limitation


It needed to be clarified that MRV only works with analog and OTA content, unless you are lucky enough to be using a provider that doesn't copy protect.



ZeoTiVo said:


> now back to the original theme - Moxi has streaming and cheap stream only clients. Why are Moxi subs not flying out the door on this innovation?


Roku, TiVo, and Moxie all have the same problem. They aren't advertising. The only place I've even heard of Moxie is in this forum. Same for Roku, except for the misc podcast that mentions them in a news story. People have to know about your product before they'll buy it.

TWC does a better job of advertising their boxes than TiVo does, but of course they present it as a feature of their service so its not perceived as something that could be outsourced to a third party. (Don't even get me started about how TWC deflects responsibility with other third party equipment...)

TiVo has to understand that word of mouth is killing them. They've dropped the ball on so many issues that the people that were talking them up a few years ago are now trashing them due to lost features and bugs that have lingered for over a year before being fixed. They need to advertise to a fresh crop of people too stupid to know better.  Or more appropriately to a group of people with fewer expectations about the product.

They also need to actively campaign against the cable providers on national TV, asking why the cable providers are preventing us from using things we were able to do before. Turn the cable company into a bad guy in the public's eye and only relent when the cable company backs down instead of trying to make deals with them because that's worked so well to date.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Apple TV is already selling out at Apple Stores nationwide
> 
> I would not describe "selling ... 1 million units a quarter" as "can not sell".
> 
> ...


WOW! A product that required no R&D? It designed itself! I'm sure it supports itself too. And it sells itself, so there's no mark-ups. And it never has any problems so free warranty exchanges aren't necessary. No wonder why Apple is raking in the money -- their products are true miracles!

If it's anything like products I've made before, you lose a lot of money in the beginning and you hope to slowly make it back up (and then some) in the end. Or not, if you're making it just to promote your brand name.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> It needed to be clarified that MRV only works with analog and OTA content, unless you are lucky enough to be using a provider that doesn't copy protect. .


you mean aside from the fact that I clearly stated the copy protection flag would thwart MRV 

and it now is advertising that did poor selling devices in? but word of mouth on TiVo that kept it from reaching all the folks who just turn on a TV and think a DVR is a novelty.

And just how is TiVo going to explain cable cards in a short commercial, let alone what evil the cable card is. You know what would happen after that commercial? calls to the cable company for a DVR would likely see a slight rise.


----------



## aaroncgi (Apr 13, 2010)

dstoffa said:


> Reasonable price? You pay for the subscription to your pay TV service regardless. If you want a DVR, too, your choices are to go with the pay-tv provider's DVR, or get a Tivo. Now, what is the cost of each? $10 for the cable company, $20 for the tivo? If the Tivo costs twice as much as the provider supplied DVR, then the masses aren't going to pay the price. Some cable companies provide the first Set Top Box free. Only extra outlets cost additional fees. So that's one more factor in the economic equation.
> 
> If Tivo can charge a fee comparable to what the cable company is charging, that to me, would be 'reasonable' for many. That's how they'll get subscriptions. The cost of the hardware + the subscription is what will turn customers away.
> ...


Actually no, you don't have to pay for the subscription to pay TV regardless. Tivo receives OTA signals. Which other DVRs under discussion will do that?

Tivo will never be able to charge what a cable or satellite provider is charging, because they cannot subsidize the high cost of the box with their $30-80+ monthly programming charges. Last I checked, Tivo's monthly fee was only $12.95 maximum, and a few dollars of that Tivo pays to the company supplying the guide data. So they can't afford to just give/lease the boxes for free like the cable company can.

Personally, we'll never have pay TV and a Tivo until Tivo is back in the satellite DVR business. Cable TV service is simply too outrageously priced. The only way to win is not to play.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

aaroncgi said:


> Personally, we'll never have pay TV and a Tivo until Tivo is back in the satellite DVR business. Cable TV service is simply too outrageously priced. The only way to win is not to play.


We have a winner!!!

DNNA gave up on ReplayTV for the same reason. They knew they couldn't compete.

But since you write that you are an OTA user, do you feel that many other OTA users would buy a Tivo? THAT is one market that the cable-co's and sat-co's can't compete with....

Music on AM was great.... back in the 60's....

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you mean aside from the fact that I clearly stated the copy protection flag would thwart MRV
> 
> and it now is advertising that did poor selling devices in? but word of mouth on TiVo that kept it from reaching all the folks who just turn on a TV and think a DVR is a novelty.
> 
> And just how is TiVo going to explain cable cards in a short commercial, let alone what evil the cable card is. You know what would happen after that commercial? calls to the cable company for a DVR would likely see a slight rise.


Currently it is poor advertising. I'd say that before the S3 and the THD word of mouth SOLD tivo. Now it's hurting them because the product has had so many problems. Also, TiVo doesn't have to name itself in the commercials to trash the cable companies if they do it as a public service telling people to support the FCC in opening up third party options for everyone.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> We have a winner!!!
> 
> DNNA gave up on ReplayTV for the same reason. They knew they couldn't compete.
> 
> ...


Add me to the list of OTA "only" w/TiVo(s). I'm not sure non-TiVo'ed OTA users would consider getting one if they are OTA to save money. TiVo is a luxury item. I went OTA to save on monthly expenses. Had I not had my Series2 and Series3 when I did have cable, I don't know if I would have gotten a Premiere.


----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So did you have a point or just want to disagree with me by proving all the things in my post


My point was to correct a misstatement ("Apple can not sell its shiny AppleTv"), which may have been true in the past but apparently is no longer true.

I thought you might actually care that some of your statements weren't true (you certainly aren't shy about pointing out other people's misstatements). I'm not trying to get in a pissing contest with you (and I generally agree with your overall sentiment in this thread).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Stormspace said:


> It needed to be clarified that MRV only works with analog and OTA content, unless you are lucky enough to be using a provider that doesn't copy protect.


Which includes the largest cable company in the USA, Comcast, a fact that you continue to gloss over.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

aaroncgi said:


> Personally, we'll never have pay TV and a Tivo until Tivo is back in the satellite DVR business. Cable TV service is simply too outrageously priced. The only way to win is not to play.


I disagree. I have two Tivo HDs on Comcast and am currently paying $55/mo. for all channels (excluding premiums), which includes some HD channels that are not available on sat. Plus, Comcast only charges $1.50/mo for additional cablecards here so Tivos are a better than STBs or DVRs, especially with the recent clearance deals and cheap promo prices for the HDs and Premieres. I just got off another promo where I was only paying $45/mo. and they switched me to another one. I can't touch that deal with multiple DVRs on either Dish or DirectTV. And I never have to worry about rain fade, which with thunderstorms in the ATL happens a lot.

YMMV, bigtime. If you're comparing rack rates and are not willing to call and get a better deal, you are a fool.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> WOW! A product that required no R&D? It designed itself!


The pet rock.



BobCamp1 said:


> I'm sure it supports itself too.


I never heard of a pet rock support line.



BobCamp1 said:


> And it sells itself, so there's no mark-ups.


I don't think there were any 3rd party distribution channels.



BobCamp1 said:


> And it never has any problems so free warranty exchanges aren't necessary.


I never heard of one for a pet rock.



BobCamp1 said:


> No wonder why Apple is raking in the money -- their products are true miracles!


I would just say they are a lot like a pet rock.



BobCamp1 said:


> If it's anything like products I've made before, you lose a lot of money in the beginning and you hope to slowly make it back up (and then some) in the end. Or not, if you're making it just to promote your brand name.


It depends on the product. Frequently, Microsoft spends almost nothing to create a product that doesn't work, rakes in $Billions on selling CDs that cost them a few cents to produce, and then rakes in $Billions more on tech support fees without ever bothering to actually get the customer's product to work. I have to hand it to them. They not only figured out how to sell pet rocks in unprecedented numbers for an unprecedented amount of money, they figured out how to get people to continue paying after they have already bought the pet rock.

Cynicism aside, every product is different. Some require large amounts of R&D, others not so much. While they no doubt do spend some on R&D, I doubt that Chicago Cutlery has a very large R&D budget, and I suspect most of that goes into the "D" - in particular aesthetic design. I'm willing to bet they recover the costs of a first production run rather quickly. Texas Instruments, OTOH, probably has nearly as large an R&D budget as they do a manufacturing budget, and I expect it takes many years to recover the costs of a first production run.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Which includes the largest cable company in the USA, Comcast, a fact that you continue to gloss over.


In fairness, it doesn't matter if Comcast is the largest CATV company in the U.S. if the consumer in question doesn't live in a Comcast area. What's worse, purchasing a fairly expensive item like the TiVo may be even more daunting if the consumer in question has any notion he might potentially move in the next year or two. Finally, even though Comcast is the largest single MSO, I don't believe they account for anywhere nearly 50% of CATV penetration.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Steve Jobs himself called AppleTV a hobbyist product.


TiVo is also to an extent a hobbyist product, or if you will enjoys a substantially hobbyist niche of a more broadly based sector. The point is, being a hobbyist or niche product in no way makes a product a failure. ENYA has been selling model engines for over 30 years, and although their income is quite small compared even to the comparatively moderately sized TiVo, Inc, it is still a successful company. Indeed, LM Cox manufacturing was arguably also a successful company, despite it having filed for bankruptcy. The founder, Leroy Cox, sold the company in 1969 because of failing health. At that point, the buyer, Leisure Dynamics, continued to expand the Cox line of engines and models. Leisure Dynamics went bust in 1981, but the Cox division was purchased out of bankruptcy and operated profitably well into the 1990s. With the decline in popularity of glow plug engines, all the manufacturing facilities and parts were eventually sold off in 2009. Although the company no longer exists (it was sold this January), Cox engines are still being sold as "New" on e-bay and elsewhere, despite the models being sold not having been in production for several years. It was a successful company. It did what the founder intended until well after his death. It provided low costs models and model engines to hobbyists who enjoyed the items they purchased.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> shiny is that perception you get when looking at an iPad. It is slick and simple looking with a UI that is appealing to the eye. It does help overcome buyer resistance to a gadget that is not a need and keep those 30% margins.
> Note however that Apple can not sell its shiny AppleTv and had to deep discount it to try and get some volume going. I doubt they have that 30% margin on the new AppleTV.
> 
> to people like you and me who dig into what the box can do. To the guy getting sticker shock at Best Buy as his main source of research, and then reads about the subscription need on the box - not so much. Especially when he thinks, I will just call the cable company later and see what they offer.
> ...


Tivo is shiny too. Difference is Apple's crap works and works well. It's a joy to use. That's why they've been successful.

Tivo was good at this, but they've stagnated and even went backwards.

Your whole argument pretty much says, "Tivo shouldn't make their devices better because it won't help sell more Tivos except to people that already own them. "

Well I say if Tivo can't even sell new Premieres to current Tivo owners because current Tivo owners find them sub-standard then how the hell is Tivo going to sell them to the rest of the public?

The rest of the public can already rent cheaper, no-risk flakey DVRs from their service provider.

While I definitely think Tivo can't do much given the stacked DVR market it definitely won't help them to make their products worse.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> Comcast only charges $1.50/mo for additional cablecards here...


Since the HD, you've only needed one M-card. That card should be included in the outlet fee which one is included with your bill. Additional outlets are charged about $8.95/mo (depending on your sub) and include one cable card or STB. That is the way it is written. HOWEVER!!!!! Comcast is so inconsistent about how it charges. Some people are charged for the first cablecard per outlet while others are not. Some people are charged an additional outlet fee for a second card in an S3 while others are not. Your statement may be correct for you, but you woefully over state the status quo. Comcast is a conglomerate of uncoordinated idiots.



slowbiscuit said:


> If you're comparing rack rates and are not willing to call and get a better deal, you are a fool.


I'm not sure what you mean by "rack rates", but I, at all costs, avoid calling Comcast for anything unnecessary. Every time I do, something either gets screwed up on my bill or disabled on or changed in what I receive. I finally got my bill to a point that I can stomach it a few months ago, even though it's still incorrect, and I just noticed this weekend that the morons have disabled some of the HD channels on my single cablecard in my S3 (Which only has one because they charged me for 27 months an additional outlet fee ($241.65) for the second cable card until they began itemizing my bill and I found out). Sure, call them to get something fixed or a reduced rate, but every couple of months or so, your account will be swept by the matrix and if your bill doesn't match what you are receiving or being charged for, POOF!!!!, you will be re-assimilated.

Now, back on topic. This is, again, why Tivo is having problems. Comcast is flat-out sabotaging them.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> The rest of the public can already rent cheaper, no-risk flakey DVRs from their service provider.


And the cable co's know how to commission their boxes without the need for a truck roll. I quote from my Comcast district office. "We do not support Tivo boxes." Read as, we'll do whatever we can to make it difficult to use 3rd party equipment because the FCC made us and we don't get your $$$.

I reiterate, this is another reason Tivo has the deck stacked against them. It's just plain easier to get the cable co's DVR.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

jtreid said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "rack rates", but I, at all costs, avoid calling Comcast for anything unnecessary.


Rack Rates are rates the posted (or mailed) retail rates for their services, before any credits or bundling deals, like a Double-Play or Triple-Play promotion.

Indeed... if you are paying rack rates for your cable-service, you should call and inquire how you can 'lower' your bill by bundling or adding a service, like internet or phone...



> Now, back on topic. This is, again, why Tivo is having problems. Comcast is flat-out sabotaging them.


Tivo is having problems because there are other lower (or similar) priced alternatives out there, without the end-user having to lay out the capital cost for the box.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

aaroncgi said:


> Tivo will never be able to charge what a cable or satellite provider is charging, because they cannot subsidize the high cost of the box with their $30-80+ monthly programming charges. Last I checked, Tivo's monthly fee was only $12.95 maximum, and a few dollars of that Tivo pays to the company supplying the guide data. So they can't afford to just give/lease the boxes for free like the cable company can.


Well, my earlier quote of $20 / month for Tivo was for Tivo Service + a Premiere. Again, $12.95 / mo does not include the cost of required hardware. Tivo needs to sell their hardware, where the cable company does not.

The problem is, that Tivo may never be able to get enough subscribers to recover R&D costs. You either raise the cost of the hardware, which will scare buyers away, or you raise the cost of the monthly service, which will scare buyers away.

Tivo may not be a success in the long run because they cannot sell enough of their product at a cost the general public is willing to pay.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## aaroncgi (Apr 13, 2010)

dstoffa said:


> We have a winner!!!
> 
> DNNA gave up on ReplayTV for the same reason. They knew they couldn't compete.
> 
> ...


No, I doubt many other OTA users would buy a Tivo. I think the overwhelming majority of people would grudgingly go OTA only after they have exhausted all other means to cut their monthly bills, and got over the shock that they actually can receive all the major broadcast networks with an antenna. For someone to go OTA and then fork out $700 for a Premiere plus lifetime (or $300 plus $12.95 a month), would just not be seen as a viable option - even though either is much less than the average cable/satellite bill after a year or two.

The reason we got a Tivo was that we were hooked on the benefits of a DVR, having been with Dish for years. We refused to give up the convenience and time saving features of the DVR, but also didn't want to be paying $45+ per month any longer. For people who've never used a DVR, there's no real incentive to go with a Tivo. And eventually, if you cancel enough times, cable or satellite will usually finally admit that they have a lower level of service than what they advertise, if you just want the major broadcast networks - like $10-20 a month.

Now that we have the Tivo, we really do value the extra features (most notably Netflix) and wouldn't want to go back to a plain jane DVR.

It's pretty well recognized that the average American doesn't look long term when it comes to major expenditures. They only see how much it costs per month. So a $700 one time investment for life is seen as way too high, but $50-80 per month for life, sure, no problem! Anyone who has ever purchased a car from a dealership knows this only too well, it's what they count on. To be fair, setting an antenna up properly can take some legwork and experimentation, epsecially if you have challenging topography and/or are out on the fringe, which is more than most people want to do. And it helps to not be scared of heights. Most just want plug and play, and don't even care about the picture or audio quality as long as they're intelligible.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

I am a firm believer in OTA + TiVo. Great picture quality and with NetFlix and Amazon, I will may never need to set foot in a video rental place again. I have more shows on my NPL than I can ever watch and with the other viewing options I am basically overwhelmed with watchable media. Sometimes I miss ESPN and the NFL channel, but I get by..... And I save a good amount of money over cable and sat.

If it wasn't for the sports and maybe the news channels (and maybe the premier channels), everyone would probably do this. You get all the same movies and shows - though some not as soon, but you will get them. You miss some of the sports and some of the 24hr news channels (ahem, the internet always has the news). Good times.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Setting up an antenna is nice, but it doesn't get me all the football I want in full HD with DD5.1 sound on the ESPN networks. I will gladly pay the man his money every month to get all the sports I want to watch.

To each his own.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Thought about OTA, but FiosTV is too cheap for me. 

The price you're paying for cable or satellite and what you watch and how much greatly influences the viability of the OTA + Netflix/Amazon or iTunes option.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

slowbiscuit said:


> Setting up an antenna is nice, but it doesn't get me all the football I want in full HD with DD5.1 sound on the ESPN networks. I will gladly pay the man his money every month to get all the sports I want to watch.
> 
> To each his own.


You are certainly right about the football thing. I only have 4-5 games to choose from each week, unless I stream the game after it has been played. However, I do enjoy the games I watch from OTA in stunning HD with DD5.1. I just can't justify paying $70+ extra a month to watch more games on cable, when I already have more than I can watch available to me.

Now if I could just add some ESPN and NFL (as there is nothing else on cable I need) for a small charge I would jump on it. $70-100 a month for a year ($840 to $1200 a year) is better spent upgrading and improving my HT experience, among other things - at least for me. Each to his own.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Note however that Apple can not sell its shiny AppleTv and had to deep discount it to try and get some volume going. I doubt they have that 30% margin on the new AppleTV.





ZeoTiVo said:


> Steve Jobs himself called AppleTV a hobbyist product.
> I also directly said "had to deep discount it to try and get some volume going" so yes they are now selling more and I also said "doubt they have that 30% margin on the new AppleTV" and so yes - the yare now selling more.





NotVeryWitty said:


> My point was to correct a misstatement ("Apple can not sell its shiny AppleTv"), which may have been true in the past but apparently is no longer true.


and I have clearly been speaking of not being able to sell the older appleTV at the higher price point, which is why they deep discounted the product to increase sales.

That is not an inaccurate statement and I think you have a misperception of what I was posting


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and I have clearly been speaking of not being able to sell the older appleTV at the higher price point, which is why they deep discounted the product to increase sales.
> 
> That is not an inaccurate statement and I think you have a misperception of what I was posting


It is inaccurate to say they deeply discounted it.

It implies it is the same product and that it's basically on clearance.

The new ATV isn't discounted at all. The list price is $100 and Apple sells it for $100. No discount.

It is much cheaper than the previous ATV and yes that should help sales.

But it's received a makeover. NO hard drive. No Intel cpu. No component output. Much smaller. ....

They brought the costs down by going this direction. They didn't "deeply discount" it.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> It is inaccurate to say they deeply discounted it.
> 
> It implies it is the same product and that it's basically on clearance.
> 
> ...


I disagree. By changing the configuration so that the price point is more attractive makes it essentially a discounted price. If it were selling well in the previous configuration it wouldn't have been re-engineered. Apple TV was a flop of massive proportions  so they changed it by finding ways to cut the price. In effect a discount from the previous model.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> I disagree. By changing the configuration so that the price point is more attractive makes it essentially a discounted price. If it were selling well in the previous configuration it wouldn't have been re-engineered. Apple TV was a flop of massive proportions  so they changed it by finding ways to cut the price. In effect a discount from the previous model.


I think many companies would like a "flop of massive proportions" like the first Apple TV. Supposedly they sold a few million over the years.
The vast majoirty of media players have only sold in the thousands.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> I disagree. By changing the configuration so that the price point is more attractive makes it essentially a discounted price. If it were selling well in the previous configuration it wouldn't have been re-engineered. Apple TV was a flop of massive proportions  so they changed it by finding ways to cut the price. In effect a discount from the previous model.


Hogwash.

Every electronics product is re-engineered sooner or later to make it cheaper/faster and smaller if possible including every best selling electronics product. And of course products sell better the cheaper they are.

Would you say Tivo deeply discounted their Premiere? A few years back a hi-def Tivo was $800+.

Tivo must have deeply discounted the dvr then.

Tivo should be advertising the Premiere as deeply discounted - $500 off.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

daveak said:


> You are certainly right about the football thing. I only have 4-5 games to choose from each week, unless I stream the game after it has been played. However, I do enjoy the games I watch from OTA in stunning HD with DD5.1. I just can't justify paying $70+ extra a month to watch more games on cable, when I already have more than I can watch available to me.
> 
> Now if I could just add some ESPN and NFL (as there is nothing else on cable I need) for a small charge I would jump on it. $70-100 a month for a year ($840 to $1200 a year) is better spent upgrading and improving my HT experience, among other things - at least for me. Each to his own.


A bit OT, but...

Move to the Hudson Valley in NY, where Time Warner includes ESPN in the Broadcast Basic Tier at $15.50/mo... Sadly, no NFL Network, but as long as a local team is playing (Jets or Giants), then the came gets put on a local OTA station.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> It is inaccurate to say they deeply discounted it.
> 
> It implies it is the same product and that it's basically on clearance.
> 
> ...


Oh yeah - I forgot they took the hard drive out and added in iOS to sell apps. FYI -That was not a step nearer to a DVR, which was my point all along.

So you can parse the whole discussion or you can address the main point - Steve Jobs calls ATV a hobbyist device and not even really a product. He also says there is no business model in devices to get broadcast content.

and to round out the discussion Apple has had ten times the success of things like Boxee or WD media player


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Oh yeah - I forgot they took the hard drive out and added in iOS to sell apps. FYI -That was not a step nearer to a DVR, which was my point all along.
> 
> So you can parse the whole discussion or you can address the main point - Steve Jobs calls ATV a hobbyist device and not even really a product. He also says there is no business model in devices to get broadcast content.
> 
> and to round out the discussion Apple has had ten times the success of things like Boxee or WD media player


Yes you're mostly preaching to the choir there.

I was just replying to your last post. Mainly because of your use of "deeply discounted." IT's doublespeak. SAme with your use of "shiny."


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> Hogwash.
> 
> Every electronics product is re-engineered sooner or later to make it cheaper/faster and smaller if possible including every best selling electronics product. And of course products sell better the cheaper they are.
> 
> ...


TiVo discounted the S3 and THD before adding new models. And when the new models came along I remember hearing and seeing ads about TiVo being more affordable than ever. Yes, I think TiVo has discounted their prices on newer models.

What is so telling about Apple however is that they rarely if ever discount a new model. They may offer the old model at a discounted price, but the current model is almost always the same price as the one before it. So, bringing out an Apple TV that has a much lower price than the previous generation is definitely a discount.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> Yes you're mostly preaching to the choir there.
> 
> I was just replying to your last post. Mainly because of your use of "deeply discounted." IT's doublespeak. SAme with your use of "shiny."


I will grant you 'deeply discounted" did not take into account that Apple did indeed design a lot of cost out of the device.

however "shiny" is an acceptable slang term currently in use. many consider Apple products to be shiny and that is why they are so loyal. The term came into use after the show 'FireFly used it.

also your id was slang on that show
# triplex - A slang term for a planet side shopping and entertainment megaplex.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> TiVo discounted the S3 and THD before adding new models. And when the new models came along I remember hearing and seeing ads about TiVo being more affordable than ever. Yes, I think TiVo has discounted their prices on newer models.
> 
> What is so telling about Apple however is that they rarely if ever discount a new model. They may offer the old model at a discounted price, but the current model is almost always the same price as the one before it. So, bringing out an Apple TV that has a much lower price than the previous generation is definitely a discount.


Discounting implies the product is the same.

The new ATV is not the same product as the old ATV.

... and so you can't say it was deeply discounted.

Otherwise the Premiere is a deeply discounted Premiere XL. ANd a Toyota Camry LE is a deeply discounted Camry XLE. ......

Obviously though I get that the new ATV is $100 and the old one was $230. And the difference in abstract is a deep discount.

For some it is as if Apple deeply discounted the product. Seeing as how I am fine with the loss of the hard drive, aluminum body, Intel cpu and component outputs among other hardware features; it is as if the product was deeply discounted.

But it wouldn't be accurate to say that.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I will grant you 'deeply discounted" did not take into account that Apple did indeed design a lot of cost out of the device.
> 
> however "shiny" is an acceptable slang term currently in use. many consider Apple products to be shiny and that is why they are so loyal. The term came into use after the show 'FireFly used it.
> 
> ...


Well, to me, "shiny" was doublespeak in the context you used it in.

Doublespeak meaning "deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language."


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> Well, to me, "shiny" was doublespeak in the context you used it in.
> 
> Doublespeak meaning "deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language."


I was not being deliberately anything - you simply did not know the slang word. Just deal with that and move on


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

jtreid said:


> Since the HD, you've only needed one M-card. That card should be included in the outlet fee which one is included with your bill. Additional outlets are charged about $8.95/mo (depending on your sub) and include one cable card or STB.


It varies a great deal from MSO to MSO. TW Cable - at least here in San Antonio - charges nothing per outlet, but charges $2.99 per CableCard. I don't pay any more for my ten outlets than someone with one outlet, but I do pay almost $15 a month for four CableCards in two S3s and one in a THD.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I was not being deliberately anything - you simply did not know the slang word. Just deal with that and move on


I did deal with it. I called you on it. 

But yes I do agree - let's move on.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> It varies a great deal from MSO to MSO. TW Cable - at least here in San Antonio - charges nothing per outlet, but charges $2.99 per CableCard. I don't pay any more for my ten outlets than someone with one outlet, but I do pay almost $15 a month for four CableCards in two S3s and one in a THD.


Oh well, since this thread has gone completely off topic, I will respond to this. We were talking about Comcast. You are talking about Time Warner. I don't know why some people try to add value when all they really do is add to the confusion. You're response is irrelevant to the already off-topic discussion.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> I did deal with it. I called you on it.


called me on what? Your ignorance of the slang term 

oh - and the thread has gone off topic since no one can provide an example of someone doing things better than TiVo in the Standalone DVR space or explain why Apple is wrong that there is no real business model in the standalone DVR market and that even surviving in this space is pretty darn good.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> called me on what? Your ignorance of the slang term
> 
> oh - and the thread has gone off topic since no one can provide an example of someone doing things better than TiVo in the Standalone DVR space.


Replays were better at in-home sharing.... They stream, not copy / transfer. They are / were great for show sharing (IVS)....

(Couldn't resist)

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dstoffa said:


> Replays were better at in-home sharing.... They stream, not copy / transfer. They are / were great for show sharing (IVS)....
> 
> (Couldn't resist)
> 
> ...


And how much good did that do them (Replay), the answer is unknown if there is a way that TiVo could do things to get their stock back to the $60+ it was once, if there is a way who would know it in advance. Do you think the Facebook group new in advance the great success it would turn out?, TiVo made it 13 years which is about 10 years longer than people have said, on this form, TiVo would last, with no debt and cash in the bank TiVo is no Blockbusters.
Also one must define what success would be for any given Co as there not a lot of Google(s), Apple(s), etc. around.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

lessd said:


> And how much good did that do them (Replay), the answer is unknown.


The streaming feature (and in-home sharing) of Replays beat Tivo's doors off. The IVS, while nice, opened up Pandora's box for them. It was going to cost a lot in legal fees (and no sure thing they'd win), so they just took it away on their last line of standalone DVRs). DNNA (the people who bought Replay at the end, before DirecTV) realized they'd never turn a profit selling hardware + subs, for reasons we've stated here forever.



> If there is a way that TiVo could do things to get their stock back to the $60+ it was once, if there is a way who would know it in advance. Do you think the Facebook group new in advance the great success it would turn out?, TiVo made it 13 years which is about 10 years longer than people have said, on this form, TiVo would last, with no debt and cash in the bank TiVo is no Blockbusters.
> Also one must define what success would be for any given Co as there not a lot of Google(s), Apple(s), etc. around.


Facebook is a success because it doesn't cost the end user anything but their privacy. It also feeds off of people's narcissism. "Look at me!!! I am going to the bathroom!!!" Same thing with four square.

Tivo has cash reserves because of lawsuit money. I don't think they've made much otherwise. It's a shame that the business model for the standalone DVR doesn't work.

Success? I'd hope positive cash flow would be a trait.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> called me on what? Your ignorance of the slang term


Ok ignoring this and moving on. 



ZeoTiVo said:


> oh - and the thread has gone off topic since no one can provide an example of someone doing things better than TiVo in the Standalone DVR space or explain why Apple is wrong that there is no real business model in the standalone DVR market and that even surviving in this space is pretty darn good.


AS to the rest, well it's like telling your only wife ever she is the most beautiful wife you have ever had. Yes sure Tivo is the best 3rd party DVR. But it's the only 3rd party DVR. Which also means it is the worst 3rd party DVR too.

No comfort to customers that Tivo has survived only well enough to release a mostly universally panned DVR.

I don't put all the blame on them. I know they are being locked out the market systematically almost.

Even this latest FCC ruling is going to reek havoc on them.

Notice one of the rules stated cable companies can make hd boxes for their customers with no cable card needed. That means dirt cheap hd boxes.

Perfect for their multi-room DVRs. Something Tivo won't be able to match (if they wanted to) because they can't make these extra boxes that also tune in live tv or get on-demand.

And if these cheap boxes do on-demand then there goes a good chunk of the reason for buying a dvr for many consumers.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

trip1eX said:


> And if these cheap boxes do on-demand then there a good chunk of the reason for buying a dvr.


They are unidirectional so no VOD and no PPV.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

innocentfreak said:


> They are unidirectional so no VOD and no PPV.


Is that part of the FCC rules or ?

Comcast used to give customers tiny sd boxes that weren't much bigger than the new ATV and they did VoD and PPV.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

It is according to the FCC PDF.

The SD boxes might have just contained an internal CableCARD.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-181A1.pdf

It isn't that long of a read.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> AS to the rest, well it's like telling your only wife ever she is the most beautiful wife you have ever had. Yes sure Tivo is the best 3rd party DVR. But it's the only 3rd party DVR. Which also means it is the worst 3rd party DVR too.
> 
> No comfort to customers that Tivo has survived only well enough to release a mostly universally panned DVR.


 Moxi and replayTV would disagree with you. The premiere is not mostly universally panned. That is just your perception. TiVo has been heavily criticized for somedumb stuff - like releasing the premiere with slow menus after a massive hoopla leadup but "mostly universally panned" does not even go togther as a string of words.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

innocentfreak said:


> It is according to the FCC PDF.
> 
> The SD boxes might have just contained an internal CableCARD.
> 
> ...


Possible the old sd boxes from Comcast that I'm thinking of had a cable card, but this was also a number of years ago - 4 or 5. Maybe before they had to have a cable card in them.

thanks for the link. Going to read those when I get a chance.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Moxi and replayTV would disagree with you. The premiere is not mostly universally panned. That is just your perception. TiVo has been heavily criticized for somedumb stuff - like releasing the premiere with slow menus after a massive hoopla leadup but "mostly universally panned" does not even go togther as a string of words.


That's your perception. 

Every review I've read has panned the Premiere for the most part. Sure maybe I missed all the positives ones.

Moxi and Replay are no longer 3rd party DVR manufacturers afaik. So Tivo is the only one.

..although I forgot about Windows Media Center and Ceton cablecard tuner and building our own computer. But availability of that tuner still is constrained.

Again whether Tivo is the best 3rd party manufacturer of DVRs in a pool of 1 or have survived doesn't matter much from the customer point of view except for the fact you're still getting guide data.


----------



## HazelW (Dec 6, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> That's your perception.
> 
> Moxi and Replay are no longer 3rd party DVR manufacturers afaik. So Tivo is the only one.


www.moxi.com


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> Moxi and Replay are no longer 3rd party DVR manufacturers afaik. So Tivo is the only one.


that was kind of my point - TiVo survived and has a pile of cash to keep chugging forward (albeit incremental and slowly) 
Digeo sold the Moxi design to some other company since they could not sell enough to keep alive as an independent company
ReplayTV had a great SD box and many loyal customers as well. Replay did all the things their loyal fan base wanted and ended up getting run out of direct business under threat of lawsuits from media industry players. Now directTV owns their patents and some 3rd party keeps the guide data going but with no thought of updates.

TiVo survived and even had a larger market share when replay was in business. TiVo kept the investment money coming in, worked with media industry players and the FCC to get the best it could out of them. TiVo did not even see a mass defection when Moxi came on the scene and offered streaming and nice looking HD menus. TiVo still has a very favorable cash position and is a public but independent company to this day.

The only real failing I am seeing is that TiVo could not get the cable and sat broadcasters to truly open up and allow third party boxes to hook easily to their infrastructure and provide the full range of services to that customer as well. Still they are sitting on the FCC's desk and working that.

Ironically, when TiVo gets that done is when they will have the most trouble, because then Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Panasonic and so forth will see a market and finally enter it.

So when someone gives an answer that really takes all that into account hen we have a debate - till then I just see people lamenting the things they wanted in a TiVo (and legitimately so for their own needs) but TiVo did not deliver, also for likely legitimate business reasons


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I am so sick of people bringing logic into debates.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> that was kind of my point - TiVo survived and has a pile of cash to keep chugging forward (albeit incremental and slowly)
> Digeo sold the Moxi design to some other company since they could not sell enough to keep alive as an independent company
> ReplayTV had a great SD box and many loyal customers as well. Replay did all the things their loyal fan base wanted and ended up getting run out of direct business under threat of lawsuits from media industry players. Now directTV owns their patents and some 3rd party keeps the guide data going but with no thought of updates.


Tivo's pile of cash is lawsuit money. If you look at their cash flow since 1998, it's not pretty:

Tivo Cash Flow 1998 - present

DNNA (who sold the IP to DirecTV) still runs the guide data for RTVs.



> TiVo still has a very favorable cash position and is a public but independent company to this day.
> 
> The only real failing I am seeing is that TiVo could not get the cable and sat broadcasters to truly open up and allow third party boxes to hook easily to their infrastructure and provide the full range of services to that customer as well. Still they are sitting on the FCC's desk and working that.


I doubt it will ever happen. Too many chiefs to bring to the table.



> Ironically, when TiVo gets that done is when they will have the most trouble, because then Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Panasonic and so forth will see a market and finally enter it.
> 
> So when someone gives an answer that really takes all that into account hen we have a debate - till then I just see people lamenting the things they wanted in a TiVo (and legitimately so for their own needs) but TiVo did not deliver, also for likely legitimate business reasons


I just don't see the mass market penetration of any stand-alone DVR nowadays. I think the ship has sailed.

Will Tivo survive? I am sure it can live on its cash reserves. And I am sure that if they give up new product development, they will realize a positive cash flow on subscriptions. I think their biggest hurdle is going to be being able to continue pushing R&D, and never really being able to recoup those investments, simply because technology moves too fast.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Ironically, when TiVo gets that done *(The FCC Issues)* is when they will have the most trouble, because then Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Panasonic and so forth will see a market and finally enter it.


I think this is spot on. TiVo better be ready to be the first one to deliver if the rules get changed.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> Tivo's pile of cash is lawsuit money. If you look at their cash flow since 1998, it's not pretty:
> 
> Will Tivo survive? I am sure it can live on its cash reserves. And I am sure that if they give up new product development, they will realize a positive cash flow on subscriptions. I think their biggest hurdle is going to be being able to continue pushing R&D, and never really being able to recoup those investments, simply because technology moves too fast.
> 
> ...


they also have investor money as well. People willing to take the longshot view of something disrupting this market open again. Also, so what if it is lawsuit money. This is not some po box in the Delaware that bought the IP rights. TiVo legitimately invented what is in their patents and it is the Capitalist way for them to make sure they benefit from their own inventions. Not a long term strategy in itself but it lets them keep doing R&D to try and get to that disruptive tech.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> they also have investor money as well. People willing to take the longshot view of something disrupting this market open again. Also, so what if it is lawsuit money. This is not some po box in the Delaware that bought the IP rights. TiVo legitimately invented what is in their patents and it is the Capitalist way for them to make sure they benefit from their own inventions. Not a long term strategy in itself but it lets them keep doing R&D to try and get to that disruptive tech.


Eventually investor money will go away (and so will the lawsuit money) unless they can sustain positive cash flow over extended lengths of time, while still spending on R&D and selling boxes / subscriptions.

If you intend on staying in business by suing the pants off those who have wronged you, in my opinion, that's not a way to develop a good business model. Tivo might at well become a law firm then. They need to be able to stand on their own.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> that was kind of my point - TiVo survived and has a pile of cash to keep chugging forward (albeit incremental and slowly)
> Digeo sold the Moxi design to some other company since they could not sell enough to keep alive as an independent company
> ReplayTV had a great SD box and many loyal customers as well. Replay did all the things their loyal fan base wanted and ended up getting run out of direct business under threat of lawsuits from media industry players. Now directTV owns their patents and some 3rd party keeps the guide data going but with no thought of updates.
> 
> TiVo survived and even had a larger market share when replay was in business. TiVo kept the investment money coming in, worked with media industry players and the FCC to get the best it could out of them. TiVo did not even see a mass defection when Moxi came on the scene and offered streaming and nice looking HD menus. TiVo still has a very favorable cash position and is a public but independent company to this day.


Yes, but is anyone contending any of this?

I think many just ask the question: Why does any of that matter to a consumer who purchased a new Premiere with bugs, sluggish HDUI, extra features that don't work that well at all, etc.

That's what we get for Tivo beating out 3rd party DVR offerings? er, hooray?!? I think that's how many see it.



ZeoTiVo said:


> The only real failing I am seeing is that TiVo could not get the cable and sat broadcasters to truly open up and allow third party boxes to hook easily to their infrastructure and provide the full range of services to that customer as well. Still they are sitting on the FCC's desk and working that.


Depends on what perspective you're taking here. And even from Tivo's perspective I wouldn't say it is their only failure.

From the consumer's perspective again I just don't see that as Tivo's only failing.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Ironically, when TiVo gets that done is when they will have the most trouble, because then Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Panasonic and so forth will see a market and finally enter it.


Yep Tivo is between a rock and a hard place.



ZeoTiVo said:


> So when someone gives an answer that really takes all that into account hen we have a debate - till then I just see people lamenting the things they wanted in a TiVo (and legitimately so for their own needs) but TiVo did not deliver, also for likely legitimate business reasons


There's many definitions and perceptions of success. Many in this thread are approaching the topic from different perspectives.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> Yes, but is anyone contending any of this?
> 
> I think many just ask the question: Why does any of that matter to a consumer who purchased a new Premiere with bugs, sluggish HDUI, extra features that don't work that well at all, etc.


Sigh - I never said that consumers were supposed to do some sympathy buy or overlook bugs or whatever.

Someone asked why TiVo was not successful and pointed to bugs and lack of innovation as the problem. I have brought in a rational discussion of actual market conditions (ignoring weak economy for now) and pointing out that TiVo would likely not have sold that many more DVRs if they had a shiny product with no bugs.
I then pointed out that this perceived gap in innovation is just that, a perception.
Then I pointed out how TiVo has done far better than any other company in the space of standalone DVRs.

People often mistake this for defense of TiVo by me from the slings and arrows. It is not. I want a better Netflix interface, I want streaming, I want snazzy HD menus that display in milliseconds. As you correctly point out, TiVo has its flaws. That alone though is not argument on if or why TiVo has not been successful and I point out that reality as I wish for read discussion on the topic versus the complaint fest by individuals over the particular thing they want changed.

So deal with the realities set forth or post another complaint, your choice


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Sigh - I never said that consumers were supposed to do some sympathy buy or overlook bugs or whatever.


I didn't say you did. I just said that's how some people see things when you try and bring the reality of the set-top box marketplace into the equation.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Someone asked why TiVo was not successful and pointed to bugs and lack of innovation as the problem. I have brought in a rational discussion of actual market conditions (ignoring weak economy for now) and pointing out that TiVo would likely not have sold that many more DVRs if they had a shiny product with no bugs.
> I then pointed out that this perceived gap in innovation is just that, a perception.
> Then I pointed out how TiVo has done far better than any other company in the space of standalone DVRs.


Yes you said all that. But it's not gospel nor comprehensive.  IT's your perspective. Personally I know the realities of the set-top box marketplace and have pointed them out a few times in this thread. But at the same time, there is the reality of the consumer experience. And I've also pointed it out.



ZeoTiVo said:


> People often mistake this for defense of TiVo by me from the slings and arrows. It is not. I want a better Netflix interface, I want streaming, I want snazzy HD menus that display in milliseconds. As you correctly point out, TiVo has its flaws. That alone though is not argument on if or why TiVo has not been successful


Well if you want all that stuff then you should see where other folks are coming from.

A panned product is not a successful one in their eyes.


----------

