# Why isn't TiVo offering a streaming package/cloud DVR?



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

It feels like the physical hardware DVR working with a cable card is a dying business. Meanwhile, Sling, PlayStation Vue, Hulu Live and others are offering various packages of channels, cloud DVR functionality and such and it works on most major streaming platforms (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc).

How is it that TiVo hasn't jumped into this, offering a channel lineup, plus a cloud DVR with their interface? Or if they didn't want to put it on those platforms, a small streaming box of their own sans the local storage, no need for cable cards, a TV package available plus apps for Netflix, Prime, Hulu, ESPN, etc?

Do they really think staying tethered to the cable companies is the way to go? Are they prevented by existing agreements from offering a TV service themselves? If they aren't, would the cable companies attempt to block or no longer support existing TiVo hardware with cable cards? What is the hold up?

I've been using Tivo for over 10 years now and I just hate the idea that one day this company might not be around, but I'm afraid it's what may happen if they don't reinvent themselves a little.


----------



## michael1248 (Feb 14, 2002)

Great Question!!!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I asked a higher up at TiVo about this once. He said they looked into it and it wasn’t feasible. These skinny bundles are typically offered by companies that already have an existing relationship with the content creators. TiVo doesn’t have that relationship. Even Apple has had issues launching a service like this and they’re the biggest company in the world.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

There are already too many streaming services. It seems every other week a new one pops up. Over time there is no way these can all survive.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Dan203 said:


> I asked a higher up at TiVo about this once. He said they looked into it and it wasn't feasible. These skinny bundles are typically offered by companies that already have an existing relationship with the content creators. TiVo doesn't have that relationship. Even Apple has had issues launching a service like this and they're the biggest company in the world.


Interesting. How then do they plan to remain relevant?


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Adam C. said:


> There are already too many streaming services. It seems every other week a new one pops up. Over time there is no way these can all survive.


I'm just not sure not doing anything, or keeping them beholden to existing cable companies is a winning strategy either.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> Interesting. How then do they plan to remain relevant?


I think their long term plan is to try to become an MSO supplier and ditch retail completely.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Dan203 said:


> I think their long term plan is to try to become an MSO supplier and ditch retail completely.


This entire discussion explains to me why a purchase of TiVo by Apple didn't make sense then. Even though TiVo's user interface is great and better than navigating an Apple TV for instance, that's not enough to be of value to Apple. They would want some "in" with a content company to make launching their own TV service easier.


----------



## ManeJon (Apr 14, 2018)

TIVO today is relevant because it is one interface that works with a variety of cable. In my area Spectrum only offers a 2 tuner dvr and no whole house - so TIVO is needed for me. A lot of people still want local "network" TV and the local cable companies own that franchise - so you have to go with them or do OTA.
Who knows what the future or even tomorrow will bring.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ManeJon said:


> TIVO today is relevant because it is one interface that works with a variety of cable. In my area Spectrum only offers a 2 tuner dvr and no whole house - so TIVO is needed for me. A lot of people still want local "network" TV and the local cable companies own that franchise - so you have to go with them or do OTA.
> Who knows what the future or even tomorrow will bring.


No offense, but I don't think "provides something for me that I need" is the same thing as _relevant_. Traditional cable is hemorrhaging subscribers left and right. Dish and DirecTV are talking about merging due to subscriber loss. What you're describing is a niche product that will continue to have a smaller and smaller potential group of buyers, not a successful, current, relevant one.

The streaming services are beginning to more and more offer local channels. Even in my relatively small city in Alabama, all four local channels are available on Hulu Live. And YouTube TV continues to add more local stations as well.

So TiVo continuing to hitch its wagon to someone else's horses, when the industry is moving away from horses and wagons to the automobile so to speak, seems like a dying strategy.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

TitanTiger said:


> It feels like the physical hardware DVR working with a cable card is a dying business. Meanwhile, Sling, PlayStation Vue, Hulu Live and others are offering various packages of channels, cloud DVR functionality and such and it works on most major streaming platforms (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc).
> 
> How is it that TiVo hasn't jumped into this, offering a channel lineup, plus a cloud DVR with their interface? Or if they didn't want to put it on those platforms, a small streaming box of their own sans the local storage, no need for cable cards, a TV package available plus apps for Netflix, Prime, Hulu, ESPN, etc?
> 
> ...


Tivo has no content, so how would that work?


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ajwees41 said:


> Tivo has no content, so how would that work?


What content does YouTube TV own?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I've said this many times but I believe that in the not to distant future cable companies are going to spin off their programming into an OTT skinny bundle type app and convert their infrastructure to strictly an internet connection. This allows them to stave off regulations on the programming side while expanding their markets beyond their physical infrastructure. It's the only logical way that their programming business survives long term. 

When this happens if there is no open API that they're forced to adhere to then we'll be stuck with whatever "cloud DVR" each service decides to offer. We've already seen wildly different terms with the various DVRs offered with OTT skinny bundles. Some limit recordings to days, some weeks, some only let you record certain channels, etc... The days of recording all your channels and keeping those recordings forever are coming to an end.

If TiVo is lucky they might end up the "cloud DVR" platform for one, or more, of these services. If not they'll die off. I'm not sure I really care either way. I don't really like Hydra so I'm not itching to convert to any new product or service where that's the primary UI. The TiVo I loved is dying with TE3 and I'm not sure I'm going to ever upgrade again beyond what I have right now.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

The market for an OTA DVR seems to be growing. Amazon has the Recast that came out last year to serve that market, so clearly they think there is growth potential there. As a cord cutter myself, I can attest that my Roamio OTA has been a very solid performer for OTA recording over the past 2 years. The fact that it also has apps for the other services I use (Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video) make it a very good and logical choice for me, as I can get all of my shows in one place without having to switch remotes or TV inputs. I would also add that I have been very happy with the TE4 Hydra interface and I could see myself remaining a Tivo customer indefinitely.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Adam C. said:


> The market for an OTA DVR seems to be growing. Amazon has the Recast that came out last year to serve that market, so clearly they think there is growth potential there. As a cord cutter myself, I can attest that my Roamio OTA has been a very solid performer for OTA recording over the past 2 years. The fact that it also has apps for the other services I use (Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video) make it a very good and logical choice for me, as I can get all of my shows in one place without having to switch remotes or TV inputs. I would also add that I have been very happy with the TE4 Hydra interface and I could see myself remaining a Tivo customer indefinitely.


OTA could be a viable retail business but there is a lot of competition compared to CableCARD and they're really price sensitive so I'm not sure TiVo's $15/mo for data thing is going to work.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

TitanTiger said:


> What content does YouTube TV own?


they provide videos or rebroadcast tv via youtubetv, but Tivo doesn't produce content


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

Dan203 said:


> OTA could be a viable retail business but there is a lot of competition compared to CableCARD and they're really price sensitive so I'm not sure TiVo's $15/mo for data thing is going to work.


What is the $15/month fee? My Roamio OTA did not come with any monthly fees.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Adam C. said:


> What is the $15/month fee? My Roamio OTA did not come with any monthly fees.


You bought one of those special ones from Amazon that included lifetime didn't you?

With most TiVos you either have to pay a monthly fee or pay for lifetime (aka all-in) separately. I just checked an the fees for an OTA only device is cheaper ($7/mo or $250/lifetime) but it's still a lot when you can get an OTA DVR from Amazon for a flat fee of $150.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ajwees41 said:


> they provide videos or rebroadcast tv via youtubetv, but Tivo doesn't produce content


YouTube doesn't produce content either. And we're talking about their ability to offer a streaming service that includes local channels in major markets, plus a bundle of cable channels, just like Sling, PS Vue, Hulu Live, and so on. But somehow they've managed to pull it off.

Why couldn't TiVo do the same?


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Adam C. said:


> The market for an OTA DVR seems to be growing. Amazon has the Recast that came out last year to serve that market, so clearly they think there is growth potential there. As a cord cutter myself, I can attest that my Roamio OTA has been a very solid performer for OTA recording over the past 2 years. The fact that it also has apps for the other services I use (Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video) make it a very good and logical choice for me, as I can get all of my shows in one place without having to switch remotes or TV inputs. I would also add that I have been very happy with the TE4 Hydra interface and I could see myself remaining a Tivo customer indefinitely.


I'm just not sure there are enough people like you to make that a sustainable business long term.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> YouTube doesn't produce content either. And we're talking about their ability to offer a streaming service that includes local channels in major markets, plus a bundle of cable channels, just like Sling, PS Vue, Hulu Live, and so on. But somehow they've managed to pull it off.
> 
> Why couldn't TiVo do the same?


Most of those companies have existing relationships with content providers. Even Sony own one of the biggest movie studios in the world. But there are notable companies missing from that list as well. Apple and Microsoft have both said they're interested in offering such a service, but neither exist yet. And those are multi-billion dollar companies with huge clout in the industry. If they can't get it done what hope is there for TiVo.

Silicone Dust used a 3rd party service to provide their skinny bundle and look what's happening there. They've lost channels and now the 3rd party company is being sued out of existence because they didn't have the proper rights to do what they did.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

Dan203 said:


> You bought one of those special ones from Amazon that included lifetime didn't you?
> 
> With most TiVos you either have to pay a monthly fee or pay for lifetime (aka all-in) separately. I just checked an the fees for an OTA only device is cheaper ($7/mo or $250/lifetime) but it's still a lot when you can get an OTA DVR from Amazon for a flat fee of $150.


Yes, bought it on Amazon in April 2017 for $349 including lifetime service. I never knew this was a special Amazon deal. But you're right I would not pay extra fees to Tivo when other devices such as the Recast have no such fees.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

TitanTiger said:


> YouTube doesn't produce content either. And we're talking about their ability to offer a streaming service that includes local channels in major markets, plus a bundle of cable channels, just like Sling, PS Vue, Hulu Live, and so on. But somehow they've managed to pull it off.
> 
> Why couldn't TiVo do the same?


where would Tivo get the money?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

TiVo did look into selling a cloud (or cloud-like?) DVR, its Mavrik device. There still was a physical device in the user's home for the receipt of the local signal, but the content was stored in the cloud and could be accessed out-of-home. TiVo dropped the device well into the process. Had TiVo gone forward, it would have been interesting to see if the device/platform, over time, could have grown to accept 3rd-party services and streaming content.

TiVo Mavrik Takes On Tablo For Television Streaming
TiVo Mavrik Is Dead (and all of retail is in jeopardy)


----------



## bobfrank (Mar 17, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I've said this many times but I believe that in the not to distant future cable companies are going to spin off their programming into an OTT skinny bundle type app and convert their infrastructure to strictly an internet connection. This allows them to stave off regulations on the programming side while expanding their markets beyond their physical infrastructure. It's the only logical way that their programming business survives long term.
> 
> When this happens if there is no open API that they're forced to adhere to then we'll be stuck with whatever "cloud DVR" each service decides to offer. We've already seen wildly different terms with the various DVRs offered with OTT skinny bundles. Some limit recordings to days, some weeks, some only let you record certain channels, etc... The days of recording all your channels and keeping those recordings forever are coming to an end.
> 
> If TiVo is lucky they might end up the "cloud DVR" platform for one, or more, of these services. If not they'll die off. I'm not sure I really care either way. I don't really like Hydra so I'm not itching to convert to any new product or service where that's the primary UI. *The TiVo I loved is dying with TE3 and I'm not sure I'm going to ever upgrade again beyond what I have right now.*


I have to agree with you here. The old Tivo interface was far superior than anything else on the market, including the cable company DVRs. If the next Tivo model requires TE4 with no ability to upgrade to TE3, and I'm pretty that's what will happen, I will just go with the cable company DVR when my current Tivo's finally die.


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

Mikeguy said:


> TiVo did look into selling a cloud (or cloud-like?) DVR, its Mavrik device. There still was a physical device in the user's home for the receipt of the local signal, but the content was stored in the cloud and could be accessed out-of-home. TiVo dropped the device well into the process. Had TiVo gone forward, it would have been interesting to see if the device/platform, over time, could have grown to accept 3rd-party services and streaming content.
> 
> TiVo Mavrik Takes On Tablo For Television Streaming
> TiVo Mavrik Is Dead (and all of retail is in jeopardy)


I don't think most people care where their recordings are stored, whether it be in the cloud or on a hard drive. Like you said, either way there is still a physical device in the home. Most Tivo's are able to stream live and recorded content anyway even though there is no cloud DVR.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

For what it's worth, they were working on some sort of free ad-supported VOD service (think tubi or pluto) and could be looking at premium VOD as well. But live TV, probably not.

Getting into competition with their MVPD partners would be a major sticking point.

I think they'd much rather partner with the vMVPDs, rather than take on the headache of becoming one. They appear to be moving towards running their UI on Android TV. If/When that happens, their app potential increases tenfold. They could theoretically partner with YouTube TV and others to be an aggregator and suggestion engine just like they do with upcoming tv, Netflix, Amazon, etc. I believe that is where their heart is at.

Given all that, I don't think an nVidia Shield-like streaming box is out of the question.


----------



## gigaquad (Oct 25, 2004)

I didn't read all the replies, but for me and a lot of people that grew up in the tech boom, we *PREFER *to have a local copy of whatever we're watching. you never know when a company will go belly up and leave you hanging mid-season.

Actually, you see similar things today with these all-powerful streaming companies losing contracts on shows people are in the middle of watching, like Netflix and friends or the office. I _despise _having a company control my program viewing, software, etc.

What a man giveth, a man can take away.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

TV itself isn't moving to the vMVPDs. IT is moving to the SVODs. 

So if I were Tivo I would not attempt to become a vMVPD. IT would (be) a dead end that would become all too apparent in a few years. Nevermind the competition that is already there. Such a move would be a money loser. 

Instead I think you just ride out the current business as long as possible. And look into selling yourself to another company that can use your tech/services.


----------



## Darrell Patton (Jul 19, 2018)

TitanTiger said:


> What content does YouTube TV own?


Cobra Kai, Step Up High Water, Impulse, Wayne, Weird City, Broke, Lifeline, Origin, Champaign Il, and more.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> You bought one of those special ones from Amazon that included lifetime didn't you?
> 
> With most TiVos you either have to pay a monthly fee or pay for lifetime (aka all-in) separately. I just checked an the fees for an OTA only device is cheaper ($7/mo or $250/lifetime) but it's still a lot when you can get an OTA DVR from Amazon for a flat fee of $150.


It was my understanding that all OTA devices have no monthly fee. Am I wrong??


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mattyro7878 said:


> It was my understanding that all OTA devices have no monthly fee. Am I wrong??


Current TiVo boxes denominated "OTA" _in the box name _(e.g. Roamio OTA, Bolt OTA, Bolt VOX OTA; and as distinct from the Bolt 500GB, which can do OTA or cable) include Only the current "Roamio OTA" and "Roamio OTA VOX" models (denominated as such in the model name) include a TiVo One-Pass/Lifetime subscription in the box purchase price, and there is no monthly/yearly fee. The one vestige point: the Roamio OTA originally did_ not_ come with Lifetime and you couldn't even buy it for it--that only came later. And so, if buying a Roamio OTA, one should verify if it comes with a One-Pass/Lifetime subscription or not.

The "Bolt OTA" model has the option of buying a lower-cost One-Pass subscription for it (the same One-Pass subscription as for other TiVo boxes, simply priced significantly lower for the Bolt OTA model).


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Mikeguy said:


> Current TiVo boxes denominated "OTA" _in the box name _(e.g. Roamio OTA, Bolt OTA, Bolt VOX OTA; and as distinct from the Bolt 500GB, which can do OTA or cable) include a TiVo One-Pass/Lifetime subscription in the box purchase price, and there is no monthly/yearly fee. The one vestige point: the Roamio OTA originally did_ not_ come with Lifetime and you couldn't even buy it for it--that only came later. And so, if buying a Roamio OTA, one should verify if it comes with a One-Pass/Lifetime subscription or not.


Only the Roamio OTA includes Lifetime; the Bolt OTA requires a separately purchased service plan. Although listed on the TiVo website, the Roamio OTA new production is out of stock and I doubt it's going to return there. Although they still seem to be selling refurbs.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Dan203 said:


> Most of those companies have existing relationships with content providers. Even Sony own one of the biggest movie studios in the world. But there are notable companies missing from that list as well. Apple and Microsoft have both said they're interested in offering such a service, but neither exist yet. And those are multi-billion dollar companies with huge clout in the industry. If they can't get it done what hope is there for TiVo.
> 
> Silicone Dust used a 3rd party service to provide their skinny bundle and look what's happening there. They've lost channels and now the 3rd party company is being sued out of existence because they didn't have the proper rights to do what they did.


Yeah, I know most of them have existing relationships with content providers, but YouTube TV is a pretty obvious exception.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ajwees41 said:


> where would Tivo get the money?


Where does any streaming provider get the money? How does YouTube TV get the money?


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Darrell Patton said:


> Cobra Kai, Step Up High Water, Impulse, Wayne, Weird City, Broke, Lifeline, Origin, Champaign Il, and more.


Anyone can produce their own *new* content. Apple is doing that. Netflix has been doing it. No reason TiVo couldn't do the same.

What we're discussing is the contention that TiVo can't offer a skinny bundle of cable channels because they don't have an existing relationship with content producers or cable providers like Sling (owned by Dish), PS Vue (owned by Sony), Hulu Live (previously majority owned by Universal, now owned by Disney), etc. But there are services out there who don't have that such as YouTube TV and they are managing to be a player in the game. Seems like TiVo could pull that off to.


----------



## ashipkowski (Oct 8, 2008)

TitanTiger said:


> Where does any streaming provider get the money? How does YouTube TV get the money?


YouTube TV is part of Google, which is one of the most profitable companies in the world, and their rates have been rising regularly as their costs mount. TiVo's pockets aren't as deep as Google's by any means, and at this point the content providers 1. already felt threatened by them and 2. have come to see control over their own content as important, and so are less likely to give it away as cheaply.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ashipkowski said:


> YouTube TV is part of Google, which is one of the most profitable companies in the world, and their rates have been rising regularly as their costs mount. TiVo's pockets aren't as deep as Google's by any means, and at this point the content providers 1. already felt threatened by them and 2. have come to see control over their own content as important, and so are less likely to give it away as cheaply.


I'll give you the Google money advantage, but I fail to see how content providers would feel threatened by TiVo. Despite our love for TiVo's offerings, they are not a major threat to anyone. If anything, Google/YouTube is far more of a threat and they would be reticent to give them any content with which to build their streaming service.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TitanTiger said:


> How is it that TiVo hasn't jumped into this, offering a channel lineup, plus a cloud DVR with their interface? Or if they didn't want to put it on those platforms, a small streaming box of their own sans the local storage, no need for cable cards, a TV package available plus apps for Netflix, Prime, Hulu, ESPN, etc?


At the root of it, the answer to your question is this: the content that consumers want to watch has more value in the marketplace than the UI in which it's presented. TiVo does not own any content. They do not own any national cable networks or local broadcast stations. They do not own a movie or TV studio that produces films and series that they own. All TiVo owns, really, are a bunch of patents that describe UIs and features that make for a better user experience when it comes to finding and watching other companies' content on our screens. But TiVo licenses those patents out to lots of companies, so it's not like customers MUST use a TiVo device/app/service in order to have a decent user experience when watching video.

As I've posted elsewhere, the economics of the TV industry are shifting so that there's really only good money to be made by those companies that OWN content. Companies like Disney, AT&T/WarnerMedia, Comcast/NBCUniversal, Netflix, CBS/Viacom, Amazon and (soon) Apple. Content is king. Over the next few years, companies that don't own content -- Charter, Verizon, Cox, Altice, RCN, etc. -- will get out of the business of running cable TV services. Even Sony, which owns Sony Pictures, isn't a big enough content owner to really matter; their PS Vue streaming cable TV service won't survive unless they sell it off to someone. (Amazon would be a likely buyer.)

TiVo really has NOTHING to bring to the table in terms of running their own streaming cable TV service because they don't own content. Sure, they have a nice UI with Hydra but it's not anything that consumers outside of this forum really care or know about.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

TitanTiger said:


> I'll give you the Google money advantage, but I fail to see how content providers would feel threatened by TiVo. Despite our love for TiVo's offerings, they are not a major threat to anyone. If anything, Google/YouTube is far more of a threat and they would be reticent to give them any content with which to build their streaming service.


I don't think anyone said content providers would feel threatened by TiVo, but were would Tivo get the money to acquire the content?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> Only the Roamio OTA includes Lifetime; the Bolt OTA requires a separately purchased service plan. Although listed on the TiVo website, the Roamio OTA new production is out of stock and I doubt it's going to return there. Although they still seem to be selling refurbs.


You're absolutely right, of course; thank-you, and corrected. (I'm so swayed by the benefits of Lifetime, I just think of it automatically with the Bolt OTA models, for which there is special (lower) Lifetime pricing.)


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ajwees41 said:


> I don't think anyone said content providers would feel threatened by TiVo, but were would Tivo get the money to acquire the content?


The person I was responding to did:

_TiVo's pockets aren't as deep as Google's by any means, and at this point the content providers 1. already felt threatened by them and 2. have come to see control over their own content as important, and so are less likely to give it away as cheaply._


----------



## ashipkowski (Oct 8, 2008)

TitanTiger said:


> I'll give you the Google money advantage, but I fail to see how content providers would feel threatened by TiVo. Despite our love for TiVo's offerings, they are not a major threat to anyone. If anything, Google/YouTube is far more of a threat and they would be reticent to give them any content with which to build their streaming service.


Two words: Commercial Skip. It might seem unseemly to the providers' advertisers for the provider to be making deals with a company that represents that option very directly.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ashipkowski said:


> Two words: Commercial Skip. It might seem unseemly to the providers' advertisers for the provider to be making deals with a company that represents that option very directly.


Sling is owned by Dish. Dish's Hopper DVR allows you to skip commercials. They call it AutoHop. YouTube TV also allows skipping of commercials on their cloud DVR.

That's not a hindrance.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> Yeah, I know most of them have existing relationships with content providers, but YouTube TV is a pretty obvious exception.


And Google is the biggest advertising company in the world. I'm sure they have some unseen ties into the movie/TV business.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Dan203 said:


> And Google is the biggest advertising company in the world. I'm sure they have some unseen ties into the movie/TV business.


Their ties with movie/TV people are basically selling ads to them. Maybe they could offer them some discounts and such on ad/user data buys, but that would be about it. But it's nothing like the direct connections Hulu or PS Vue have.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

TitanTiger said:


> The person I was responding to did:
> 
> _TiVo's pockets aren't as deep as Google's by any means, and at this point the content providers 1. already felt threatened by them and 2. have come to see control over their own content as important, and so are less likely to give it away as cheaply._


I don't think TiVo has made a lot of good friends with it's patent lawsuits either. Why would any of these companies want to help them compete with their own services?


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

mschnebly said:


> I don't think TiVo has made a lot of good friends with it's patent lawsuits either. Why would any of these companies want to help them compete with their own services?


But the people they would have pissed off would be the cable/satellite providers, not the content creators. In other words, Charter Spectrum, Comcast, DirecTV and such - the very people TiVo works with now - are the ones who'd be pissed. They are the ones who tried to steal TiVo's IP to make their craptastic DVRs better. Sony Pictures, NBC/Universal, Viacom, Warner Bros and such have no patent issues with TiVo to be pissed over.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> Their ties with movie/TV people are basically selling ads to them. Maybe they could offer them some discounts and such on ad/user data buys, but that would be about it. But it's nothing like the direct connections Hulu or PS Vue have.


But they have the connections and people to talk to. For a small company like TiVo the hardest part is just getting your foot in the door.

But honestly I don't know. I'm not in that business. All I know is that one of the higher ups at TiVo once told me that they looked into it and it's not feasible. He didn't say why it wasn't feasible, so I'm just guessing at the reason.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Dan203 said:


> But they have the connections and people to talk to. For a small company like TiVo the hardest part is just getting your foot in the door.
> 
> But honestly I don't know. I'm not in that business. All I know is that one of the higher ups at TiVo once told me that they looked into it and it's not feasible. He didn't say why it wasn't feasible, so I'm just guessing at the reason.


I don't know. Netflix somehow did it from nothing. I don't think it's really that hard. It just takes deciding what you want to be and from what I can tell, TiVo has either dithered about too long and doesn't know what it wants to be going forward, or they've conceded the field and decided to do something else. Either way, I think it's a missed opportunity.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> I don't think it's really that hard. It just takes deciding what you want to be and from what I can tell, TiVo has either dithered about too long and doesn't know what it wants to be going forward, or they've conceded the field and decided to do something else.


Perhaps a little overly simplistic? If all it takes is _deciding what you want to be_... I think everyone would be a billionaire.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Charles R said:


> Perhaps a little overly simplistic? If all it takes is _deciding what you want to be_... I think everyone would be a billionaire.


Deciding what you want to be as a company and doing what you need to do, hiring who you need to hire, to make it happen. If you want to be a player in provider realm ala YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Sling, then you go out there and make that happen. If small companies like Fubo and Philo can pull it off, no reason TiVo can't.

It's not a guarantee of success. But I'm not buying the idea that TiVo simply "can't" make it happen.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

TitanTiger said:


> Deciding what you want to be as a company and doing what you need to do, hiring who you need to hire, to make it happen. If you want to be a player in provider realm ala YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Sling, then you go out there and make that happen. If small companies like Fubo and Philo can pull it off, no reason TiVo can't.
> 
> It's not a guarantee of success. But I'm not buying the idea that TiVo simply "can't" make it happen.


maybe Tivo doesn't want to be a content provider they are happy with what they are doing


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> I don't know. Netflix somehow did it from nothing. I don't think it's really that hard. It just takes deciding what you want to be and from what I can tell, TiVo has either dithered about too long and doesn't know what it wants to be going forward, or they've conceded the field and decided to do something else. Either way, I think it's a missed opportunity.


I agree it's a missed opportunity. This is something I thought about years ago, before the Bolt was even released. If TiVo could seamlessly integrate local OTA with an OTT skinny bundle that included the most popular cable channels they could charge a continuous monthly fee (which they like) and people would actually pay it. They could be the ultimate cord cutter solution and take over the market. But they always seem to drag their feet, even on simple things like better apps, until they're playing catch up rather than innovating.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> Deciding what you want to be as a company and doing what you need to do, hiring who you need to hire, to make it happen.
> 
> It's not a guarantee of success. But I'm not buying the idea that TiVo simply "can't" make it happen.


As a business you don't operate in a vacuum and as such many things are decided for you. If it was that easy they would be wildly successful in their chosen market.

As someone who started a company in 1979 and continues to run it today a _business plan_ is only a strategy. One in which over two-thirds fail within 10 years... out of business. I guess it's not quite that easy.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ajwees41 said:


> maybe Tivo doesn't want to be a content provider they are happy with what they are doing


What they are doing isn't a long term road to success. It's a slow path to irrelevance.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Dan203 said:


> I agree it's a missed opportunity. This is something I thought about years ago, before the Bolt was even released. If TiVo could seamlessly integrate local OTA with an OTT skinny bundle that included the most popular cable channels they could charge a continuous monthly fee (which they like) and people would actually pay it. They could be the ultimate cord cutter solution and take over the market. But they always seem to drag their feet, even on simple things like better apps, until they're playing catch up rather than innovating.


I'm in full agreement. My whole point in all this is that TiVo has been hampered all these years by what the cable companies would allow them to do. Hell, without government intervention in the form of the CableCARD, they'd have been relegated to a mere patent holding entity long ago. They need to break free from dependency on cable providers (who themselves are circling the drain) and chart their own course. The way to do that is to get on the cord-cutting train themselves, but improving it in every way because of their superior software and UI.

TiVo is a lot like Apple in that regard to me - they don't have to be the first to market in a given segment, but they generally make a product for that segment that becomes the standard bearer that everyone wants to use. The biggest difference is that they seem to lack the decisive, killer instinct to just go for it.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Charles R said:


> As a business you don't operate in a vacuum and as such many things are decided for you. If it was that easy they would be wildly successful in their chosen market.
> 
> As someone who started a company in 1979 and continues to run it today a _business plan_ is only a strategy. One in which over two-thirds fail within 10 years... out of business. I guess it's not quite that easy.


TiVo has been in position to do something like this for a while. It's not like I'm asking "Why doesn't TiVo build a driverless car?"


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> What they are doing isn't a long term road to success. It's a slow path to irrelevance.





TitanTiger said:


> TiVo has been in position to do something like this for a while. It's not like I'm asking "Why doesn't TiVo build a driverless car?"


You have zero proof anything you are suggesting would make them a stronger company. Zero. I might even dare say they know a little more about their status and opportunities going forward.

As a business owner it always frustrates me when someone believes they know more about a company than the company itself and whatever "hair-brain" thoughts they have would be wildly successfully again with zero evidence to back it up. And follow it up with it couldn't be any worse... again the little they know.

I'm not trying to "pick" on you I simply know for a fact businesses have played out every aspect an outsider may feel would be beneficial and acted accordingly afterwards. It's rather naive to think whatever you can dream up hasn't been endlessly addressed.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Charles R said:


> You have zero proof anything you are suggesting would make them a stronger company. Zero. I might even dare say they know a little more about their status and opportunities going forward.


You seem a tad defensive. I don't think it takes a genius in reading trends and the TV business to see the direction things are headed and that TiVo is poorly positioned as it stands right now.



> As a business owner it always frustrates me when someone believes they know more about a company than the company itself and whatever "hair-brain" thoughts they have would be wildly successfully again with zero evidence to back it up. And follow it up with it couldn't be any worse... again the little they know.


Being a business owner (in what industry you don't say) doesn't make you any more savvy as to what's going on in *this* industry than anyone else.



> I'm not trying to "pick" on you I simply know for a fact businesses have played out every aspect an outsider may feel would be beneficial and acted accordingly afterwards. It's rather naive to think whatever you can dream up hasn't been endlessly addressed.


I've no doubt it's been discussed. The problem is, nothing has been done to date and the window is not going to be open forever.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

TitanTiger said:


> I don't think it takes a genius in reading trends and the TV business to see the direction things are headed and that TiVo is poorly positioned as it stands right now.


Then why haven't they already gone in that direction? I guess everyone who runs the company knows less than someone with zero inside knowledge and experience.



> Being a business owner (in what industry you don't say) doesn't make you any more savvy as to what's going on in *this* industry than anyone else.


I wasn't addressing this industry. Rather how all businesses are run.



> The problem is, nothing has been done to date and the window is not going to be open forever.


Again, what proof do you have that this would make the company stronger going forward? Zero. Until you can present some it seems "silly" to sell it as a solution... as it's not based on anything factual. I dare say if you had anything factual they would have already done such. And I'll withdraw until some proof has been posted as until then there is nothing to discuss.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

TitanTiger said:


> What they are doing isn't a long term road to success. It's a slow path to irrelevance.


email the CEO then if you want to now no customers would know


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

Charles R said:


> Then why haven't they already gone in that direction? I guess everyone who runs the company knows less than someone with zero inside knowledge and experience.
> 
> I wasn't addressing this industry. Rather how all businesses are run.
> 
> Again, what proof do you have that this would make the company stronger going forward? Zero. Until you can present some it seems "silly" to sell it as a solution... as it's not based on anything factual. I dare say if you had anything factual they would have already done such. And I'll withdraw until some proof has been posted as until then there is nothing to discuss.


Why does any company miss out on opportunities they shouldn't? Why didn't Sony, who was synonymous with portable music with the Walkman, allow a company like Apple to swoop in and completely steal the digital music player market out from under them? Why did Blackberry get caught so flatfooted as the iPhone (and Android) stole the smartphone market they dominated? Companies make dumb decisions sometimes.

Neither of us can "prove" anything. But what we can do is look at the industry and where it's going:

- TiVo is currently tethered to cable/satellite providers and cable/satellite companies are hemorrhaging subscribers. This is an incontrovertible fact.

- People who used to sign up for cable packages aren't simply ditching TV watching, they are leaving for various streaming services whether it be Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, PS Vue, Sling, YouTube TV or some combination thereof. This is also an incontrovertible fact.

If they want to remain relevant or be successful in the TV/DVR realm, it's clear that sticking with the old guard cable/sat providers isn't going to do that. So what are the options?

- Somehow get one or more of these streaming services to adopt their software/UI. That ship has basically sailed. It's highly unlikely that any of them would ditch their current investments in their UI to take on someone else's and pay licensing for it.

- Get in the game themselves. I think it would be best to do a combination of bundles of existing cable networks/local channels and perhaps some original programming. Expose more people to the TiVo interface and ease of use. Apply their expert knowledge of DVR tech to a cloud based DVR but also, perhaps push a software update to recent gen boxes to be able to handle the new TiVo streaming service as well.

- Die slowly on the vine.

Which option would you choose? And if it's none of the above, what would you propose given what we know?


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ajwees41 said:


> email the CEO then if you want to now no customers would know


I have emailed the company to encourage them to go this direction.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TitanTiger said:


> Deciding what you want to be as a company and doing what you need to do, hiring who you need to hire, to make it happen. If you want to be a player in provider realm ala YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Sling, then you go out there and make that happen. If small companies like Fubo and Philo can pull it off, no reason TiVo can't.
> 
> It's not a guarantee of success. But I'm not buying the idea that TiVo simply "can't" make it happen.


As I've said before, IF YOU DON'T OWN CONTENT, sit down. You do NOT belong in the brave new world of TV. If TiVo tried to get into that game, they'd be about as successful as Vidgo. (Never heard of Vidgo, which took like 3 years to get off the launch pad? That's my point.)

FuboTV and Philo aren't pulling it off. FuboTV is tiny and will likely be dead in a year or two. Philo is a joint venture of the smaller cable network owners: Discovery, Viacom, AMC Networks and A+E Networks. Discovery is launching their own direct-to-consumer SVOD (in partnership with the BBC) early next year. Viacom is about to be swallowed up by CBS (with their content probably going into CBS All Access). I suspect CBS may also buy AMC and/or A+E too. (Actually A+E Networks is 50% owned by Disney and 50% by Hearst, so perhaps Disney will just buy out the other half and incorporate them into Hulu.) At some point, the media powers will decide that little ol' Philo doesn't serve their interests any more.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TitanTiger said:


> Why does any company miss out on opportunities they shouldn't? Why didn't Sony, who was synonymous with portable music with the Walkman, allow a company like Apple to swoop in and completely steal the digital music player market out from under them? Why did Blackberry get caught so flatfooted as the iPhone (and Android) stole the smartphone market they dominated? Companies make dumb decisions sometimes.


What you're describing is the phenomenon whereby leaders of the old regime fail to understand that the ground is shifting away underneath their feet. They see some upstart competitor but deny that their new way of doing things is really a threat, because they're wedded to the old regime that they rule. By the time that they wise up and try to compete with some sad copy of the upstart's product, it's too late. Nobody wants your lame version of the iPod and iTunes, Sony. We already have the real deal from Apple.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

This thread asks a double binded question. You can't answer a double binded question.

Why is TiVo not being something it's not?

Huh? Huh?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Joe3 said:


> This thread asks a double binded question. You can't answer a double binded question.
> 
> Why is TiVo not being something it's not?
> 
> Huh? Huh?


1) That is not a double bind question. It is a counterfactual question, which is certainly not inherently unanswerable.

2) One can answer a double bind question if allowed a complete answer. For example: "When did you stop beating your wife, answer yes or no? Answer: I have never beaten my wife; and you're an idiot."


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> 1) That is not a double bind question. It is a counterfactual question, which is certainly not inherently unanswerable.
> 
> 2) One can answer a double bind question if allowed a complete answer. For example: "When did you stop beating your wife, answer yes or no? Answer: I have never beaten my wife; and you're an idiot."


I can't believe I am defending this.

No, the question is not contrary to a fact, which would make it a statement instead of a question.

*It's a double bind question *

: a psychological predicament in which a person receives from a single source conflicting messages that allow no appropriate response to be made.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Joe3 said:


> : a psychological predicament in which a person receives from a single source conflicting messages that allow no appropriate response to be made.


"Why is TiVo not being something it's not?" is not a double bind question. The meaning of the question is exactly the same as "Why is TiVo not doing something?", the "it's not" part is redundant. It is a question about something that is not in fact the case, a counter-factual. Your assertion that the question is a logical contradiction is incorrect.

If you think the question is a double bind, please identify the contradicting elements.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> As I've said before, IF YOU DON'T OWN CONTENT, sit down. You do NOT belong in the brave new world of TV. If TiVo tried to get into that game, they'd be about as successful as Vidgo. (Never heard of Vidgo, which took like 3 years to get off the launch pad? That's my point.)


YouTube TV doesn't own content. Yes, they've put a few of their own shows out there. Anyone can fund a few shows. That's not the draw to YouTube TV. It's the skinny bundle with local channels. TiVo can do the same.


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

TitanTiger said:


> Where does any streaming provider get the money? How does YouTube TV get the money?


YouTube is owned by google.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

No, Tivo is not going to be a streaming provider. BUT

Tivo needs to do for streaming what they once did for linear TV. They need to be a content aggregator. IE put all your content from ALL your sources in one place, organized and updated.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

Might try reading this... why would you want TiVo to lose even more money. The section titled* Will YouTube TV ever turn a profit?* does a good job of breaking down their chances versus _anyone can do anything_...

*YouTube TV Still Isn't Profitable After Its Price Increase*
*YouTube TV now costs $50 per month, but its programming lineup costs even more.*

*Disclaimer I currently don't own Alphabet stock (outside of Mutual Funds portfolios)


----------



## EWiser (Oct 2, 2008)

It would suggest that TiVo have the different streaming apps on their boxes and allow their users to subscribe to them. Don’t think it TiVo should get into the streaming business. But offer the different apps on the device. Just as they have prime and YouTube and Netflix now on their devices.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Google now has the most net cash of any corporation. Something like $117 billion net cash.

Also YTTV has synergies with Google's other businesses. Google's goal has always been to keep people online because the more time people spend online the more they use Search etc and the more money Google makes. YTTV fits that goal. 


So in theory Google could run YTTV at a loss if they ultimately make money off of it through Search and their other businesses. It could be seen as just another operating expense for Search.


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

jcthorne said:


> No, Tivo is not going to be a streaming provider. BUT
> 
> Tivo needs to do for streaming what they once did for linear TV. They need to be a content aggregator. IE put all your content from ALL your sources in one place, organized and updated.


That would be great. I just don't think they can get the existing streaming companies to adopt/support it. They don't have the same level of patents in this realm that they have in the DVR realm either so it would be harder to keep them from adopting ideas and putting it into their own interfaces I would think.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

TitanTiger said:


> I have emailed the company to encourage them to go this direction.


why should they they are the dvr business not content provider business


----------



## TitanTiger (May 5, 2009)

ajwees41 said:


> why should they they are the dvr business not content provider business


If you'd been following the conversation so far, you'd see I addressed this: the DVR business is not a recipe for success going forward. It's a dying business. It may always retain some small niche, but as cable/satellite providers continue to hemorrhage subscribers, losing them to streaming services and such, buying/renting a hardware box to record shows is going to be less and less a thing.

So my contention/suggestion to TiVo if they want to take what makes them great (which is the software and UI functionality, not the hunk of metal and silicon sitting in your entertainment center) into the future, they need to adapt to where the TV watching market is headed.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TitanTiger said:


> YouTube TV doesn't own content. Yes, they've put a few of their own shows out there. Anyone can fund a few shows. That's not the draw to YouTube TV. It's the skinny bundle with local channels. TiVo can do the same.


YouTube TV is, in fact, the one major exception to the rule about owning content. (OK, Google actually has made several original series, such as Cobra Kai, under the "YouTube Premium" banner, and those are included for free on YouTube TV, but that's beside the point.)

What YouTube TV has going for it is that it's owned by Google, who has SCADS of money plus a HUGE foothold in the world of digital advertising. So they can afford to lose money on YouTube TV for now, while they scale it up and gain enough subscribers to make it profitable through the use of the same user-targeted digital advertising platform that works so well for them on free YouTube.

TiVo, however, does not have scads of money that they can burn through, nor do they have one of the world's largest (the largest?) digital advertising platform enriched with loads of addressable data on billions of individuals.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Tivo reported earnings btw. (speaking of the future of Tivo and what they should do.) They made money this quarter and stock is up ~8% today.

A lot of the earnings beat comes from IP licensing particularly with Shaw communications.

They are still working on plans to split the company into 2. They got a new CEO - Dave Shull - since the last earnings call. He worked at the WEather Channel and helped split that company into 2 and also worked at DISH. The split is expected to be finalized by 1st half 2020. They are still open to a sale of one (maybe either) of the businesses to another company.

I read the earnings call transcript. Pretty hard to digest at the moment for myself.

But a few takeaways. They brought 3 patents to litigation with Comcast. They were found valid. But Comcast either deleted features that infringed on these patents or worked around them and Comcast thus was found not to infringe. IN other words, Tivo got no money is the way I read it. The way the patent litigation works though is they can only bring a few patents at a time meanwhile they have hundreds that Comcast is thought to be infringing on and so they can and will continue to litigate a few patents at a time. With the end goal essentially being to pressure Comcast into settling thru death by a thousand cuts. In other words Comcast will theoretically be more open to settling the more features they have to disable on the X1.

The other note in the transcript is stating 2 or 3 times they are getting out of selling hardware. Does this mean they will stop selling Tivos at retail? Or is this just part of the whole move to contract out hardware development? They mentioned AndroidTV a few times and their product for it and how that is attractive to customers. And customers meant MSOs. They talked nothing about retail customers. They did mention "operating expenses include an inventory impairment charge of $2.4 million as we continue our transition away from selling hardware products."

Last I don't really understand (entirely at least) the separation of the IP and Product business. Specifically how can someone buy one of their products if another company owns the IP behind it? I don't quite get that part. I did read that one reason for separating the two is customers (MSOs) of the product business like that they don't have to deal with an IP entity. But again that is something I don't quite understand.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Charles R said:


> *YouTube TV Still Isn't Profitable After Its Price Increase*
> *YouTube TV now costs $50 per month, but its programming lineup costs even more.*


I predict that YouTube TV -- in order to better compete against the forthcoming AT&T TV and other options -- will add a few missing popular channels in early 2020 and raise the price once again to $55. They'll strike a deal with A+E Networks to include A&E, History and Lifetime and they'll strike a deal with Crown Media to include Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. And I think they go back to Discovery and tell them they'll add the new Magnolia channel from Chip & Joanna Gaines (currently DIY Network). Actually, come to think of it, that was probably part of the deal Google negotiated with Discovery earlier this year when they added their other most popular channels.

At the same time, if not before, we'll see YTTV (like FuboTV already does) roll out support for limited live and on-demand content in 4K HDR for no extra charge. I also suspect that YTTV will offer an optional add-on tier of sports channels that they're missing, maybe for an extra $10/mo.

YTTV will be adding local PBS stations nationwide this year. I expect they'll get C-SPAN at some point too. After they make all those other upgrades I mention above, there won't be much to separate them from a traditional cable TV provider, other than a lack of Viacom channels and the inability to FF through ads on recordings from CBS. Once Verizon (and perhaps other broadband providers) rolls out a (probably free) custom Android TV streaming box and remote designed just for YTTV, you can see how at $55/mo it would be set to absolutely destroy traditional cable and satellite TV services. (Remember, YTTV allows 3 simultaneous streams and allows up to 6 individual profiles with their own individual cloud DVR, settings, favorites, etc.)


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

TitanTiger said:


> If you'd been following the conversation so far, you'd see I addressed this: the DVR business is not a recipe for success going forward. It's a dying business. It may always retain some small niche, but as cable/satellite providers continue to hemorrhage subscribers, losing them to streaming services and such, buying/renting a hardware box to record shows is going to be less and less a thing.
> 
> So my contention/suggestion to TiVo if they want to take what makes them great (which is the software and UI functionality, not the hunk of metal and silicon sitting in your entertainment center) into the future, they need to adapt to where the TV watching market is headed.


But might be the one Tivo/rovi is interested in


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> I predict that YouTube TV -- in order to better compete against the forthcoming AT&T TV and other options -- will add a few missing popular channels in early 2020 and raise the price once again to $55. They'll strike a deal with A+E Networks to include A&E, History and Lifetime and they'll strike a deal with Crown Media to include Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. And I think they go back to Discovery and tell them they'll add the new Magnolia channel from Chip & Joanna Gaines (currently DIY Network). Actually, come to think of it, that was probably part of the deal Google negotiated with Discovery earlier this year when they added their other most popular channels.
> 
> At the same time, if not before, we'll see YTTV (like FuboTV already does) roll out support for limited live and on-demand content in 4K HDR for no extra charge. I also suspect that YTTV will offer an optional add-on tier of sports channels that they're missing, maybe for an extra $10/mo.
> 
> YTTV will be adding local PBS stations nationwide this year. I expect they'll get C-SPAN at some point too. After they make all those other upgrades I mention above, there won't be much to separate them from a traditional cable TV provider, other than a lack of Viacom channels and the inability to FF through ads on recordings from CBS. Once Verizon (and perhaps other broadband providers) rolls out a (probably free) custom Android TV streaming box and remote designed just for YTTV, you can see how at $55/mo it would be set to absolutely destroy traditional cable and satellite TV services. (Remember, YTTV allows 3 simultaneous streams and allows up to 6 individual profiles with their own individual cloud DVR, settings, favorites, etc.)


When I first got YTTV I didn't like it and the way the DVR part worked was shocking to me and really different than any other. Now I love it. Whoever came up with that library idea had a great idea. The Home screen shows Top Picks For You and you can scroll thorough genres to find movies, shows or thrillers, news, Trending on Youtube - you name it. You can even browse networks for series or movies, etc. They definitely got their app right. I use an Apple TV 4k for the streamer but sometimes use the Roku Ultra too.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

ManeJon said:


> TIVO today is relevant because it is one interface that works with a variety of cable. In my area Spectrum only offers a 2 tuner dvr and no whole house - so TIVO is needed for me. A lot of people still want local "network" TV and the local cable companies own that franchise - so you have to go with them or do OTA.
> Who knows what the future or even tomorrow will bring.


Well that effectively means one cable company in most markets.

My Roamio has been sidelined since the start of the year because I switched from Comcast to UVerse for better monthly pricing.

The Cisco boxes Uverse gave me are crappy, as is their app.

Maybe I'll resubscribe with Comcast if I get favorable pricing again.

I've not tried any cloud DVRs but they sound horrible, like auto expiration in 90 days or something like that, inability to skip commercials with one tap, no trick plays, etc.

I'll try to use Tivo again but it's also possible the future is just subscribing to streaming services and dropping linear TV.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> The Cisco boxes Uverse gave me are crappy, as is their app.


Yeah, the Ericsson Mediaroom software platform that Uverse and its boxes runs on is officially ancient at this point. I read awhile back that they had completely stopped manufacturing those Uverse boxes. But hey, as a consumer, if it's delivering your channels and recording them OK, and doing it at a decent price...



wco81 said:


> I've not tried any cloud DVRs but they sound horrible, like auto expiration in 90 days or something like that, inability to skip commercials with one tap, no trick plays, etc.


The cloud DVRs typically have some kind of trade-off relative to a traditional DVR. The upside they have is no tuner conflicts, so record as many channels at the same time as you like. The upcoming AT&T TV, which will replace Uverse, allows 500 hours of recording but does auto-expire recordings after 90 days. (No word yet if that can be waived for an upgrade fee. I kinda doubt it.) YouTube TV's 9-month time limit (and unlimited storage hours) is way more generous. I'm pretty sure it allows basic trick play on live TV too, although if you're looking for stuff like slo-mo, nah.

Perhaps the best cloud DVR is Hulu with Live TV's, if you pay the extra $10 for the enhanced cloud DVR (200 hrs storage, no expiration, FF thru ads) plus the extra $6 to remove on-demand ads. The result should actually be better than a traditional DVR in most ways since so much stuff on Hulu is on-demand and the ads just disappear, don't even have to be skipped through. But at that point, the overall cost is $61/mo. for 2 concurrent streams. But no additional bogus fees like regular cable.

Being able to skip ads with a single button press is not normal even for traditional DVRs, though. TiVo and DISH Hopper can do it on certain shows. I'm not aware of others.



wco81 said:


> I'll try to use Tivo again but it's also possible the future is just subscribing to streaming services and dropping linear TV.


If you can get by with just the sports that air on your local OTA channels (assuming that OTA is an option for you), then dumping linear channel cable TV for a few on-demand streaming services is the way to go. Use an Apple TV 4K and its TV app to pull them together for you in a nice UI.


----------



## Bob Louder (May 1, 2018)

TitanTiger said:


> It feels like the physical hardware DVR working with a cable card is a dying business. Meanwhile, Sling, PlayStation Vue, Hulu Live and others are offering various packages of channels, cloud DVR functionality and such and it works on most major streaming platforms (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, etc).
> 
> How is it that TiVo hasn't jumped into this, offering a channel lineup, plus a cloud DVR with their interface? Or if they didn't want to put it on those platforms, a small streaming box of their own sans the local storage, no need for cable cards, a TV package available plus apps for Netflix, Prime, Hulu, ESPN, etc?
> 
> ...


Ask on the Supper Club.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> I asked a higher up at TiVo about this once. He said they looked into it and it wasn't feasible. These skinny bundles are typically offered by companies that already have an existing relationship with the content creators. TiVo doesn't have that relationship. Even Apple has had issues launching a service like this and they're the biggest company in the world.


_Feasible_ meaning too expensive.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Series3Sub said:


> _Feasible_ meaning too expensive.


That's what I thought too


----------



## hahathatsfunny (Jul 29, 2008)

I suspect YouTube TV was a loss leader for Google, at least for awhile. It was offering $39.99/month subscriptions but providing an extensive sports heavy lineup, which likely didn't result in much profit margin at all. Google has since adjusted with a $10 monthly increase to $49.99/month, but you can tell with such a steep price increase they knew they were pricing their product too low.

I tried Philo, which didn't have the sports channels, the WarnerMedia channels or any of the broadcast networks. And no integration for over the air local channels. It was kind of a nice the way the cable channels would arrange, and when I'd record a show, it'd save it like a Series. But the content was just too limited and very Viacom heavy. I used to like recording the classic tv shows on Logo and few other networks. Even if I recorded it and fast forwarded the commercials, it still was work on my part to do that and sucked dealing with fast forwarding the commercials all the time.

I'm currently on Sling with an AirTV for a couple of months and it has more selection as far as viewing options. Sling had a couple of base packages and a lot of alacarte mini packages, but by the time you added more than a couple, Sling was more pricier than YouTube TV. Sling has recently added a $20/month package on top of their base which includes a lot of those extra alacarte packages.

Sling as a service is good but not great.

To start off, the AirTV (which I use with Sling) is unreliable and once every two months has to be reset. The AirTV customer service is excellent though (each time I need to reset). I call and get an American based representative immediately during the business hours, and easily spend 15 minutes each time I call to reset the AirTV. The reset is a multi step process that requires a smart phone. I suspect it's a loss leader for Dish, and there is no real synergy between Dish Network and Sling, except for maybe when Dish negotiates with content providers. But, they are run separately and customers get no benefit having both.

Instead of Sling/AirTV - I would prefer to use TiVo. TiVo has always been rock solid with my past experience. And it's easier for older people - my parents are old and prefer typing in a channel number to get to a specific channel. (Something these app based services don't have or Roku and these devices decided to do without).

While I get over the air channels integrated with Sling, Sling's guide decides to separate ABC NBC CBS FOX from the other broadcast channels, with their cable channels in the middle. (Kind of annoying in my opinion). As far as the cable nets, Sling has most of the popular channels but few are missing. Sling is kind of a paired down version of a full cable lineup and maybe it's intentional that way. Fox News not carried, FXX is on demand only, Nickelodeon and Animal Planet are missing to name a few, but Sling carries Fox owned stations, regular FX and other Viacom channels.

But, one nice thing is I can add Starz and Showtime and get 6-7 channels for each premium services, Epix and TCM to name a few. I really wish that I could skip the Sling Blue/Orange altogether, and just go straight for premiums and a few alacarte add ons.

It doesn't have to be TiVo, but it would be awesome if it was TiVo, where I could use a Bolt DVR for local channels, and maybe get subscription streaming channels integrated, the same way with Sling/AirTV, but more sophisticated. Actual remote with channel numbers, local hard-drive based DVR as well as cloud DVR. After paying $500 bucks for the device and all-in plan, I'd be willing to pay a premium over Sling for streaming channels and cloud DVR

I think if it was TiVo deciding to go with that as a plan of offering, it should make deals to carry the Showtime channels, Starz channels and any other movie channel service. (HBO might not be possible as AT&T has been difficult). But providing the HBO Now app is fine enough, where customers can sign directly to HBO. As far as cable networks: the WarnerMedia channels would be a good set of channels, Hallmark, Hearst, Discovery, maybe Sony, and a few smaller networks like HDNet. I think it could make an essentials package with that.

The Viacom channels are quite junky/trashy, except for Comedy Central, so not sure it's worth it. Other providers have had disputes with Viacom as of recently. Disney is apparently known to be greedy and will likely squeeze TiVo from making a profit unless TiVo priced it's packages quite high enough. Comcast/Universal will likely also be difficult to work with to get a fair deal out of as well, but maybe not.

I guess it would depend largely on sports. If TiVo wants to accommodate sports viewers, it would likely need deals with Disney, Warner and NBC and likely carry NBA TV among others. I'd rather it didn't covet them as enough providers like YouTube TV, fubo and psVue already focus on ensuring the sports viewer is accommodated but the pricing of the package tends to be high enough that it's not really any better than cable.


----------



## wei_c25 (Dec 6, 2016)

I've been impressed with Youtube TV (YTTV) is great. I have a lifetime Bolt and mini, but also had been on the DirecTv Now (DTVN) grandfathered plan just for kicks. While with Directv Now I kept my Bolt/mini as backup. Now two weeks in to YTTV and I went ahead and returned my cable card, I don't need the Tivo as backup anymore.

I ditched DTVN it because the DVR is horrible and wasn't getting better. YTTV's DVR is amazing. I also programmed my TV remote to also work the Apple TV and it works amazingly well. When I power on my TV, the Apple TV wakes up with another press of a button; when I power down the TV, the Apple TV sleeps automatically. So just one remote, and real buttons.

My concern with YTTV and other similar offerings is these companies don't make money, so I expect price increases (hopefully they start to offer tiers and I can stay at $50). I plan to keep my Bolt/mini handy just it case I need to dust them off again in the future. I'm also not saving much, if anything at all, if you compare cable+Tivo to internet+YTTV. But it's a better product/experience, for me.

I see Tivo becoming more and more of a niche offering, and more significant change in the industry is probably coming that could make Tivo obsolete (it's kind of already happening).


----------



## BNBTivo (Sep 7, 2015)

mschnebly said:


> When I first got YTTV I didn't like it and the way the DVR part worked was shocking to me and really different than any other. Now I love it. Whoever came up with that library idea had a great idea. The Home screen shows Top Picks For You and you can scroll thorough genres to find movies, shows or thrillers, news, Trending on Youtube - you name it. You can even browse networks for series or movies, etc. They definitely got their app right. I use an Apple TV 4k for the streamer but sometimes use the Roku Ultra too.


Ditto. Wasn't sure at first. Didn't really like YTTV interface compared to Tivo. After a few months, I would never go back. The library and the way it organizes and presents content is light years ahead. I always say it's not fancy, purposely. It's all about simply getting the content you want in front of you. I've even found the home screen has learned enough about me to provide me with most of what I'd want, organized.


----------



## BNBTivo (Sep 7, 2015)

wei_c25 said:


> I've been impressed with Youtube TV (YTTV) is great. I have a lifetime Bolt and mini, but also had been on the DirecTv Now (DTVN) grandfathered plan just for kicks. While with Directv Now I kept my Bolt/mini as backup. Now two weeks in to YTTV and I went ahead and returned my cable card, I don't need the Tivo as backup anymore.
> 
> I ditched DTVN it because the DVR is horrible and wasn't getting better. YTTV's DVR is amazing. I also programmed my TV remote to also work the Apple TV and it works amazingly well. When I power on my TV, the Apple TV wakes up automatically, when I power down the TV, the Apple TV sleeps automatically. So just one remote, and real buttons.
> 
> ...


I ended up getting a Roku TV and then purchased the Ultra remote separately. It's a great remote and feels great in your hand compared to the garbage standard roku remote. And we use the private listening often. Another big selling point for me was the roku speakers which only work with roku TV. They are phenomenal. And like you were going for, it's a seamless product now with on/off, volume, etc.

My understanding is that Google gives you the content at cost and expects to make something like $16/mo on ads. So it's a profitable model. It'll get there. And yeah, I'd love some a la carte package offerings. Ideally could add Viacom.


----------



## BNBTivo (Sep 7, 2015)

hahathatsfunny said:


> I suspect YouTube TV was a loss leader for Google, at least for awhile. It was offering $39.99/month subscriptions but providing an extensive sports heavy lineup, which likely didn't result in much profit margin at all. Google has since adjusted with a $10 monthly increase to $49.99/month, but you can tell with such a steep price increase they knew they were pricing their product too low.
> 
> I tried Philo, which didn't have the sports channels, the WarnerMedia channels or any of the broadcast networks. And no integration for over the air local channels. It was kind of a nice the way the cable channels would arrange, and when I'd record a show, it'd save it like a Series. But the content was just too limited and very Viacom heavy. I used to like recording the classic tv shows on Logo and few other networks. Even if I recorded it and fast forwarded the commercials, it still was work on my part to do that and sucked dealing with fast forwarding the commercials all the time.
> 
> ...


I could be wrong, but doesn't the recast provide a single guide for both OTA and streaming channels?


----------



## hahathatsfunny (Jul 29, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> I predict that YouTube TV -- in order to better compete against the forthcoming AT&T TV and other options -- will add a few missing popular channels in early 2020 and raise the price once again to $55. They'll strike a deal with A+E Networks to include A&E, History and Lifetime and they'll strike a deal with Crown Media to include Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. And I think they go back to Discovery and tell them they'll add the new Magnolia channel from Chip & Joanna Gaines (currently DIY Network). Actually, come to think of it, that was probably part of the deal Google negotiated with Discovery earlier this year when they added their other most popular channels.
> 
> At the same time, if not before, we'll see YTTV (like FuboTV already does) roll out support for limited live and on-demand content in 4K HDR for no extra charge. I also suspect that YTTV will offer an optional add-on tier of sports channels that they're missing, maybe for an extra $10/mo.
> 
> YTTV will be adding local PBS stations nationwide this year. I expect they'll get C-SPAN at some point too. After they make all those other upgrades I mention above, there won't be much to separate them from a traditional cable TV provider, other than a lack of Viacom channels and the inability to FF through ads on recordings from CBS. Once Verizon (and perhaps other broadband providers) rolls out a (probably free) custom Android TV streaming box and remote designed just for YTTV, you can see how at $55/mo it would be set to absolutely destroy traditional cable and satellite TV services. (Remember, YTTV allows 3 simultaneous streams and allows up to 6 individual profiles with their own individual cloud DVR, settings, favorites, etc.)


That's pretty cool that YTTV has made a deal with PBS, but I wonder if the subchannels like Create TV will be available. Fios and Comcast are the only source for getting all in my house. An antenna doesn't get a couple of PBS stations unless I try a better outdoor one.

Before increasing the price to $54.99, I think YTTV will wait until Hulu Live TV goes up to $49.99 or $54.99. I think Hulu Live TV (primarily owned by Disney) will see price increases but it'd make sense to include NBA TV and some of the cable A&E networks that Disney has 50% share with Hearst. If Disney wants to increase by $10, it could justify with those and Hallmark, and likely add from AMC (AMC, IFC, Sundance and BBC America). There are 3-4 networks from Sony (SONY Movie Channel, GSN and getTV) and AXS (HDNet) also available, which could possibly be spun in a higher tier.

I think both will avoid adding Viacom group of channels. Too many channels, most content is junk and Viacom overvalues it's channels meaning they are likely too expensive for their worth.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> ............
> YTTV will be adding local PBS stations nationwide this year. I expect they'll get C-SPAN at some point too.
> ..................
> (Remember, YTTV allows 3 simultaneous streams and allows up to 6 individual profiles with their own individual cloud DVR, settings, favorites, etc.)


Damn, and there's no YTTV app for my Fire TV devices, presumably because of the Google/Amazon feud. Amazon better fix that --- or PSVue better up their game. (Or I better get a Roku.)


----------



## wei_c25 (Dec 6, 2016)

dlfl said:


> Damn, and there's no YTTV app for my Fire TV devices, presumably because of the Google/Amazon feud. Amazon better fix that --- or PSVue better up their game. (Or I better get a Roku.)


YTTV can be installed directly on:

*Android TV *(newer sony, sharp, philips)
*All Vizio SmartCast TVs*
*Samsung & LG smart TVs* (2016 models and newer)
*HiSense TVs* (models: MTK5658, MTK5659, MSD6586)

I have a Sony and it works pretty well, but I prefer the Apple TV because its a little smoother navigating.


----------



## BNBTivo (Sep 7, 2015)

dlfl said:


> Damn, and there's no YTTV app for my Fire TV devices, presumably because of the Google/Amazon feud. Amazon better fix that --- or PSVue better up their game. (Or I better get a Roku.)


It's already addressed and YouTube is coming back to Fire. YouTube is already back, with YTTV supposed to be very soon. Personally I much prefer roku over fire anyways, but yeah, YTTV will be back on fire this year.


----------



## BNBTivo (Sep 7, 2015)

hahathatsfunny said:


> That's pretty cool that YTTV has made a deal with PBS, but I wonder if the subchannels like Create TV will be available. Fios and Comcast are the only source for getting all in my house. An antenna doesn't get a couple of PBS stations unless I try a better outdoor one.
> 
> Before increasing the price to $54.99, I think YTTV will wait until Hulu Live TV goes up to $49.99 or $54.99. I think Hulu Live TV (primarily owned by Disney) will see price increases but it'd make sense to include NBA TV and some of the cable A&E networks that Disney has 50% share with Hearst. If Disney wants to increase by $10, it could justify with those and Hallmark, and likely add from AMC (AMC, IFC, Sundance and BBC America). There are 3-4 networks from Sony (SONY Movie Channel, GSN and getTV) and AXS (HDNet) also available, which could possibly be spun in a higher tier.
> 
> I think both will avoid adding Viacom group of channels. Too many channels, most content is junk and Viacom overvalues it's channels meaning they are likely too expensive for their worth.


We have YTTV and Philo. We think it's worth it for the $70/mo and enjoy quite a bit of content on Philo. It basically fills in the missing channels. I'd gladly pay YTTV extra for that programming, and it would probably be more like $15 extra, but I don't think they are interested in doing packages nor busting the $50 barrier.


----------



## hahathatsfunny (Jul 29, 2008)

Viacom and CBS announce merger after three years, will be renamed ViacomCBS

CBS and Viacom are in process to merge back together. I think YTTV, Hulu Live, psVue and any other providers that have avoided Viacom but have CBS will eventually be pressured to carry those Viacom channels, which will result in higher price points for these base packages. CBS has sports (AFC football), and those streaming providers will want to continue to offer CBS to keep sports fans.

Sling (owned by Dish) is peculiar that it has Viacom channels but not CBS owned affiliates. I could see it going the other way with Sling. Possible cut of Viacom channels. Dish has tried to make Sling the more affordable option, and Charlie Ergen (CEO) of Dish might want to differentiate Dish Network (satellite) for more fuller selection of channels. It was known from my time with Dish Network, that it would not bend to sports channels or expensive channels. For a long time, Dish Network refused to carry YES Network. Ergen was always a tougher negotiater. I'm actually surprised though that Dish/Sling still carry Fuse, which was dropped by Comcast and Fios because of high costs, but I could see it eliminated from Sling in the future.


----------



## BNBTivo (Sep 7, 2015)

hahathatsfunny said:


> Viacom and CBS announce merger after three years, will be renamed ViacomCBS
> 
> CBS and Viacom are in process to merge back together. I think YTTV, Hulu Live, psVue and any other providers that have avoided Viacom but have CBS will eventually be pressured to carry those Viacom channels, which will result in higher price points for these base packages. CBS has sports (AFC football), and those streaming providers will want to continue to offer CBS to keep sports fans.
> 
> Sling (owned by Dish) is peculiar that it has Viacom channels but not CBS owned affiliates. I could see it going the other way with Sling. Possible cut of Viacom channels. Dish has tried to make Sling the more affordable option, and Charlie Ergen (CEO) of Dish might want to differentiate Dish Network (satellite) for more fuller selection of channels. It was known from my time with Dish Network, that it would not bend to sports channels or expensive channels. For a long time, Dish Network refused to carry YES Network. Ergen was always a tougher negotiater. I'm actually surprised though that Dish/Sling still carry Fuse, which was dropped by Comcast and Fios because of high costs, but I could see it eliminated from Sling in the future.


Streaming is the "cheaper" alternative at the moment. That's how it's largely viewed. Once more traditional cable is transitioned to IPTV/Streaming, I think we'll see more traditional and larger packages with all of the channels we came to expect with cable. But at the moment, I think the streaming providers like YTTV/Hulu/Sling/Vue/etc... are terrified of having a higher price tag even though a good portion of users would gladly pay it. They don't want to be viewed as expensive in a sea of "cheap" cable alternatives.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

I have a solution to all of TiVo's "problem." Let them do a reality show staring MR Brain. I'm sure people would love to know what he's up to next.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

I don't think a single one of those Virtual MVPD's (VMVPD's) are making any money, and probably won't for years--OR the next new tech none of us can imgine comes along in about 5 years and even VMVPD's are anachronistic.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

ufo4sale said:


> I have a solution to all of TiVo's "problem." Let them do a reality show staring MR Brain. I'm sure people would love to know what he's up to next.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

tenthplanet said:


>


If you do watch I can guarantee that it would be out of this world.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Series3Sub said:


> I don't think a single one of those Virtual MVPD's (VMVPD's) are making any money, and probably won't for years--OR the next new tech none of us can imgine comes along in about 5 years and even VMVPD's are anachronistic.


I expect that Hulu is breaking even on their Live TV add-on or, if they're not quite yet, they will as it continues to scale up with additional subs. Making a profit on the live TV service doesn't really matter since in order to get the Live TV part, you have to get the main Hulu on-demand service too, and that's what Disney really cares about. That is (or will be) their big money-maker in TV (along with Disney+ and ESPN).

As for Google's YouTube TV, I dunno. It may still be losing a bit even after raising the price to $50/mo this year. But it's growing and will get a nice shot in the arm now that Verizon is getting serious about distributing it to their broadband and wireless subscriber base. As it grows, the incremental ad revenue that Google makes serving up targeted ads in the cloud DVR and VOD (fueled no doubt by all that data they've already gathered through web searches, regular YouTube, etc.) will make the service profitable. I also expect that YouTube TV will add a few important missing channels within the next year -- those channels from Hallmark and A&E (including History and Lifetime) -- probably prompting another little price bump. But at that point, they'll have all the basics covered except for the Viacom channels, which will probably become available as part of a standalone CBS All Access subscription anyhow.

AT&T will structure and price their AT&T TV service -- which is kinda sorta a vMVPD -- in order to make it work. It'll be deeply intertwined with their upcoming HBO Max on-demand service, with HBO Max automatically included in every channel package, I bet. We'll see Comcast do something similar with their upcoming NBCU SVOD, bundling it with their own vMVPD that they'll sell nationwide over any internet connection, just as AT&T will do with AT&T TV.

Aside from those, whose left among the vMVPDs? Sling, PS Vue and Fubo TV. Sling will carry on as the low-end budget alternative for folks who don't need their locals (or who can integrate them via an OTA antenna). It at least has the backing of a major (if struggling) MVPD, DISH. PS Vue and Fubo TV will both collapse if they're not purchased by a major company who has the resources to absorb near-term losses while scaling it up and using the service as an add-on sweetener for whatever it is that they really care about selling. Who fits that bill? Amazon, who could use a vMVPD as an add-on option for Prime.


----------



## BNBTivo (Sep 7, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> I expect that Hulu is breaking even on their Live TV add-on or, if they're not quite yet, they will as it continues to scale up with additional subs. Making a profit on the live TV service doesn't really matter since in order to get the Live TV part, you have to get the main Hulu on-demand service too, and that's what Disney really cares about. That is (or will be) their big money-maker in TV (along with Disney+ and ESPN).
> 
> As for Google's YouTube TV, I dunno. It may still be losing a bit even after raising the price to $50/mo this year. But it's growing and will get a nice shot in the arm now that Verizon is getting serious about distributing it to their broadband and wireless subscriber base. As it grows, the incremental ad revenue that Google makes serving up targeted ads in the cloud DVR and VOD (fueled no doubt by all that data they've already gathered through web searches, regular YouTube, etc.) will make the service profitable. I also expect that YouTube TV will add a few important missing channels within the next year -- those channels from Hallmark and A&E (including History and Lifetime) -- probably prompting another little price bump. But at that point, they'll have all the basics covered except for the Viacom channels, which will probably become available as part of a standalone CBS All Access subscription anyhow.
> 
> ...


Why would Amazon purchase Vue? They don't need to. If or when Amazon releases a streaming service, it'll explode. You did forget Philo which fills a niche market. I agree that Vue will collapse, not sure about Fubo as that also fits a niche market.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

BNBTivo said:


> Why would Amazon purchase Vue? They don't need to. If or when Amazon releases a streaming service, it'll explode. You did forget Philo which fills a niche market. I agree that Vue will collapse, not sure about Fubo as that also fits a niche market.


Why do you not consider Prime a streaming service?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

BNBTivo said:


> Why would Amazon purchase Vue? They don't need to. If or when Amazon releases a streaming service, it'll explode. You did forget Philo which fills a niche market. I agree that Vue will collapse, not sure about Fubo as that also fits a niche market.


No, Amazon doesn't *need* to purchase Vue unless they decide that they want to get to market fairly quickly with a well-reviewed working product that they can immediately sell. Think about it, it takes time to negotiate carriage contracts with all those network owners in order to create one or more channel packages: Disney, Comcast/NBCU, AT&T/WarnerMedia, ViacomCBS, Fox, Discovery, A+E Networks, AMC Networks, Crown Networks, Sinclair/Diamond (RSNs), etc. And then think of all those local affiliates for the big 4 networks across the nation's top 150 markets! Vue and other vMVPDs (e.g. AT&T TV Now, Hulu with Live TV, Fubo TV) have been chipping away at getting all those locals on board for years now and they're still not 100% of the way there.

Also, consider the fact that the coding work has already been done to integrate PS Vue into the native Fire TV UI. (Yes, you can use PS Vue, at least the basics of the service, on a Fire TV device without even opening the PS Vue app.) Beyond that, folks seem to say that it's reliable and has a good feature set. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole system is already running on Amazon's cloud. Lots of stuff does, including a good chunk of Netflix. Why should Amazon build their own vMVPD from scratch when so much of the hard work in building a good one has already been done by Sony for PS Vue? Once Amazon bought it and built up the subscriber count, they could re-open carriage contract negotiations and maybe tweak the packages and get better wholesale pricing.

One way to improve PS Vue (besides changing the name and advertising it a lot more) would be to make it a bit cheaper for customers, which is of course something Amazon could do if it was an add-on to Prime. Lower the package prices by at least $5 across the board: price Access at $45, Core at $50, and Elite at $60. If Amazon bought Vue, I'd expect them to continue operating Vue as-is for an announced time period (e.g. 6 more months) while at the same time fully integrating the Vue feature set into the Prime Video app and (if it's not already) the native Fire TV UI. Continually ping existing Vue customers and let them know that if they have an active Prime Video account, they can convert their Vue subscription into the new Prime Video Live Channels service. Same channels, same features, new lower price. And then at the end of the transition period, PS Vue would shut down.

(Or, perhaps in a deal worked out with Sony, Amazon might continue to operate the PS Vue app and service but it would only be available to customers who initially signed up for the service or have recently accessed it on a Sony PlayStation console and/or added it to an existing paid PlayStation Plus service account. That's really the main reason that Sony even launched the service in the first place: so that they could build out their vision of a PlayStation-centric entertainment ecosystem. And that's why they've resisted ever dropping "PlayStation" from the PlayStation Vue brand name, despite the fact that *everyone* says it inhibits the service from widespread adoption because many people wrongly assume it only works on PS consoles or that it has something to do with video games.)

As for Philo, it was a great concept (lots of entertainment channels at a low cost by avoiding costly locals, sports and news channels) but I have to wonder how much longer that its co-owners will see a need to keep it going.

First, there's Viacom, which just merged with CBS to become ViacomCBS. That group has CBS All Access, which I expect will soon begin offering on-demand content, and perhaps live channels, from the various Viacom brands: Nickelodeon, MTV, VH1, BET, etc. And of course Viacom bought Pluto TV recently and they're pouring lots of resources into making that free ad-supported streamer successful.

Second, there's Discovery. Their CEO has talked for awhile, ever since they acquired the Scripps Networks (HGTV, Food, Travel, etc.), about going solo with their own little skinny bundle of live channels for around $5-8/mo. And now we know that they will in fact launch in early 2020 a new OTT service featuring content from across their channels, plus nature and science docs like Planet Earth from The BBC (with whom they've struck a long-term agreement for new and catalog content). It definitely sounds like it'll be on-demand but, who knows, it might feature all of their live linear channels too.

Aside from Viacom and Discovery, Philo's other co-owners are A+E Networks and AMC Networks. But those groups are much smaller and have far fewer popular networks. A+E's noteworthy channels are A&E, History and Lifetime while AMC's are AMC and, to a much lesser extent, BBC America, IFC, and Sundance. It's true that those two groups are VERY small fish relative to all the other content owners (AMC is worth about $3.1 billion vs. Disney's $254 billion). And given that they don't have any other direct-to-consumer services for their channels, I'm sure they'd be in favor of sticking with Philo. But they're not enough to keep it going, really. And, look, Philo only has an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 subscribers right now.

What I expect to happen in the next 12 months is for someone -- probably ViacomCBS, who has made no secret that they're hungry for more acquisitions -- to buy AMC Networks. A+E Networks is co-owned 50/50 by Disney and Hearst. Maybe Disney buys out the other 50% (but would the government allow Disney to get STILL bigger after swallowing most of Fox?). More likely we'd see another big player buy out Hearst's 50% or the whole thing. Again, ViacomCBS would be a logical acquirer. or NBCU. Or Discovery (who would keep A&E and History but try to sell off Lifetime, which doesn't fit at all with Discovery's non-fiction focus).

In this dawning era of direct-to-consumer video, there's very little room for small players any more. The other noteworthy small player that participates in Philo (but isn't a co-owner) is Crown Media, owner of the Hallmark channels. At some point, one of the big media companies will offer the privately held parent company, Hallmark Cards, Inc., more money for Crown Media than they can resist. I'm predicting the buyer will be NBCU but it could be any big content player who thinks the Hallmark channels would complement their existing content portfolio.

BTW, here's a chart to help you visualize the players in media and tech. As you can see, the big ones who will control most everything in the end will be AT&T, Disney, Comcast, Netflix, Google, Amazon, and Apple. (Whether Facebook can succeed as a media titan remains to be seen.) And if they can survive without getting gobbled up by larger fish, ViacomCBS and/or Discovery.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> I expect that Hulu is breaking even on their Live TV add-on or, if they're not quite yet, they will as it continues to scale up with additional subs. Making a profit on the live TV service doesn't really matter since in order to get the Live TV part, you have to get the main Hulu on-demand service too, and that's what Disney really cares about. That is (or will be) their big money-maker in TV (along with Disney+ and ESPN).
> 
> As for Google's YouTube TV, I dunno. It may still be losing a bit even after raising the price to $50/mo this year. But it's growing and will get a nice shot in the arm now that Verizon is getting serious about distributing it to their broadband and wireless subscriber base. As it grows, the incremental ad revenue that Google makes serving up targeted ads in the cloud DVR and VOD (fueled no doubt by all that data they've already gathered through web searches, regular YouTube, etc.) will make the service profitable. I also expect that YouTube TV will add a few important missing channels within the next year -- those channels from Hallmark and A&E (including History and Lifetime) -- probably prompting another little price bump. But at that point, they'll have all the basics covered except for the Viacom channels, which will probably become available as part of a standalone CBS All Access subscription anyhow.
> 
> ...


OK, let me rephrase: all the press accounts I have come across state that NONE of the Virtual MVPD's are making ANY Money. But, that is often the case with new businesses, but the problem for enduring years before making any money is that the technology changes far faster today, and likely, too short of a period to VMPVD's to start making money before a new tech we can't imagine will replace how we access entertainment. It took _many years_ before Amazon posted a profit; it took Dish (owner of SlingTV, the most popular VMVPD service with the most subscribers today) about 7 years before they posted a profit, and they have just become the 4th wireless service with it own physical network and more to be built-out for 5G.

The business of beng an MVPD is paying MOUNTAINS of money to the content providers/media companies, especially if the VMVPD does not have critical mass, and not a single VMVPD service today has sufficient critical mass to demand lower cost for rights to the programming. Look at SlingTV's subscriber count (I think Dish just this last quarter finally showed seperate subscriber count for Dish and SlingTV) and all the other VMVPD's will have FEWER subscribers. You have fewer subscribers you pay a HIGHER rate to obtain the programming. In other words, DirecTV, Dish, et al. are paying less in programming costs than their seperate, but wholly owned VMVPD servcies are today. Add to that the "digital rights" to allow content to be recorded and stored for the subscriber on the cloud. The more genrous the restrictions on the recorded content (such as allowing skipping of commericals and keeping recordings for longer periods) the MORE money an MVPD must pay. At this point of no VMVPD having sufficient critical mass to demand lower programming costs, the content owner/media companies dictate all the terms and demand higher payments compared to MSO's (cable companies) and satellite providers. At leaset for some years to come.

The way the business works is this: be willing to lose money for years until you reach the sufficient critical mass to demand lower programming costs, and then start making money. This is why Apple passed on creating their own VMVPD service (as so many were hoping they would provide an VMVPD service because it seemed a "natural" for Apple with their Apple TV already in homes) because they, _" . . . just couldn't get [their heads around] around the business model."_ (V)MVPD for Apple _" . . . was a buniness they just couldn't understand [or make sense of]._" It was mystery to them. And consider how Apple created a business with very high margins, a physical product and content that they controlled and "charged" others for the priviledge of selling in their App Store, and those app developers to enter the walled garden of Apple and it millions of users, all providing immediate cash flow and HUGE profits, while by comparison the (V)MVPD business was absolutely OPPOSITE to how they, Apple, have made money for so long. They just couldn't fathom spending billions of dollars and having to wait several years before they could make even the most modest amount of money. Apple could have easily afforded such a business as an MVPD, but it was just counter to how they make money each quarter without having to wait and risk for profits many years down the road, went the less expensive route of providing more content for the Apple TV, instead, rather than a full-blown VMVPD service.

Years of loss for VMVPD's in the future, just as it was in the MVPD biz, but no gurantee that the tech won't change long before they come close to making a profit, providing us an unimaginable way we will consume content that does not involve anything resembling an VMVPD.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Series3Sub said:


> Years of loss for VMVPD's in the future, just as it was in the MVPD biz, but no gurantee that the tech won't change long before they come close to making a profit, providing us an unimaginable way we will consume content that does not involve anything resembling an VMVPD.


Eh, I largely agree with you, except you omit the fact that some of these vMVPDs are owned by major content owners, making the economics much different for them. Hulu is owned by Disney. AT&T TV is owned by AT&T/WarnerMedia. YouTube TV is owned by Google/YouTube (which has a ton of user-uploaded video content that they can monetize via ads). I don't believe that Disney, when you look at the totality of the company, is losing money on subscribers to Hulu with Live TV, which itself buys a lot of live and on-demand content from other parts of Disney.

I agree with your assessment of why Apple never got into the vMVPD game: they didn't see the point of jumping on board a cable TV model that is in decline, requiring them to lose money on it in the first few years before making it profitable. Better to just go straight to where it's all going anyhow: your own direct-to-consumer service with your own high-quality exclusive content. And that's exactly what Apple TV+ will be.

Now, it could be that Amazon is thinking the same thing. "Why bother getting into the cable TV game? We've got our own good thing going with Prime Video, home to a growing slate of Amazon Originals." But Amazon does differ from Apple. Amazon is, I think, less conservative in terms of their risk appetite and the scope of their ambitions. And because Amazon is mainly about retail sales, you can see how they might be more interested in advertising than Apple. That's surely why Amazon has gotten into free ad-supported video with their IMdB Freedive service. Maybe they see value in also distributing ad-supported traditional cable channels too, which still get a lot of viewers, especially for live sports and news. Prime Video in Canada has already begun selling a mini-bundle of live cable channels. And Amazon isn't shy about pouring cash into ventures for a few years until they can turn profitable if they think that it's a business that they can become dominant in.

As far as some new, unseen technology coming along that will supplant vMVPDs, I can't imagine what that would possibly be. There's not going to be some new thing that replaces the internet (not for a long time anyhow). Nothing is going to replace streaming video entertainment via the internet in the next couple of decades at least. (Sure, it might move to new forms of video, like 3D virtual reality, but that will just be an evolutionary outgrowth of existing 2D video.)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Apple didn't get into the vMVPD game because it's not the future. On-demand streaming is the future. The old cable model isn't the future. IT's the past slapped onto the internet.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Apple didn't get into the vMVPD game because it's not the future. On-demand streaming is the future. The old cable model isn't the future. IT's the past slapped onto the internet.


Yeah, I agree with that to an extent. Apple is very conscious of being a trend-setter, always looking forward, never back (sometimes to the frustration of their customers who, for instance, miss headphone jacks on their iPhones).

But I do believe the rumors that Apple was very seriously looking at launching their own vMVPD a few years back. Word is that they couldn't cobble together the bundle of channels they wanted at their desired sub-$40 price point. It was said at the time that Hollywood/cable networks were very wary of getting in bed with Apple after seeing what iTunes did to the record business. So instead, they ended up making deals with players they saw as less powerful/dangerous than Apple for the first crop of vMVPDs. And, after those rolled out, I think Apple just lost interest in trying to come out with their own me-too cable bundle service.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I agree with that to an extent. Apple is very conscious of being a trend-setter, always looking forward, never back (sometimes to the frustration of their customers who, for instance, miss headphone jacks on their iPhones).
> 
> But I do believe the rumors that Apple was very seriously looking at launching their own vMVPD a few years back. Word is that they couldn't cobble together the bundle of channels they wanted at their desired sub-$40 price point. It was said at the time that Hollywood/cable networks were very wary of getting in bed with Apple after seeing what iTunes did to the record business. So instead, they ended up making deals with players they saw as less powerful/dangerous than Apple for the first crop of vMVPDs. And, after those rolled out, I think Apple just lost interest in trying to come out with their own me-too cable bundle service.


I think what Apple really wanted was to able to show off the content in a way that delights customers. And of course to do it at a great price.

And yeah I don't think they could get those terms.

By doing their content they can create that experience they think will delight customers.

IT will be interesting to see if they announce a pricepoint for it tomorrow. $9.99 probably. But maybe free with their new hardware for a year or something. Free with Apple care? Bundle with Apple Music and icloud storage?


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> Free with Apple care?


And it will be called Apple TV Prime!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> I think what Apple really wanted was to able to show off the content in a way that delights customers. And of course to do it at a great price.
> 
> And yeah I don't think they could get those terms.
> 
> ...


Yeah. Hopefully we get some solid details about Apple TV+ tomorrow. Knowing Apple, they will, as rumored, price this new service (with a paucity of original content and zero back-catalog) at $9.99/mo. I think that's a mistake. Better to set the regular price (at least for now) at the same $7/mo price that Disney+ is charging. And then also give it away for an extended trial to Apple hardware owners. (A year would be great -- it would encourage widespread sampling, generate buzz for their content, and allow folks to get hooked on series without worrying about paying -- but that's probably hoping for too much. More likely is a 3-6 month free trial, I'd say.)

At any rate, I do expect them to offer discounted rates for bundling Apple TV+ with other services like Apple Music. If they're both regularly priced at $9.99, maybe they'll sell them together for $14.99.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. Hopefully we get some solid details about Apple TV+ tomorrow. Knowing Apple, they will, as rumored, price this new service (with a paucity of original content and zero back-catalog) at $9.99/mo. I think that's a mistake. Better to set the regular price (at least for now) at the same $7/mo price that Disney+ is charging. And then also give it away for an extended trial to Apple hardware owners. (A year would be great -- it would encourage widespread sampling, generate buzz for their content, and allow folks to get hooked on series without worrying about paying -- but that's probably hoping for too much. More likely is a 3-6 month free trial, I'd say.)
> 
> At any rate, I do expect them to offer discounted rates for bundling Apple TV+ with other services like Apple Music. If they're both regularly priced at $9.99, maybe they'll sell them together for $14.99.


But they aren't competing with Disney. It feels like they are competing with HBO. And HBO is $15/mo.

All they really need is 1 hit show. And people will buy in and many will stick around for the other shows.

Free trial would be 30 days. 3 months is too long for a tv service. You could watch every episode of the first slate of all their tv shows in 3 months. 30 days is plenty. And assuming they release an episode per week, you'd get to watch to watch the first few episodes for each show released at launch. I could see them just making the first few episodes of each show free too and that would be the free trial.

I don't see bundles with Apple Music even though I mentioned them. Not Apple's style. And I don't think they make much money off Apple Music.

I could see it being given away with hardware and/or Apple Care. 1 year free with the purchase of a Mac, Ipad Pro or iPhone. An extra year with AppleCare.  I mean one thing about a streaming service is the main costs are paid for up front afaik. The UI and the development of the shows and the hosting needed. After that it is only bandwidth. I don't think that is a huge cost per customer. So it a very attractive thing to include free as a value add to their hardware. If it helps increase hardware sales by some small amount each year it could pay for itself. IF the shows are high quality and you're getting the service for free with hardware it becomes very attractive value add.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

trip1eX said:


> But they aren't competing with Disney. It feels like they are competing with HBO. And HBO is $15/mo.


Feels to me like the tone and type of content on Apple TV+ will be somewhere in between HBO and Disney+. But unlike either of those services, Apple TV+ will only have its own originals, and a few small amount of them to start off. Which, I guess, is why they're pricing it even lower than the $7/mo price point I suggested. Instead, it's just $5/mo.



trip1eX said:


> All they really need is 1 hit show. And people will buy in and many will stick around for the other shows.


Yeah, maybe. But again, there's going to be so little there to begin with to temp folks. It's rumored that the roll-out strategy will be to immediately drop the first 3 eps of each series, then roll out one new ep per week thereafter. If the service launches on Nov. 1 with four series (The Morning Show, For All Mankind, Dickinson, See), well, that's a whopping 12 hours of content available the first week. On the one hand, that's enough to keep a lot of folks occupied if they have any other sources of TV to watch (and virtually everyone will). But it may still be a hard sell getting lots of folks to try it out, even at just $5. I mean, HBO Max will launch with 10,000 hours of content! And look how much is on Netflix and Hulu and even Disney+. Or what about Epix at $6/mo? They've got a growing library of premium originals, plus recent films from Paramount, Lionsgate and MGM.

But I do think that if at least half of the Apple Originals get strong reviews and get some buzz going, they'll be able to pull in a decent number of samplers at just $5/mo. Whether folks will think there's enough there to keep them month-in and month-out, we'll see.



trip1eX said:


> Free trial would be 30 days. 3 months is too long for a tv service. You could watch every episode of the first slate of all their tv shows in 3 months. 30 days is plenty. And assuming they release an episode per week, you'd get to watch to watch the first few episodes for each show released at launch. I could see them just making the first few episodes of each show free too and that would be the free trial.


Well, turns out the free trial for everyone is only 7 days. Heh. And no, for a service launching with so little content, and backed by a company with so much cash to burn, I don't think 3 months is too long of a free trial. I don't even think 1 year is too long. If the battle is establish Apple TV+ as a long-term staple of the American video diet, to build up a large viewer base, ensuring that launching the app and watching its new stuff every week becomes a habit, I think they'd be smart to offer all Apple hardware owners an extended free trial. Habits take time to form. And it's going to take time for Apple TV+ to develop a sizable library of original content.

At any rate, Apple IS doing the 1 free year, but only for folks who are buying a new Apple iPhone, iPad, Mac or Apple TV. For those who buy a new Apple device every year, perhaps Apple TV+ will always be free. Or maybe this free year offer will only last during the service's early days.



trip1eX said:


> I don't see bundles with Apple Music even though I mentioned them. Not Apple's style. And I don't think they make much money off Apple Music.


As services becomes a bigger deal for Apple, with Apple Music, Apple News+, Apple Arcade, and Apple TV+, (along with AppleCare and iCloud), I do expect we'll eventually see them offer some kind of services bundle.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Yeah called it with the 1 yr free with hardware. Price surprised me on low side. 

As far as ATV+ subscribers go, they already “signed up” 60+ million customers over the next year. The 60+ million who will buy Apple hardware over the next year. .

There is room for lots of services just like there is room for multiple cable channels. And with streaming you can start and stop easy. I mean every service has different content anyway so they aren’t Apple to apples comparison.

edit: they sell 200 million iphones a year, 40 million ipads and 20 million Macs. So the ATV+ service will be free to a ton of consumers for 1 yr every year.


----------



## hahathatsfunny (Jul 29, 2008)

There are a few lesser known apps offering live streaming services
FrndlyTV
Vidgo

Frndly TV is worth checking out. It has a $7.99/monthly plan that includes an unlimited DVR. It recently added the INSP channel which has a lot of westerns classic TV.

I looked on who owns Frndly TV, and found this article, and later the CEO's name
https://www.multichannel.com/pr-feed/family-friendly-live-tv-streaming-service-launches-release

CEO
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bassilelkhatib

His wife's name is Elizabeth El-Khatib.

The argument was TiVo couldn't start up a service because it wasn't well established with content creators or established like that of Dish Network or YouTube, but this company that owns Frndly TV seems very small business.

Anyways, this service, Frndly TV, is a kind of neat and can be a good add-on for another streaming package, cable package or just over the air viewers.

I think Philo is more slick, but Philo has a lot of glut channels including several Viacom channels.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo's answer to this is to partner with Sling and integrate it into their new AndroidTV device.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

hahathatsfunny said:


> There are a few lesser known apps offering live streaming services
> FrndlyTV
> Vidgo
> 
> ...


Some of the glut channels are must haves to others.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

hahathatsfunny said:


> There are a few lesser known apps offering live streaming services
> FrndlyTV
> Vidgo
> 
> ...


Well when people are talking Tivo starting up a service, we're talking full cabletv replacement. Not a niche service that is basically just the Hallmark channels. 

And I don't think the argument was they couldn't start up such a service but that they would not be able to compete. Also I don't think cabletv over the internet is where the market is going either so why invest in something that is likely to never really take off. Plus who says these services make money just because someone started them.

It's interesting to hear such a service exists and that someone put it together especially if it was a small startup or something.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

It's not quite an investment. It's $50. I have no Roku or any other stand alone streamer. I say for dolbyvision and Dolby Atmos I will drop the $50


----------

