# TiVo revenue, profit beat estimates as subscriptions rise



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102474347

This is really good news on sales and revenue.



> March 3 (Reuters) - Digital video recorder maker TiVo Inc reported better-than-expected quarterly revenue and profit, helped by higher subscriptions.
> 
> The company's shares rose 7 percent in extended trading on Tuesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

Great news, glad I rejoined the TiVo family after a decade.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

At (a ridiculously high?) $499 for a product lifetime subscription, I should hope that TiVo is profitable . . . .


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Anyone that pays $499 is too lazy to do a quick Google search.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> At (a ridiculously high?) $499 for a product lifetime subscription, I should hope that TiVo is profitable . . . .


And that's a ridiculous statement. There is no way YOU can correlate that price to their profitability.

For example, do they apply the $499 all at once, or spread it out over multiple years? Remember, accounting for businesses is not cash-flow, it's accrual. And how many $499's to become profitable? Was your $499 the only one they sold? Did they sell gazillions?

You can state $499 seems like a high price for a lifetime sub. That would be an opinion, and treated as such. But to say "they should be profitable because..." makes no sense.

Don't mean to pick on you, but I can't let statements with no basis in logic just fly by without comment.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Arcady said:


> Anyone that pays $499 is too lazy to do a quick Google search.


1. I didn't pay that. 2. Many people just aren't good at price searching and comparisons, or aren't equipped to do so. Regardless, the underlying point stands.



astrohip said:


> And that's a ridiculous statement. There is no way YOU can correlate that price to their profitability. . . .
> 
> Don't mean to pick on you, but I can't let statements with no basis in logic just fly by without comment.


Sorry, but I didn't have the time to do a detailed economic analysis of the company, for my 1-sentence commentary/observation. And yes, you're right, there would be a myriad of factors to analyze and consider. But no, you're wrong, IMHO, that one shouldn't refer to the subscription price as a potential--and seemingly, if I were to guess, very real--contributing factor to the profitability, in the course of a colloquial board discussion (as versus stock analyst's study). In fact, enhanced profitability is at least partly why, I would guess, the 2005 $299 PLS has increased over time to the current $499 PLS (but no, you're right, I don't have footnote references for this right now).

Don't mean to react to you, but I can't let attacking statements not taking general thought and potential common sense into account in a colloquial discussion just fly by without comment.


----------



## raqball (Feb 23, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> At (a ridiculously high?) $499 for a product lifetime subscription, I should hope that TiVo is profitable . . . .


I don't find the lifetime subscription to be *ridiculously high*

If you only used the service for 6-years (I assume a Tivo will last at least 6-years) that boils down to about $6.93 a month.. If you used the service longer then obviously it's cheaper than that..

Sorry but I also find your comment a bit odd all things considered..

My .02 worth off the $499, non discounted, price tag..


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Are there any numbers comparing how many subs are lifetime vs. monthly/yearly?

It would seem that lifetime is still rather rare, since the resale value stays so high even on 7 year old boxes, but that's not a true indicator.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Arcady said:


> Are there any numbers comparing how many subs are lifetime vs. monthly/yearly?
> 
> It would seem that lifetime is still rather rare, since the resale value stays so high even on 7 year old boxes, but that's not a true indicator.


It's about 50/50 lifetime vs recurring subscriptions. There is a line-item in the quarterly results for "% of TiVo-Owned cumulative subscriptions paying recurring fees". This quarter it stands at 46%, but I think the Mini lifetime subscriptions are pulling it down. 2 years ago it was at 52%.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

Arcady's point still stands. The price for individual subscriptions (lifetime or otherwise) does not mean a company is profitable. It's a level the market will stand for such service.


----------



## Old Hickory (Jan 13, 2011)

That is good news. We should all want Tivo to be profitable in order to provide us with the products/services we want. 

Cheers!


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

jrtroo said:


> Arcady's point still stands. The price for individual subscriptions (lifetime or otherwise) does not mean a company is profitable. It's a level the market will stand for such service.


You're absolutely right. But if a company is profitable, the level of prices it charges (assuming in the black) presumably _is_ a contributing factor.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I actually think the TiVo subscription / pricing model is a far better deal today than it has ever been. The service covers so much more...


TiVo now offers the Mini as an extender in the $150 total price range - providing a real whole home option. 
TiVo also provides free full featured IOS / Android apps that offers not only a second screen but as a consumption device as well.
TiVo is pushing integration to Chromecast and Roku (forward looking)

I cannot think of any other consumer electronic device that has continued to provide an increase in product offering after the point of sale. They just keep adding more functionality and they don't ask you for any additional money.

I think I paid about $800 all in for my last TiVo (and sold two LT S3's for $400)


I paid just over $700 for my last iPad 
I think I paid about $1600 for my last TV
I paid about $1400 for my last laptop
I will pay a total of $650 for my iPhone 6 over two years
Considering the resale value of a TiVo with lifetime service and comparing the price of other comparable CE devices and considering TiVo continues to deliver additional value within the existing (and last gen) products - I think the pricing model is very reasonable.

Now that TiVo is moving back to a profitable state - I wonder if rumors of acquisitions will start again?


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> You're absolutely right. But if a company is profitable, the level of prices it charges (assuming in the black) presumably _is_ a contributing factor.


That wasn't your argument. You equated price with profitability.

$499 must mean they are making money. But that just hasn't been true very often the past 5-7 years.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> That wasn't your argument. You equated price with profitability.
> 
> $499 must mean they are making money. But that just hasn't been true very often the past 5-7 years.


Except that I never made that connection, instead simply saying that given the significant price of the PLS, I would hope that TiVo is profitable.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Except that I never made that connection, instead simply saying that given the significant price of the PLS, I would hope that TiVo is profitable.


You just made the connection again.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> You just made the connection again.


Yes, my hope that with that (significant) level of PLS pricing, TiVo is profitable. And now returning to our regularly scheduled programming . . . .


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> 1. I didn't pay that. 2. Many people just aren't good at price searching and comparisons, or aren't equipped to do so. Regardless, the underlying point stands.


Monthly is $15 and yearly is $150, so by comparison it's not too bad. Especially since lifetime retains some value long term if you sell the unit down the road.

Now if you think TiVo's subscription costs are too high in general then I'd like to know what you're comparing them too? My cable company only offers 2 tuner DVRs, so to get 6 tuners I'd need 3 which costs $41/mo. A 6 tuner TiVo costs $400 + $15/mo + $2.50/mo for CableCARD, so breakeven is only 17 months then I'm saving $23.50/mo. If I go lifetime then breakeven is 22 months then I'm saving the entire $41/mo. So it seems pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I really didn't mean, in my original 1-sentence comment, to left-turn this thread into a consideration of the reasonableness or not of a TiVo box and TiVo service (or an analysis of TiVo profitability).  

Having said that, I guess I come to this discussion from the flip side of where many TiVo devotees come from: I'm the OTA, not cable, guy that TiVo is looking for. And so while so many cable people may look at the prices as a lessening or comparable from their cable charges, for those in the OTA world, the TiVo subscription charges can be seen as a (significant) move from the kinda, sorta free OTA world. 

Of course, I do recognize that there are significant benefits, including for the OTA world--and that's why I've just upgraded to a Roamio in a long-term TiVo S2 household (which will continue with the S2), after all. For me, having a 4-channel device in the Roamio being a great convenience and point of enjoyment--being able to record multiple shows in a single device and not having to use multiple televisions and devices where there are programming conflicts. And even something as "basic" as the TiVo guide is wonderful to have.

But I also can see what now has evolved into a MSRP $499 PLS price ($299 10 years ago, and $199 before that) as a *gulp* experience for some of those thinking of joining the TiVo experience from the OTA world. I do keep on wondering, as TiVo keeps on increasing the PLS pricing, if TiVo is starting to price itself out of the market for many people (although, the monthly and yearly option is there, which may make things more palatable for many in the short-term).

Btw, I do recognize that there are deals out there--I got one of them (thanks, TiVo!--and why I finally went forward with a new TiVo device). But there still is a *gulp* factor, especially perhaps for a newcomer.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Mikeguy said:


> But I also can see what now has evolved into a MSRP $499 PLS price ($299 10 years ago, and $199 before that) as a *gulp* experience for some of those thinking of joining the TiVo experience from the OTA world. I do keep on wondering, as TiVo keeps on increasing the PLS pricing, if TiVo is starting to price itself out of the market for many people (although, the monthly and yearly option is there, which may make things more palatable for many in the short-term).
> 
> Btw, I do recognize that there are deals out there--I got one of them (thanks, TiVo!--and why I finally went forward with a new TiVo device). But there still is a *gulp* factor, especially perhaps for a newcomer.


As you said, there are deals. Anyone can get lifetime for $399. And factotring in inflation, $299 10 years ago is equivalent to $369 today. So in real dollars, the price of lifetime service is only ~$25 more today than it was 10 years ago.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Plus a box for $100-$200. And while inflation has raised prices, my employers haven't seen fit to do similarly with my pay. 

Just saying--coming from the OTA world, it can be a (big) *gulp*.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Plus a box for $100-$200. And while inflation has raised prices, my employers haven't seen fit to do similarly with my pay.
> 
> Just saying--coming from the OTA world, it can be a (big) *gulp*.


how much are dvrs in the OTA world?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> how much are dvrs in the OTA world?


My guess is, in the range of a TiVo Roamio, or perhaps a bit more? But candidly, I _do_ see the value of TiVo (and have managed to get attractive deals for each of my OTA TiVo's), and so have subscribed to the TiVo cult. 

Back as to TiVo profitability, I find TiVo's 10-year loyalty offers to its customers interesting. Basically, under that program, one can get a new Roamio with lifetime for around the same price as one paid for a TiVo Series 2 with lifetime 10 years ago, no adjusting for inflation needed. I assume that TiVo still makes a sufficient (whatever that means) profit from this, and the consumer saves a tidy sum as well. Customer loyalty breeds profit, sufficient for TiVo to make this offer, presumably. And my guess is as well, it helps satisfy the appetite of Wall Street, with respect to subscriber numbers.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> Plus a box for $100-$200. And while inflation has raised prices, my employers haven't seen fit to do similarly with my pay.
> 
> Just saying--coming from the OTA world, it can be a (big) *gulp*.


The S2 units only had 1 or 2 tuners, cost $100-200 and required either a $300 lifetime fee or $13/mo. The Roamio Basic is $150 with either a $400 lifetime fee or $15/mo. So the cost of the box is essentially the same. Service has increased $100 for lifetime or $2/mo but it covers 2-6x as many tuners. So if you look at it from a cost per tuner aspect prices have actually come down since you bought your S2.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The S2 units only had 1 or 2 tuners, cost $100-200 and required either a $300 lifetime fee or $13/mo. The Roamio Basic is $150 with either a $400 lifetime fee or $15/mo. So the cost of the box is essentially the same. Service has increased $100 for lifetime or $2/mo but it covers 2-6x as many tuners. So if you look at it from a cost per tuner aspect prices have actually come down since you bought your S2.


Look at the cost to performance in Computers, that way down, and TiVo DVR is mostly a computer with a hard drive, it is the guide data that the big ongoing cost for TiVo.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The S2 units only had 1 or 2 tuners, cost $100-200 and required either a $300 lifetime fee or $13/mo. The Roamio Basic is $150 with either a $400 lifetime fee or $15/mo. So the cost of the box is essentially the same. Service has increased $100 for lifetime or $2/mo but it covers 2-6x as many tuners. So if you look at it from a cost per tuner aspect prices have actually come down since you bought your S2.


If we're talking MSRPs, the Roamio is $200 + $499. But certainly, there is no comparison of the advanced features. Again, though, on the OTA side, it can be a *gulp* for those nice features.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You can get a Roamio OTA for $50 + $15/mo


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> If we're talking MSRPs, the Roamio is $200 + $499. But certainly, there is no comparison of the advanced features. Again, though, on the OTA side, it can be a *gulp* for those nice features.


While using MSRPs is a nice idea, I really think comparing what someone actually has to pay is a little better. Since the Roamio's release anyone could use the $100 off coupon code and you pretty much could always pay less than $200 for the unit. I purchased a Roamio with lifetime within a month of release and only paid $590 and anyone could have done the same.

If someone thinks that is too much money that is their business but I thought it was a great deal. I paid $300 for my first Series 2 with lifetime to get 4 tuners would have cost $1200, I also paid $500 for my TiVo HD with lifetime a year after release - 4 tuners would have cost $1000.

And yes I want and use 4 tuners for OTA - -having them all in one box is great.


----------



## raqball (Feb 23, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> I really didn't mean, in my original 1-sentence comment, to left-turn this thread into a consideration of the reasonableness or not of a TiVo box and TiVo service (or an analysis of TiVo profitability).
> 
> Having said that, I guess I come to this discussion from the flip side of where many TiVo devotees come from: I'm the OTA, not cable, guy that TiVo is looking for. And so while so many cable people may look at the prices as a lessening or comparable from their cable charges, for those in the OTA world, the TiVo subscription charges can be seen as a (significant) move from the kinda, sorta free OTA world.
> 
> ...


Not every cord cutter is doing so to save $$$

I've been a cord cutter for several years and I cut the cord because I was tired of spending money every month for 300 channels I'd never watch.

Sure I save a lot of $$ now since I no longer pay a high cable TV subscription but I also spend a lot of money on gear and other subscriptions.

There are 2 major downfalls to cord cutting. Limited or no EPG data and no DVR functionality.

The Tivo (and a few others) solve these 2 problems. $450 for a Roamio with lifetime subscription is a killer deal and just about anyone who does pre purchase research can easily find the same deal.

Is the Tivo for someone with a $10 Walmart antenna who gets 5 channels? Probably not. Is the Tivo for someone who has a very limited budget and is trying to save every cent they can by cutting the cord? Probably not.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Mikeguy said:


> If we're talking MSRPs, the Roamio is $200 + $499. But certainly, there is no comparison of the advanced features. Again, though, on the OTA side, it can be a *gulp* for those nice features.


You get what you pay for, there are many alternatives to Tivo for OTA recording. I know what you're saying but if you want the features that Tivo provides you're already willing to pay the price, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about with the gulp factor. If you don't then you go with a lesser, cheaper solution.

And there are other ways to get a Roamio with lifetime for $500, and with resale value you'll get back more than half of that at upgrade time, etc.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> My guess is, in the range of a TiVo Roamio, or perhaps a bit more?


I thought you said you came from the OTA world?

Or do you mean from a DVR-less OTA world?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> You get what you pay for, there are many alternatives to Tivo for OTA recording. I know what you're saying but if you want the features that Tivo provides you're already willing to pay the price, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about with the gulp factor. If you don't then you go with a lesser, cheaper solution.
> 
> And there are other ways to get a Roamio with lifetime for $500, and with resale value you'll get back more than half of that at upgrade time, etc.





trip1eX said:


> I thought you said you came from the OTA world?
> 
> Or do you mean from a DVR-less OTA world?


The DVR-less world, but also the world without a monthly (or lifetime) subscription, that some in the original TV world grew up with and see as a norm--for them.

Look, I'm not saying that there are not great benefits with a TiVo device--I'm a fan. And life has many value/cost-benefit choices. But I have a hard time with any denial of the "gulp factor"-- it seems a natural reaction to me, especially for people not with cable. I even typically see the TiVo (additional/high-for-some) subscription charge commented upon in reviews of TiVo boxes, and listed as a con in the reviewer's pro/con summary list. And while I understand the effect of inflation, the rise of the cost of PLS over the years to the current $499 (absent discount deals, yes, I know) seems questionable, personally, to me--and shouldn't the growth of a subscriber base help contain costs over time, as there is a larger pool to spread fixed costs over (yes, you're right, I don't have an analysis of TiVo's costs--and this never seems to work that way with governments and taxes, does it  )?

I just can't deny that if I recommended a TiVo to my senior-age parents and mentioned the $499 charge, they would look at me like I was crazy and say, no way. (And if I tried to gift them with this, they likely would tell me to return it.)


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> I just can't deny that if I recommended a TiVo to my senior-age parents and mentioned the $499 charge, they would look at me like I was crazy and say, no way.


Anyone would look at you like you were crazy. They would tell you to use the PLSR code. 

What if new 48 inch TVs cost $99, but in order to turn on the tuners and inputs, you had to pay a $399 fee? Same thing, different pricing scheme. TiVo needs to make a profit on the equipment, which they are selling at a loss initially.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Arcady said:


> Anyone would look at you like you were crazy. They would tell you to use the PLSR code.
> 
> What if new 48 inch TVs cost $99, but in order to turn on the tuners and inputs, you had to pay a $399 fee? Same thing, different pricing scheme. TiVo needs to make a profit on the equipment, which they are selling at a loss initially.


I agree, everyone seems to get excited when they pay $800, $1000, $1600 + for a new TV every few years but $500 every ten years for a TiVo and they want a free service transfer!


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Arcady said:


> Anyone would look at you like you were crazy. They would tell you to use the PLSR code.
> 
> What if new 48 inch TVs cost $99, but in order to turn on the tuners and inputs, you had to pay a $399 fee? Same thing, different pricing scheme. TiVo needs to make a profit on the equipment, which they are selling at a loss initially.


You're absolutely right as to needing to make a profit. And I don't know enough about TiVo's internal finances/costs/investor-market issues/etc. to know if a rise to the $499 _that TiVo wants _ (regardless of possible codes and offers) really is "mandated" by circumstances, including inflation, or if it's "over-reaching" (hard to use the terms in a capitalistic system). But my parents' reaction, and the *gulp*, remains, as does my questioning of the rise to this level.



bradleys said:


> I agree, everyone seems to get excited when they pay $800, $1000, $1600 + for a new TV every few years but $500 every ten years for a TiVo and they want a free service transfer!


Yep, I would love a "free" service transfer (nothing is free--it's calculated into charges and profits)--just as TiVo presumably would love to charge me as much as it could to make as much profit as it could. Goose/gander.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> The DVR-less world, but also the world without a monthly (or lifetime) subscription, that some in the original TV world grew up with and see as a norm--for them.
> 
> Look, I'm not saying that there are not great benefits with a TiVo device--I'm a fan. And life has many value/cost-benefit choices. But I have a hard time with any denial of the "gulp factor"-- it seems a natural reaction to me, especially for people not with cable. I even typically see the TiVo (additional/high-for-some) subscription charge commented upon in reviews of TiVo boxes, and listed as a con in the reviewer's pro/con summary list. And while I understand the effect of inflation, the rise of the cost of PLS over the years to the current $499 (absent discount deals, yes, I know) seems questionable, personally, to me--and shouldn't the growth of a subscriber base help contain costs over time, as there is a larger pool to spread fixed costs over (yes, you're right, I don't have an analysis of TiVo's costs--and this never seems to work that way with governments and taxes, does it  )?
> 
> I just can't deny that if I recommended a TiVo to my senior-age parents and mentioned the $499 charge, they would look at me like I was crazy and say, no way. (And if I tried to gift them with this, they likely would tell me to return it.)


If TiVo's pricing is acceptable or not is a personal thing based on how much the person values what a TiVo DVR provides. I use my TiVo for several hours a day, it frees me to watch what I want when I want to watch it and allows me to get rid of most of the commercials. $600 for that seems like a good deal to me. If someone doesn't mind being chained to a TV schedule and forced to sit through commercials then a DVR wouldn't be worth much to them.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I absolutely agree with you (and why I have TiVo service). I just continue wondering about the level, *gulp*, of the "regular" TiVo subscription service charge.  Much less of a *gulp* with a loyalty discount from TiVo. And I do wonder if TiVo would profit more, in the end, with a lesser hurdle for those new to TiVo (but I have to assume that TiVo has studied this at length).


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> I absolutely agree with you (and why I have TiVo service). I just continue wondering about the level, *gulp*, of the "regular" TiVo subscription service charge.  Much less of a *gulp* with a loyalty discount from TiVo. And I do wonder if TiVo would profit more, in the end, with a lesser hurdle for those new to TiVo (but I have to assume that TiVo has studied this at length).


TiVo has tried pricing pretty much all over the place, iclding $0 down deals with higher monthly fees. In the end stand alone TiVos/DVRs seem to only be a niche market. Which completely makes sense to me for the following reasons:

Renting a DVR from ones provider is easy and good enough for most people
Tuning adapters & cable cards increase complexity.
DVRs are used as loss leaders in special pricing deals
Other than Comcast you loose access to VOD
Dishnetwork, Direct TV, & AT&T Uverse have closed systems.
A portion of the OTA only users are so due to costs constraints. 
What is also telling for me is that TiVo's cable partner subs is increasing and from what I can see from prices people have posted those cable rental rates are actually more costly than what buying a TIVo with liftime would cost, if you look at total cost over a 2-3 year period which tells me pricing of stand alone TiVos while certainly a concern for some people isn't the only or even likely the main limiting factor.


----------



## t1voproof (Feb 6, 2010)

astrohip said:


> For example, do they apply the $499 all at once, or spread it out over multiple years? Remember, accounting for businesses is not cash-flow, it's accrual.


They currently count lifetime revenue over 66 months provided the box has called in within the last 6 months. It is interesting that the length of time to count this revenue has increased over the years as TiVo has realized their devices have lasted longer than initially estimated.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

t1voproof said:


> They currently count lifetime revenue over 66 months provided the box has called in within the last 6 months. It is interesting that the length of time to count this revenue has increased over the years as TiVo has realized their devices have lasted longer than initially estimated.


Even if your box hasn't called in in the last 6 months, they still count the lifetime subscription if the amortization period hasn't elapsed. The 6 month rule only kicks in for fully-amortized lifetime subs.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Even if your box hasn't called in in the last 6 months, they still count the lifetime subscription if the amortization period hasn't elapsed. The 6 month rule only kicks in for fully-amortized lifetime subs.


Not looking for a legal debate. But, the last quarterly numbers discussion thread I thoroughly read through indicated the language had changed (complete with excerpts and links), and most agreed that it meant a 6-month past-due to "phone home" PLS sub would lose it's place in the active sub count. There was discussion that also pointed to the language indicating it wasn't as simple as getting back into the count, by making a call, even if still inside the amortized period. I could be wrong. But, I used to see it the way you just described it, only to now believe otherwise.

The beauty of the way subs are counted (for TiVo), are two fold:

1. People who abandon Club/Cult TiVo, and then sell their PLS TiVos, are no loss to TiVo (in active subs), so long as the new owners allows them to connect to the TiVo Service. This can even work out with non-PLS subs, if the conditions are met to count the subs as active.

2. TiVo is getting away with including every Mini with a monthly sub, a purchased PLS sub, and even the new service-included subs, all as if they are full-fledged TiVo subs. The decision to "include" a PLS subscription with the Mini hardware purchase and free activation, still creates an "active sub".

The ugly part of the way subs are counted (for the retail consumer), is that as long as those unhappy with TiVo, keep selling their TiVos, the only potential loss to TiVo is lost sales and subs of new TiVo products, to customers who have lost their love of TiVo (plus the negative word-of-mouth factor).

TiVo doesn't seem too concerned about this, based on recent judgment calls, which I won't call by name, or version. They have their MSO partners to help make up the numbers, plus the creative accounting with Mini service subs being lumped in with full-DVR subs.

Muddy waters, IMO, if those looking at the numbers don't know all this.

Of course active subs numbers are going to go up, while acquisition costs go down. The more Minis they sell, the bigger the "TiVo Bubble" will grow. The question I have is when will this bubble burst? All bubbles do.

I've held back since the start of this thread, hoping somebody else would bring this up, so I wouldn't have to...

Give me a moment to go get my asbestos suit on. Better yet, I'll just call this as "I said what I needed to say, and I'm not going to argue about it".


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> The DVR-less world, but also the world without a monthly (or lifetime) subscription, that some in the original TV world grew up with and see as a norm--for them.
> 
> Look, I'm not saying that there are not great benefits with a TiVo device--I'm a fan. And life has many value/cost-benefit choices. But I have a hard time with any denial of the "gulp factor"-- it seems a natural reaction to me, especially for people not with cable. I even typically see the TiVo (additional/high-for-some) subscription charge commented upon in reviews of TiVo boxes, and listed as a con in the reviewer's pro/con summary list. And while I understand the effect of inflation, the rise of the cost of PLS over the years to the current $499 (absent discount deals, yes, I know) seems questionable, personally, to me--and shouldn't the growth of a subscriber base help contain costs over time, as there is a larger pool to spread fixed costs over (yes, you're right, I don't have an analysis of TiVo's costs--and this never seems to work that way with governments and taxes, does it  )?
> 
> I just can't deny that if I recommended a TiVo to my senior-age parents and mentioned the $499 charge, they would look at me like I was crazy and say, no way. (And if I tried to gift them with this, they likely would tell me to return it.)


Most old people balk at the prices of stuff because they are used to stuff being a lot cheaper. Not a good example. Even more so with technology they might not understand.

And again you're putting the price in a vacuum still. And sort of want to have your cake and eat it too. YOU want to say the $500 price is expensive while also admitting you know nothing of the costs Tivo incurs. You want to say Tivo better be making money while comparing the price of Tivo to the price of the air you breathe.

Your statement wasn't that the cost of Tivo was a lot of money to you. You said Tivo better be making $$$$ because the $500 is a lot of money to you because, essentially, watching TV live via OTA is free.

And I don't think you are accurate about the pricing of Tivos over time as well. When the first HD Tivos came out the price was closer to $1000+ with lifetime from what I recall. A Roamio Plus with lifetime is $800 list price 7-8 years later even before you account for inflation or the deals you can get today.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

nooneuknow said:


> ...Give me a moment to go get my asbestos suit on. Better yet, I'll just call this as "I said what I needed to say, and I'm not going to argue about it".


I have often wondered why the actual number of subs mattered at all. From a business point of view revenue is what matters. From a revenue point of view a Mini certainly generates less than Roamio, but the sale of a Mini with lifetime even if included in the price does generate revenue in the same way that a Roamio does and is another TV a TiVo is on just like when people bought a TiVo for each TV they had. But even before Mini's came along I always thought a better measure of what direction TiVo was going would have been to identify how many individual households had at least one active TiVo. I mean I have 5 TiVos how does having my 5 subs as part of TiVo's sub total mean anything, does it mean anything more or less than someone with a Roamio and 4 minis?

I do understand why counting Mini's makes sense for other purposes, like add revenue, viewing statistics, etc. things based on the number of TVs being watch via a TiVo as there is no really difference there between a Mini and any other TiVo.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Most old people balk at the prices of stuff because they are used to stuff being a lot cheaper. Not a good example. Even more so with technology they might not understand.
> 
> And again you're putting the price in a vacuum still. And sort of want to have your cake and eat it too. YOU want to say the $500 price is expensive while also admitting you know nothing of the costs Tivo incurs. You want to say Tivo better be making money while comparing the price of Tivo to the price of the air you breathe.


Interesting rash generalization about "old people."

As to a $500 price (and the current PLS price): yep, I certainly can say, without knowing more, that that's expensive, certainly more so than a $200 or $300 price. (And just as reviewers likewise state, when reviewing TiVo products; and just as reviewers often state when reviewing Apple products, including Apple's new I-Watch.) I would be surprised if most people wouldn't generally acknowledge that $500 is a lot of money. Now, it's a different issue as to whether that cost is "justified," given TiVo's costs--it certainly could be expensive but still worthwhile, a judgment call for people in their own circumstances. And I certainly can have my own logical belief that TiVo's profit presumably is supported by the growth of the PLS price--it's income in the door (and which has grown considerably over time).


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Your statement wasn't that the cost of Tivo was a lot of money to you. You said Tivo better be making $$$$ because the $500 is a lot of money to you because, essentially, watching TV live via OTA is free.
> 
> And I don't think you are accurate about the pricing of Tivos over time as well. When the first HD Tivos came out the price was closer to $1000+ with lifetime from what I recall. A Roamio Plus with lifetime is $800 list price 7-8 years later even before you account for inflation or the deals you can get today.


As to your additions above:

My original comment was not based on a comparison to free OTA, but rather the hefty amount of the charge as well as, in my mind, its significant growth over time--my belief being that if TiVo now has a profit, those factors suggest to me that the PLS is contributing to the profit.

And, yes, my pricing info. is accurate, based on my own entrance fee  to the TiVo world 10 years ago (and as others likewise have indicated here)--for whatever it's worth, 10 years ago, the PLS was $299, and had been $199 before that.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

atmuscarella said:


> I have often wondered why the actual number of subs mattered at all. From a business point of view revenue is what matters. From a revenue point of view a Mini certainly generates less than Roamio, but the sale of a Mini with lifetime even if included in the price does generate revenue in the same way that a Roamio does and is another TV a TiVo is on just like when people bought a TiVo for each TV they had. But even before Mini's came along I always thought a better measure of what direction TiVo was going would have been to identify how many individual households had at least one active TiVo. I mean I have 5 TiVos how does having my 5 subs as part of TiVo's sub total mean anything, does it mean anything more or less than someone with a Roamio and 4 minis?
> 
> I do understand why counting Mini's makes sense for other purposes, like add revenue, viewing statistics, etc. things based on the number of TVs being watch via a TiVo as there is no really difference there between a Mini and any other TiVo.


More "active" subs = more data from each unit associated with a sub, for TiVo analytics to data mine, and sell that data.

TiVo generates revenue from analytics, as well as the ads they insert into the menus, pause screens, keep/delete screens, and discovery bar.

As part of my quest to give TiVo as little data as possible, I don't let them assign a thumbs-up to something, just because I scheduled it, or changed a setting on it (plus tell my TiVo to clear all thumbs at every manual reboot), and if their ads alert me to something I want to watch, I use KMTTG to schedule it, then sit back and laugh how my TiVo is trying so hard to get me to click on the ad for something I already scheduled.

The analytics data TiVo gets from me, that isn't due to a menu navigation overshoot, is how many times I pause on wardrobe malfunctions, then play them back in slow motion (that's just a generic example).

It's likely to stoke up some flames, that I go out of my way to evade what is essentially TiVo click bait. But, I've seen a great many more people than just I declare they do the same thing. So, if that makes me the "great satan", I know I'm not alone, and condemning me is condemning all the rest.

I think the other part of the subscriber numbers is just a measure of market penetration, which increases TiVo's attractiveness to potential MSO partners (close to what you said).

Subscriber numbers always seem to take the lead over all else, and I've pondered the reasons for that, many times, myself. I tend to just leave understanding that to the stockholders and market experts, and move on. There are far more worthy things I ponder about TiVo, like just how much retail is (truly) worth to them, and how long before what retail customers want (or don't want), will be irrelevant to the company known as TiVo, and whoever owns it. The future is a tricky thing to predict...


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Mikeguy said:


> As to your additions above:
> 
> My original comment was not based on a comparison to free OTA, but rather the hefty amount of the charge as well as, in my mind, its significant growth over time--my belief being that if TiVo now has a profit, those factors suggest to me that the PLS is contributing to the profit.


The patent litigation settlement money is what pushes them into profitable status. When that dries up in 2018, they will probably be operating at a loss once again. That'll probably be a good opportunity to short their stock.



Mikeguy said:


> And, yes, my pricing info. is accurate, based on my own entrance fee  to the TiVo world 10 years ago (and as others likewise have indicated here)--for whatever it's worth, 10 years ago, the PLS was $299, and had been $199 before that.


Those old PLS rates were predicated on the assumption that TiVo would be selling millions of units per year. That clearly didn't pan out the way they had hoped.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> I have often wondered why the actual number of subs mattered at all. From a business point of view revenue is what matters.


The impression I continually have is, Wall Street likes subscriber info., perhaps as an indicator of how large a base is and how much larger it could be.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

nooneuknow said:


> More "active" subs = more data from each unit associated with a sub, for TiVo analytics to data mine, and sell that data.
> 
> TiVo generates revenue from analytics, as well as the ads they insert into the menus, pause screens, keep/delete screens, and discovery bar.


Very good points--TiVo also is an analytics and an ad company. Something we're reminded about every time putting a show on pause. 



tarheelblue32 said:


> The patent litigation settlement money is what pushes them into profitable status. When that dries up in 2018, they will probably be operating at a loss once again. That'll probably be a good opportunity to short their stock.


I assume, then, that you don't think that TiVo's having made its way into the cable world (including based on its patented technologies and enforcement rigors) will, in essence, carry the litigation settlement amounts forward in the form of licensing, etc. fees? I do remember that the litigation profits were substantial--I don't know how much TiVo earns from the cablecos.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Won't the original TiVo patents begin to expire pretty soon?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Arcady said:


> Won't the original TiVo patents begin to expire pretty soon?


2018



Mikeguy said:


> I assume, then, that you don't think that TiVo's having made its way into the cable world (including based on its patented technologies and enforcement rigors) will, in essence, carry the litigation settlement amounts forward in the form of licensing, etc. fees? I do remember that the litigation profits were substantial--I don't know how much TiVo earns from the cablecos.


Halfway through 2018, pretty much all the patent/licensing money dries up. It's going to be tough for TiVo to replace that revenue between now and then.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

Arcady said:


> Won't the original TiVo patents begin to expire pretty soon?


2018, and TiVo's core patents are toast. I'm sure that they probably will get some residuals from money owed, not paid in a lump sum.

I can't help but wonder if TiVo's new penchant for renaming things is an effort to slap patents on "new" old things.

I literally heard, for the first time, a show-ending voiceover say "set your Season Pass now". This was one day after 20.4.6 went general rollout, and there is no longer a "Season Pass" to set, only OnePasses. Ironic, I thought...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

nooneuknow said:


> 2018, and TiVo's core patents are toast.


2019 will not be a good year . . . .


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

Arcady said:


> What if new 48 inch TVs cost $99, but in order to turn on the tuners and inputs, you had to pay a $399 fee? Same thing, different pricing scheme. TiVo needs to make a profit on the equipment, which they are selling at a loss initially.





bradleys said:


> I agree, everyone seems to get excited when they pay $800, $1000, $1600 + for a new TV every few years but $500 every ten years for a TiVo and they want a free service transfer!


This always amazes me too, guys mostly, will brag about how big their new TV is and how much it cost, sorta like a [email protected] measuring contest, but then baulk at the price of a TiVo and refuse to even acknowledge that Lifetime Service exists, while they perpetually pay $20/mo for their crappy SA8300HD from 2005 with a 160GB HDD.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> 2019 will not be a good year . . . .


What exactly is going to happen then? Is Tivo going to dry up and go away? Will my Roamios and Minis magically disappear?


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Tivo has licensed out most of their patents, so I don't expect any more specific competition then the currently have. And "most" of the revenue from litigation has been received it is just being booked over time. 

TiVos revenue actually looks pretty decent considering. It is far better now then it was before the lawsuits. 

But hey -I am sure you guys are correct. 2019 and we can expect mass layoffs and bankruptsy for TiVo. Good thing they have all that cash in the bank and subsidiary revenue to help pay for the golden parachutes! 

It guess it is also too bad tivo hasn't been granted any additional patents since the origional time shifting.

It is nice having financial experts on the forum to help us all understand the future of tivo!


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

sangs said:


> What exactly is going to happen then? Is Tivo going to dry up and go away? Will my Roamios and Minis magically disappear?


They'll still have revenue coming in and enough cash saved up to plug up the shortfall for at least several years after. And who knows, maybe by the mid-2020s there will be a great CableCard replacement that will work perfectly across all MSOs and retail TiVos will be selling like hotcakes, or maybe they will make a deal with a big fish like Comcast or TWC to provide all set-top boxes for them. Almost anything's possible within the next 10 years.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Yep, my assumption is that the good folks at TiVo are able to see more than 1 year down the road.  But/and as the saying goes, truth can be stranger than fiction.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> As to your additions above:
> 
> My original comment was not based on a comparison to free OTA, but rather the hefty amount of the charge as well as, in my mind, its significant growth over time--my belief being that if TiVo now has a profit, those factors suggest to me that the PLS is contributing to the profit.
> 
> And, yes, my pricing info. is accurate, based on my own entrance fee  to the TiVo world 10 years ago (and as others likewise have indicated here)--for whatever it's worth, 10 years ago, the PLS was $299, and had been $199 before that.


There is one thing you're right about. It's all in your mind. 

YOur Tivo 10 years ago was more than a basic Roamio today with lifetime even before accounting for inflation. You have to look at total cost. Tivo can make the fee as high or low as they want if they do the opposite with the price you pay for the hardware. A higher fee translates to a lower price on hardware because the fee is subsidizing the hardware.

And saying price contributes to profit is like saying sleeves contribute to a coat.

Profit is price - cost.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> As to your additions above:
> 
> My original comment was not based on a comparison to free OTA, but rather the hefty amount of the charge as well as, in my mind, its significant growth over time--my belief being that if TiVo now has a profit, those factors suggest to me that the PLS is contributing to the profit.
> 
> And, yes, my pricing info. is accurate, based on my own entrance fee  to the TiVo world 10 years ago (and as others likewise have indicated here)--for whatever it's worth, 10 years ago, the PLS was $299, and had been $199 before that.


There is one thing you're right about. It's all in your mind. 

You have to look at total cost. Tivo can make the fee as high or low as they want if they do the opposite with the price you pay for the hardware. A higher fee translates to a lower price on hardware because the fee is subsidizing the hardware. So any discussion of the historical price of the fee without looking at historical total costs is moot.

And saying price contributes to profit is .... bass ackwards.

On one hand it is like saying the sky is blue because sales minus expenses are profit.

ON the other hand that statement is ignorant because it implies you can just jack up the price and make money. The higher the price the more money you make. That's not the way the real world works.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Thanks for the on-going quibbling, trip1ex, but I'm not really sure of the purpose.
> 
> By the way, in point of fact, my S2 plus lifetime indeed did cost less (without inflation) than my Roamio (base) with lifetime. And thanks for your other points as to pricing; and, indeed, a higher price can contribute more to profit than a lower price--it all depends on the numerics in your final calculation.
> 
> subsequent edit: Oops, I now see that you edited your original post directly above, eliminating some of your points there originally (saying that my current Roamio + PLS costs less, even without inflation, than my S2 box with PLS; and providing your economics formula, profit = price - cost), and amplifying others. Ah, well, thanks for your contribution, as always.


The purpose is part entertainment. And part education. 

Series 2 with lifetime was $500 from what I looked up in Wikipedia. A Roamio basic list price is $600. So maybe series 2 was cheaper overall before inflation but not by as much as your earlier posts imply.

And when accounting for inflation the Roamio Basic with lifetime would be cheaper.

....Saying a higher price can contribute to more profit than a lower price is saying nothing. Again it's putting price in a vacuum.

Anyway this all got started cause you made the flippant comment that $500 price = automatic profits. 

It's entertaining to see how long you will defend that statement or where you can go with it.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Ah, reliance on Wikipedia for authority can be dangerous.  Back 10 years or so ago, a TiVo could be purchased for as low as $50-$100 retail, and PLS for $299, again retail. And the Roamio list is $199 + 499 PLS, for $698, not $600 as you wrote. Still quite a difference between the two. But, of course, there indeed is inflation, and the Roamio certainly is a more advanced machine (although if one wanted to push matters, one also could say that tech. costs tend to go down for the same tech. over time, not up). 

And despite what you now write, I never wrote that TiVo had "automatic profits"--I guess you lost that over time. To the contrary, I wrote that with the current level of the PLS, I should hope that TiVo has profits. As I've said above repeatedly, the end calculation of course depends on many numerics, not available to me (or, er, you, I'm guessing)--but a higher price certainly can help, where one can keep costs down or they stay down relative to the price now being charged. One doesn't want to be ignorant, in your language above, and to ignore that. 

But you continue entertaining yourself, lol.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Ah, reliance on Wikipedia for authority can be dangerous.  Back 10 years or so ago, a TiVo could be purchased for as low as $50-$100 retail, and PLS for $299, again retail. And the Roamio list is $199 + 499 PLS, for $698, not $600 as you wrote. Still quite a difference between the two. But, of course, there indeed is inflation, and the Roamio certainly is a more advanced machine (although if one wanted to push matters, one also could say that tech. costs tend to go down for the same tech. over time, not up).
> 
> And despite what you now write, I never wrote that TiVo had "automatic profits"--I guess you lost that over time. To the contrary, I wrote that with the current level of the PLS, I should hope that TiVo has profits. As I've said above repeatedly, the end calculation of course depends on many numerics, not available to me (or, er, you, I'm guessing)--but a higher price certainly can help, where one can keep costs down or they stay down relative to the price now being charged. One doesn't want to be ignorant, in your language above, and to ignore that.
> 
> But you continue entertaining yourself, lol.


I think a Series 2 single tuner Tivo tech is closer to a VCR than it is a TiVo Roamio. When looking at TiVo pricing over the years you also have to look at the tech change.

In any event I believe the orginial list price of a Series 2 was $199 + $299 service = $500 - but you are correct that by mid/late 2005 you could buy one for $50 or less.

A must closer comparison would be comparing the cost of the original Series 3 at release (fall 2006) to the price of the Roamio at release (fall 2013 or 7 years latter). When you do that the Roamio with lifetime at full price ($700) cost less than the Series 3 without any service (note lifetime service was not available for direct purchase then). Even when lifetime service did come back in the spring of 2008 a full price TiVo HD with full price lifetime service was either $700 or $650 not sure if the list price for the HD was $250 or $300 (which no one would have had to pay because of discounts - kind of like the Roamio since it was released). And I guess I should mention the Premiere which had a full price with lifetime with no discounts of $700 when it was released.

Kind of hard for me to see where the price has increased much if at all in the last 8+ years.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

CoxInPHX said:


> This always amazes me too, guys mostly, will brag about how big their new TV is and how much it cost, sorta like a [email protected] measuring contest, but then baulk at the price of a TiVo and refuse to even acknowledge that Lifetime Service exists, while they perpetually pay $20/mo for their crappy SA8300HD from 2005 with a 160GB HDD.


OMG I can't stop laughing! 

My 2 cents, but I think TiVo is going to go the way they've mentioned a few times in the past, by becoming a software company and stopping the manufacture of their own boxes, melding content together in a nice UI to be hosted on many different versions of hardware like Roku, FireTV, Chromecast, AppleTV (?), etc. Who knows who the DVR manufacturer would be. Maybe a big CE company like Sony, Samsung, Phillips, et al as they did before. This is even if the DO have a host DVR anymore. Maybe they'll also go cloud based direct to streaming client as has been tested too?

I see that as what they're working on to get up and going by the time their patents expire anyway.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Who knows who the DVR manufacturer would be. Maybe a big CE company like Sony, Samsung, Phillips, et al as they did before.


The Hughes, Sony, Samsung and Philips DirecTiVo boxes were all made in the same factory in Mexico. The only difference between them was a faceplate, a sticker on the back, and software that said which company. Sony took it one step further by being Sony and using an incompatible remote. I don't believe any large CE company ever built their own. I don't know a lot about third party TiVo boxes from that era.

Don't they already put TiVo software on Pace hardware and DirecTV hardware? I don't think the hardware is really the hard part. Slap in some tuners, a processor and a hard drive and away you go. The software is the important part.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> The Hughes, Sony, Samsung and Philips DirecTiVo boxes were all made in the same factory in Mexico. The only difference between them was a faceplate, a sticker on the back, and software that said which company. Sony took it one step further by being Sony and using an incompatible remote. I don't believe any large CE company ever built their own. I don't know a lot about third party TiVo boxes from that era.
> 
> Don't they already put TiVo software on Pace hardware and DirecTV hardware? I don't think the hardware is really the hard part. Slap in some tuners, a processor and a hard drive and away you go. The software is the important part.


Yeah, agreed. I guess that's kind of my point. They did get rid of their hardware engineers shortly after the Roamio was released if you recall, so maybe they'll just never rehire them and offload that to other folks, like Pace as you mentioned.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Yeah, agreed. I guess that's kind of my point. They did get rid of their hardware engineers shortly after the Roamio was released if you recall, so maybe they'll just never rehire them and offload that to other folks, like Pace as you mentioned.


As I recall, they did not get rid of all of them. They kept a couple. And apparently those 2 hardware engineers they kept were able to redesign the Mini v2 by themselves. And since they probably don't have much else to do, the 2 of them could probably give the Roamio DVRs a hardware redesign sometime in the next 3 to 4 years.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> As I recall, they did not get rid of all of them. They kept a couple. And apparently those 2 hardware engineers they kept were able to redesign the Mini v2 by themselves. And since they probably don't have much else to do, the 2 of them could probably give the Roamio DVRs a hardware redesign sometime in the next 3 to 4 years.


Of course, since they still have all those TiVo boxes out in the wild. Refresh yes, brand new design, not so sure, especially with all the changes afoot like migrating from QAM cable broadcast to streaming and who knows what comes from the death of Cablecard.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Kind of hard for me to see where the price has increased much if at all in the last 9+ years.


As you've explained, it all depends where you're coming from. Certainly you're right, that the tech. is more there than before, and there also is inflation. But tech. prices often fall over time, even with improvements. My only point originally was, in part (and I know, many don't agree)-- it ain't inexpensive, at least for some/many people. (By the way, my S2 ain't closer to a VCR!  In fact, although 10 years old, I find that, apart from the sole tuner, it holds its own nicely next to its Roamio great grandchild.)



HarperVision said:


> They did get rid of their hardware engineers shortly after the Roamio was released if you recall, so maybe they'll just never rehire them and offload that to other folks, like Pace as you mentioned.





tarheelblue32 said:


> As I recall, they did not get rid of all of them. They kept a couple. And apparently those 2 hardware engineers they kept were able to redesign the Mini v2 by themselves. And since they probably don't have much else to do, the 2 of them could probably give the Roamio DVRs a hardware redesign sometime in the next 3 to 4 years.


I wasn't aware of that de-staffing development. Always sad to hear, even though it can be understood.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Ah, reliance on Wikipedia for authority can be dangerous.  Back 10 years or so ago, a TiVo could be purchased for as low as $50-$100 retail, and PLS for $299, again retail. And the Roamio list is $199 + 499 PLS, for $698, not $600 as you wrote. Still quite a difference between the two. But, of course, there indeed is inflation, and the Roamio certainly is a more advanced machine (although if one wanted to push matters, one also could say that tech. costs tend to go down for the same tech. over time, not up).
> 
> And despite what you now write, I never wrote that TiVo had "automatic profits"--I guess you lost that over time. To the contrary, I wrote that with the current level of the PLS, I should hope that TiVo has profits. As I've said above repeatedly, the end calculation of course depends on many numerics, not available to me (or, er, you, I'm guessing)--but a higher price certainly can help, where one can keep costs down or they stay down relative to the price now being charged. One doesn't want to be ignorant, in your language above, and to ignore that.
> 
> But you continue entertaining yourself, lol.


The gist of what you said was $500 equals automatic profit. And that compared to the cost of air, a Tivo is expensive. I can say what you said 10 different ways. Let's not parse words. And split hairs.

You just want $500 to be expensive based on no comparison to anything.

Just because you decided $500 was a lot then Tivo must be making money.

Except they haven't been making money the past 5 years.

And adjusted for inflation, old Tivos aren't cheaper than today's Tivo.

And despite what you want to imply, a higher price is no guarantee of profit. You seem to think it helps, but that's just not automatically true. Price your item too high and you get no sales!!!!! And no profit.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> The gist of what you said . . . .


Thanks for your continuing dialog, some of which I agree with, believe it or not; some of which is flat wrong; and some of which misconstrues, including what I've said previously. But time to move on and not clutter the thread, IMHO.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Of course, since they still have all those TiVo boxes out in the wild. Refresh yes, brand new design, not so sure, especially with all the changes afoot like migrating from QAM cable broadcast to streaming and who knows what comes from the death of Cablecard.


Fair enough, but there isn't anything stopping them from hiring more hardware engineers several years down the line if they need them to design an entirely new DVR. In the meantime, they really didn't need to keep paying lots of hardware engineers to sit around twiddling their thumbs while they wait for a CableCard successor.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Fair enough, but there isn't anything stopping them from hiring more hardware engineers several years down the line if they need them to design an entirely new DVR. In the meantime, they really didn't need to keep paying lots of hardware engineers to sit around twiddling their thumbs while they wait for a CableCard successor.


Well, that's the whole premise I was throwing out there, sans rehiring the hardware engineers.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

atmuscarella said:


> TiVo has tried pricing pretty much all over the place, iclding $0 down deals with higher monthly fees. In the end stand alone TiVos/DVRs seem to only be a niche market. Which completely makes sense to me for the following reasons:
> ...
> I can see from prices people have posted those cable rental rates are actually more costly than what buying a TIVo with liftime would cost, if you look at total cost over a 2-3 year period which tells me pricing of stand alone TiVos while certainly a concern for some people isn't the only or even likely the main limiting factor.


Yeah, I was going to point that out. If people actually did the cost/benefit analysis, the BETTER (in many people's opinions, especially here of course) option is CHEAPER.

Heck, even if you went monthly, at least in *some* areas, isn't the total for a Tivo still cheaper? (including cable card from the cable company)


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Thanks for your continuing dialog, some of which I agree with, believe it or not; some of which is flat wrong; and some of which misconstrues, including what I've said previously. But time to move on and not clutter the thread, IMHO.


YOu're in denial is all. You think Tivo must be making money since you have to pay $500+. There's no logic to that. IT's just your own ignorant belief. That's all.

You just determined that $500 equals profit for Tivo based on......nothing.

That's what your comment comes down to. That's what it said in so many words.

But if tivo were making so much money they would have many retail competitors. They have none. Because it is a crap business to be in given the leverage the cable and satellite companies have with their customer.

But I can only lead the horse to water.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> YOu're in denial is all . . . .


Once again, thank you for your contribution, although it again is a rehash, is inaccurate as to my thoughts (and unsupported as to yours), and is peppered with charged words. And once again, certainly time to move on and not clutter the thread.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Once again, thank you for your contribution, although it again is a rehash, is inaccurate as to my thoughts (and unsupported as to yours), and is peppered with charged words. And once again, certainly time to move on and not clutter the thread.





Mikeguy said:


> At (a ridiculously high?) $499 for a product lifetime subscription, I should hope that TiVo is profitable . . . .





trip1eX said:


> YOu're in denial is all. You think Tivo must be making money since you have to pay $500+. There's no logic to that. IT's just your own ignorant belief. That's all.
> 
> You just determined that $500 equals profit for Tivo based on......nothing.
> 
> ...


I'm in the ballpark at worst. 

Also I don't think we need to be that concerned about 'cluttering up this thread.' Like 99% of threads it will disappear into the bowels of the internet never to be read again.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

mattack said:


> Yeah, I was going to point that out. If people actually did the cost/benefit analysis, the BETTER (in many people's opinions, especially here of course) option is CHEAPER.
> 
> Heck, even if you went monthly, at least in *some* areas, isn't the total for a Tivo still cheaper? (including cable card from the cable company)


I was on timewarnercable.com yesterday and I hit a button to allow me to add new service. The first screen had "DVR with service" (for the usual POS TWC DVR that doesn't a hold a candle to TiVo). It was $25.xx a month - which doesn't include whole home capability - just a single monthly fee for 1 DVR. Then I went on to TiVo's site to look at their page for buying a TiVo... expecting to see some type of comparison cost showing DVR costs from cable companies.

Nada. Nothing. Yet they have a page showing all the functionality cable company DVRs lack that TiVo can do.

I'm not marketing guy, but having comparisons to prevent sticker shock on TiVo.com pricing seems like a complete no-brainer to me.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mrizzo80 said:


> I was on timewarnercable.com yesterday and I hit a button to allow me to add new service. The first screen had "DVR with service" (for the usual POS TWC DVR that doesn't a hold a candle to TiVo). It was $25.xx a month - which doesn't include whole home capability - just a single monthly fee for 1 DVR. Then I went on to TiVo's site to look at their page for buying a TiVo... expecting to see some type of comparison cost showing DVR costs from cable companies.
> 
> Nada. Nothing. Yet they have a page showing all the functionality cable company DVRs lack that TiVo can do.
> 
> I'm not marketing guy, but having comparisons to prevent sticker shock on TiVo.com pricing seems like a complete no-brainer to me.


https://www.tivo.com/shop/promo/multi-room-TiVo?net=1&save=1


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

tarheelblue32 said:


> https://www.tivo.com/shop/promo/multi-room-TiVo?net=1&save=1


That's definitely what I was expecting to find. Where is that page linked from? When I land on TiVo.com and hit the "Roamio DVRs" underneath the "Shop Products" menu up top, which is where most people will probably go, you get taken here:
https://www.tivo.com/shop/roamio#/roamio

I see a "Learn More" button and a very tiny "see how much you save with tivo" link on the homepage. The button and link don't work for me (using Chrome).


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mrizzo80 said:


> That's definitely what I was expecting to find. Where is that page linked from? When I land on TiVo.com and hit the "Roamio DVRs" underneath the "Shop Products" menu up top, which is where most people will probably go, you get taken here:
> https://www.tivo.com/shop/roamio#/roamio
> 
> I see a "Learn More" button and a very tiny "see how much you save with tivo" link on the homepage. The button and link don't work for me (using Chrome).


It is linked directly from the tivo.com homepage.

https://www.tivo.com/

Very top section on the left has a picture of a Roamio with a bright red bubble that says "Save up to $689 a year on rental fees for 6 rooms." and on the right it says "The best DVR and multi-room solution is now just $12.50 a month." and just underneath that part there is a link that says "See how much you save with TiVo." or you can click the "Learn more" button beside that and it will take you there with one extra step.


----------

