# TiVo talks cable, satellite deals in Q2 results; DirecTiVo exposed! (video)



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/tivo-talks-cable-satellite-directivo-exposed/


----------



## mp11 (Jan 29, 2008)

well its about time we see something! what are the chances this new unit will have an OTA tuner? Did I read correctly that Charter cable may get in on a Tivo?


----------



## caddyroger (Mar 15, 2005)

mp11 said:


> well its about time we see something! what are the chances this new unit will have an OTA tuner? Did I read correctly that Charter cable may get in on a Tivo?


By the back of the unit showed on the video it will not. It has only a sat swm and sat.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Great to see that TiVo has continued to put the brakes on their subscriber losses. Things have actually reversed on the MSO front with a net gain of 10k subscribers. Owned subscriber losses were down a bit but the change is too small to call it a win.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

33k sub loss is still a bitter pill. Until that stops they are a going concern IMO.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

"...the company seems particularly excited to see the current state of patent warfare going on, trumpeting its 210 issued patents and 389 applications."

Excited, people thought the circus had come to town when the whole department of TiVo lawyers emptied out where the program engineers use to be and were seen doing cartwheels to the bank.

(But its short money)


----------



## dilbert27 (Dec 1, 2006)

caddyroger said:


> By the back of the unit showed on the video it will not. It has only a sat swm and sat.


Since it is based of the HR22 Directv receiver hardware I think I wonder if the AM21 over the air add on tuner would work with this for I know it does with its hardware cousin I guess in the end it will all depend on the Tivo software to support it.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

No MRV is a deal breaker. Especially if the DTV DVRs can do it.


----------



## maharg18 (Dec 4, 2002)

Old, sad interface and no MRV. Unbelievable.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Oh no, we suck again! Thanks but no thanks DirecTV...you will not win me over as a potential customer with that POS box.


----------



## mp11 (Jan 29, 2008)

Well the deal breaker for me is no OTA tuner. Directv would have to make me a VERY sweet deal to get me to switch over. Especialy since I already have a full blown Tivo that does everything I want it to...and more. And as far as the old interface and no MRV and such, I just really have to wonder what impact Directv had on that. Remember...this is all to fulfill an agreement. From Directv's eyes... I have honored that agreement, but there's no way I'll let them have all the Tivo bells and whistles when I'm trying to sell my own DVR. I believe it's just that simple. I think Tivo has had one hand tied behind their back on this one.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

My opinion is that TiVo started working on this a long time ago and either did not put sufficient resources into it or just took much, much too long. The hardware platform was current when the deal was signed, but DirecTV moved on. TiVo added a (sort of) new UI to their new boxes but did not apply it to this one, either because the contract didn't provide for it (likely) or TiVo decided not to.

DirecTV doesn't really need this product anymore. If TiVo had delivered on time, things might be different.


----------



## Rebate_King (Nov 10, 2004)

stevel said:


> DirecTV doesn't really need this product anymore. If TiVo had delivered on time, things might be different.


Funny how you think the timing is TiVo's fault.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Let's not forget that DirecTV has NEVER been enthusiastic about this new DirecTiVo, and even the short training video is laced with qualifying remarks about how the TiVo either does "the same as DirecTV DVR's" or "won't" or "can't" do what the DirecTV DRV's can, especially the lack of MRV: that one was REALLY stressed on the video. It all seems like a kind of subliminal message being sent to installers who view it. Putting negativity in their minds rather than what may be appealing or compelling about the TiVo product offered by DirecTV, other than "another option."

So, basically the new DirecTiVo is a Series 3 able to access DirecTV. Big Deal! Well, it is a sure sell to TiVo diehards, but not compelling to what subscribers want today: MRV! DirecTiVo based on the Premiere would have been more compelling to subscribers and there is NO GOOD REASON, MRV compatible with DirecTV could not have been achieved. But all this, it seems, was really up to DirecTV, not TiVo.

So, Michael White got what he wanted: a old legacy TiVo to compete with his state of the art MRV DirecTV DVR's. TiVo was shafted on this, but Tom Rogers really couldn't afford to mess things up with DirecTV. One only has to compare the TiVo enhanced products in the UK, as one example, of what could have been achieved with DirecTV, but Direct, IMHO, wasn't interested providing the latest and greatest TiVo has to offer their subscribers.

Too bad TiVo is leaving us retail folks behind.


----------



## TWinbrook46636 (Feb 9, 2008)

MFR DATE 05/25/10


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Rebate_King said:


> Funny how you think the timing is TiVo's fault.


I do.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

stevel said:


> I do.


I don't know who's to blame, but it's not unreasonable to think that DTV _could_ have bogged TiVo down with constant software/hardware revisions to delay the D-Tivo's release.
Why? Your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Probably not the hardware - we know it's based on the HR22 which has been around for a few years. Yes, there might have been software changes required to keep up with what DirecTV has done with their other boxes. We will probably never know.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

stevel said:


> Probably not the hardware - we know it's based on the HR22 which has been around for a few years. Yes, there might have been software changes required to keep up with what DirecTV has done with their other boxes. We will probably never know.


We have already seen that they added a free space indicator. That is something TiVo didn't do on the S3 platform because they didn't consider it woth the supposedly substantial effort it would require. The box is supposed to also have all the color button features used with mix channels, weather, sports scores, etc. That would all have been new development for TiVo with nothing prior for them to build on. My guess is that all that UI work on their old rickety UI was partially responsible for the delay. Also the server side stuff for some of that may have come from NDS, who may not have been very helpful to TiVo when they needed information about it. I also think that part of the delay on this project could have been TiVo putting all hands on deck to work the Premiere and starving this project for a while.

So I think there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

While that is all pure speculation, I agree that we will probably never really know.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Having had the crippled TiVos of the past that Directv sanctioned..... I'm going to blame Directv for this. I'm sure they had no intention of allowing TiVos box to actually compete with theirs.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Rebate_King said:


> Funny how you think the timing is TiVo's fault.


Gotta give TiVo a lot of the blame here. Simple reasoning by analogy. E.g. look at what a POS the software on the Premiere still is, about 1 1/2 years after release.



TWinbrook46636 said:


> MFR DATE 05/25/10


Good catch!

WTF takes TiVo and/or DirecTV so long on these projects?


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

But look at how robust TiVo is on Virgin in the UK? Virgin really wanted TiVo to enhance their service. DirecTV just didn't want to get sued by TiVo, so DirecTV went along and and Michael White's put-down--or at the very least, utterly UNDERwhelming attitude and remarks regarding the new DirecTiVo--during quarterlies was quite enlightening.

DirecTV NEVER wanted this new DirecTiVo. Did we forget DirecTV DUMPED TiVo. Then right after Echostar gets sued, DirecTV makes a new agreement with TiVo, but with wording in the contract that TiVo will NOT sue DirecTV. That should give anyone with even a pea for a brain what has happened here and who gets most of the blame. Again, look at what TiVo and Virgin achieved. Something far more robust could've been done for DirecTV, and after $11 million Comcast dollars NO real TiVo/Comcast product, just access to VOD. Them Comcast announces Xfinity. Oh, I get it! Again all this failure and diminished TiVo satellite product while Virgin gets the TiVo we here have been dreaming of, 3 tuners just being one.


----------



## jfalkingham (Jul 23, 2002)

:up: @Series3Sub

Sums it up.

DIRECTV had this announced years ago, and they probably got a few subscribers to stay the course, and a few to come back waiting on it. They also got TiVo off their back regarding patent issues with the DIRECTV DVR. 

Now, let's assume its a very similar code base which was in the old SAT T60 or DSR6000 the big difference being in encoding and the tuners. I just don't see TiVo taking years to have it work. DIRECTV has a lot of incentive to NOT have this work out the way it could have.

There is certainly blame to go around, and TiVo deserves some of it (just look at the premiere), but in my opinion, DIRECTV wanted it this way.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Why does it have _two_ Ethernet jacks?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Why does it have _two_ Ethernet jacks?


It's a Pass through so you don't have to have a switch to also hook your receiver or TV.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

zalusky said:


> It's a Pass through so you don't have to have a switch to also hook your receiver or TV.


My guess is it acts as a switch or a hub itself. I don't think pass through would work since the box connects to the router itself (although they may call it "pass through" in their documentation).


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

It is indeed a two-port switch of a sort. I have that on my HR21.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

That SD interface is going to look drab when all the D* DVRs get an HD interface in a few months.


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

wmcbrine said:


> Why does it have _two_ Ethernet jacks?


As others pointed out it allows you to chain multiple devices. Something I wish more devices would do - it's a nice feature for the AV cabinet.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

No MRV is a major bummer...


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Never had MRV, so not having it on the new one doesn't really bother me.

But, no OTA? That really sucks. DirecTV's local channels for our area are from a town 105 miles away. We can't get local news, weather, etc. Plus, they only carry NBC, CBS, ABC in HD and PBS and CW in SD. No FOX at all. 

Looks like I'l be sticking with my HR10-250s for now.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

DougF said:


> Never had MRV, so not having it on the new one doesn't really bother me.
> 
> But, no OTA? That really sucks. DirecTV's local channels for our area are from a town 105 miles away. We can't get local news, weather, etc. Plus, they only carry NBC, CBS, ABC in HD and PBS and CW in SD. No FOX at all.
> 
> Looks like I'l be sticking with my HR10-250s for now.


It should support the AM21. If you complain enough and show that your old DVR had them, you might get them for free. Otherwise, it's $50 each.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

And the AM21 is a really good OTA tuner.


----------



## mp11 (Jan 29, 2008)

stevel said:


> And the AM21 is a really good OTA tuner.


I wouldn't say really good, but it's sufficient to get locals. Should never have to buy additional hardware to get free TV. But it's all about $$$.


----------



## vio2112 (Apr 18, 2011)

wmcbrine said:


> Why does it have _two_ Ethernet jacks?


Better question is why does it have a frickin' phone jack?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

vio2112 said:


> Better question is why does it have a frickin' phone jack?


For ordering PPV. Internet isn't required.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

vio2112 said:


> Better question is why does it have a frickin' phone jack?


it will show caller id on the TV screen.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

DougF said:


> Never had MRV, so not having it on the new one doesn't really bother me.


MRV is really cool if you have multiple DVR's in the same house. It combines the show list from all DVR's when displaying it on any DVR. Allows you to watch any show as if it were on the DVR you are sitting in front of.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

mp11 said:


> ... Should never have to buy additional hardware to get free TV. But it's all about $$$.


That's absurd. Do you also complain about having to buy the tuner in your TV to see all those free broadcasts? No one is stopping you from using that instead of an AM21.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DocNo said:


> As others pointed out it allows you to chain multiple devices. Something I wish more devices would do - it's a nice feature for the AV cabinet.


The problem is many of those are only 100mbps ports. Bettter to have a Gigabit switch, with a gigabit backbone and connect each device to that.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

These devices can't come close to saturating a 100Mbps link - when they were designed, GigE components were still relatively expensive. I expect that newer designs will use GigE ports.


----------



## mp11 (Jan 29, 2008)

balboa dave said:


> That's absurd. Do you also complain about having to buy the tuner in your TV to see all those free broadcasts? No one is stopping you from using that instead of an AM21.


Sorry, didn't mean to get your panties in a wad with a simple statement. You're comparing apple to oranges. Read it again, and this time try understanding what it said...instead of flaming me. Do you think paying for a tuner already built in a TV set(as part of the total cost) is the same as buying additional H/W to acheive the same? 

BTW my Tivo doesn't need an AM21.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

mp11 said:


> I wouldn't say really good, but it's sufficient to get locals. Should never have to buy additional hardware to get free TV. But it's all about $$$.


The vast majority of people have no need for an OTA tuner in their directv dvr.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> The vast majority of people have no need for an OTA tuner in their directv dvr.


It use to be more useful years ago. But since you can get your locals in HD, most Directv customers are probably not that interested in OTA anymore.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

And many DirecTV customers, including me, receive few local channels OTA without a large and elaborate antenna.


----------



## mp11 (Jan 29, 2008)

rainwater said:


> most Directv customers are probably not that interested in OTA anymore.


Don't be so sure about that. OTA can provide you with many subchannels...Directv can't/won't.


----------



## mp11 (Jan 29, 2008)

stevel said:


> And many DirecTV customers, including me, receive few local channels OTA without a large and elaborate antenna.


People whos locals are considered deep fringe, probably do need large elaborate antennas. But most people can use small antennas for locals. When I had D* I used a small clip on antenna (probably the worst performing antenna) that worked just fine. But my locals were all within a 30 mile radius.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

I bet that was before the digital transition.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

stevel said:


> These devices can't come close to saturating a 100Mbps link - when they were designed, GigE components were still relatively expensive. I expect that newer designs will use GigE ports.


I've been running a gigabit backbone at home for ten years now. I currently have around seventy devices on my network with most of them having only 100mb/s connections. If I only had a 100mb/s backbone, my network would slow to a crawl. Just from my ten IP cameras alone I would have issues trying to run other things while they are transferring the video.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

mp11 said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to get your panties in a wad with a simple statement. You're comparing apple to oranges. Read it again, and this time try understanding what it said...instead of flaming me.


Sorry, flamee, I go commando. 


> Do you think paying for a tuner already built in a TV set(as part of the total cost) is the same as buying additional H/W to acheive the same?


It's exactly the same. People without a modern digital TV needed to buy a separate digital to analog tuner to get reception, and they don't even get the interactive scheduling guide that DirecTV provides with the AM21. D* spent millions integrating local channels as part of their service, but it's a serious case of lack of bandwidth and diminishing returns to carry all the digital subchannels. So for those that need them, they pay extra.


----------



## mp11 (Jan 29, 2008)

balboa dave said:


> > Sorry, flamee, I go commando.
> 
> 
> Nah...I still think you wear panties
> ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> I've been running a gigabit backbone at home for ten years now. I currently have around seventy devices on my network with most of them having only 100mb/s connections. If I only had a 100mb/s backbone, my network would slow to a crawl. Just from my ten IP cameras alone I would have issues trying to run other things while they are transferring the video.


could be wrong but i'm not so sure your setup is typical.


----------

