# What is your cutoff price for buying an S3?



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

With all the speculation going and the fact that we are inching ever closer to an S3 release, I wonder how many people are really willing to pay a premium for it?

I realize that this board is more for Tivo enthusiasts so the results may be a bit skewed, but what better place to guage the "real" market for this item?

Edit: The prices in the polls are for the "upfront" price, not including any subscription fees and after any applicable rebates and discounts.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

I'd say $500 would be my cutoff.

Whether that is before or after any "instant" or mail-in rebates remains to be seen.

A lot will depend on the pricing structure for the service as well.


phox


----------



## Jumpin_Joe (Dec 26, 2003)

There is a direct correlation between how many pairs of shoes the wife recently purchased to how much I can spend (unquestioned by my wife) on a new Tivo. 

So if the wife spends a lot of money just before the S3 is released, the more I can spend on the S3 

Edit: I voted for no more than $500


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Depends on the storage capacity. For a unit with a 250Gb drive, I'm hoping for a price point of $499 or less. I would pay more for a 400Gb or 500Gb unit.

They could offer a 250Gb model for $399 and subsidize it somewhat with a 400Gb model at $599. Wholesale pricing runs $55-$60 for 250Gb, $115-$125 for 400Gb, and about $175 for 500Gb.


----------



## Riverdome (May 12, 2005)

It completly depends on the service pricing.


----------



## Koan (Jan 8, 2002)

No way will I be able to get my wife's agreement to go over $300 and also start monthly payments.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

I posted the skys the limit but in all honestly I probably top out at around $1500.

That said, if the S2 cannot MRV the S3 content then I need to replace my DTS2 with and S3 as well and that put me at around $1000 each before I won't invest.


----------



## Lenonn (May 31, 2004)

I haven't decided what my cutoff price is yet. As someone above said, it also depends on how much per month they will be charging for service. And whether my heart stops when I see the first ad and the price there.


----------



## mick66 (Oct 15, 2004)

The poll neglects the many people like myself that have no need for a series 3 Tivo.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

/me places the tip of his pinkie finger to the corner of his mouth

One Meeeelion dollars!!!
_
EDIT: Whenever I get the S3, it'll be just after I sell my house and buy a new HDTV so the budget, while nearly unlimited, isn't quite to the million dollar mark. (That being said, anyone looking to by a house in Norfolk to support my Tivo habit, let me know)_


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

The poll isn't clear as to what they mean by the price. Does that mean buying it from Tivo.com with the service package? Or buying retail for the box only?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

With a HD DVR cable box costing nothing but a rental fee (about $16/month) and having an unlimited warranty and facing no cable co transmissions changes that could cripple it (like switch video) and getting all the On Demand stuff (The S3 can't get On Demand), even with the much much better interface of TiVo I think will still make it a tough sell for the average consumer. It will take more than the people who visit this form to make the S3 a success, the average Joe has to buy into it. I see the S3 a much harder sell then the S2 was as the cable Co. never competed against the S2. (A few years ago my cable co even tried to sell TiVos with the Moto box and serial connection for its customers. It was a bomb for the cable co as they had to make many house calls to get the serial cable to work correctly with the Moto box, Moto than change their cable boxes and left out the serial connection and the project stopped)


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

mick66 said:


> The poll neglects the many people like myself that have no need for a series 3 Tivo.


I considered that when making the poll, but I wanted to see the spread for people who plan on buying an S3, how much of a factor the price is, and whether it would change their "decision" to buy.

For people who will not buy an S3 at all, the price doesn't really matter, wouldn't you say?


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

There's no choice on the poll for $200. That would be my max for one, as that's what I spent on my HR10-250.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

kbohip said:


> There's no choice on the poll for $200. That would be my max for one, as that's what I spent on my HR10-250.


Also considered, but I didn't think that $200 was a realistic price point, given that the DVD-Tivo on the site is $180. If you're willing to spend $200, would you not even consider it at $300?


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

classicX said:


> Also considered, but I didn't think that $200 was a realistic price point, given that the DVD-Tivo on the site is $180. If you're willing to spend $200, would you not even consider it at $300?


Personally, I wouldn't spend $300 for the S3. Especially knowing that Comcast will have and HD Tivo available for free plus a monthly fee. Right now I have Directv as Adelphia is my cable provider and their horrible. Comcast is however in the process of taking over and if I see them increase the service and programming and come out with a Tivo DVR, I'll be switching to them.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

Riverdome said:


> It completly depends on the service pricing.


The service costs $12.95/month, or $6.95/month if you have multiple boxes and one of them has lifetime service or is paying the full price.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

kbohip said:


> ...knowing that Comcast will have and HD Tivo available for free plus a monthly fee.


That is a good point.

I may end up with a Comcast TiVo anyway as it looks like they may well hit the streets first. Then the real question becomes what value does the broadband content not available on the Comcast TiVo represent. Also the question will a Comcast TiVo MRV with a real TiVo, i.e. will I be able to register the Comcast TiVo on my main TiVo account and have one MAK. All these things will affect the final decision and are questions not yet answered.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

kbohip said:


> Personally, I wouldn't spend $300 for the S3. Especially knowing that Comcast will have and HD Tivo available for free plus a monthly fee. Right now I have Directv as Adelphia is my cable provider and their horrible. Comcast is however in the process of taking over and if I see them increase the service and programming and come out with a Tivo DVR, I'll be switching to them.


Unless Comcast rolls out a new box with a much larger hard drive, most people will find the box is inadequate for HD recording (12-15 hours, if lucky). No upgrades possible.

Series 3 - full-featured Tivo, HD, and upgradability (almost certainly).


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

lessd said:


> It will take more than the people who visit this form to make the S3 a success, the average Joe has to buy into it.


No, the average Joe does not have to buy into it (though I am sure TiVo would like him to at least _desire_ it). As various TiVo execs have said, and has been repeated endlessly here, the S3 is a high-end product aimed at the sophisticated home theater buff. These people want the best, and they're willing to pay for it, and technical complexity doesn't bother them. Almost nobody in this survey (so far) has indicated a willingness to pay more than $800 for what will arguably be the premiere product in its category; there are many thousands of people who wouldn't bat an eye at paying that much for a pair of 10 ft. speaker cables or a pair of 3 ft. interconnects. The HT market is crowded with high-end vendors trying to catch some of the money people are throwing around like it grows on trees.

The S3 is a prestige product for TiVo, and it will class up the whole product line. The question isn't "are they charging too much for the average Joe?" but rather "are they charging enough to get the attention of their target market?"


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Also, don't be surprised if Tivo.com is the first and only place you will get this box initially. So you will be buying atleast a year of service and not be buying the box by itself. Considering the cost of the box is going to be much higher than current S2 units and the type of audience they are targetting, I don't think you will see major retailers having these boxes lined up and down the shelves initially.


----------



## Troy J B (Sep 27, 2003)

rainwater said:


> Also, don't be surprised if Tivo.com is the first and only place you will get this box initially. ... I don't think you will see major retailers having these boxes lined up and down the shelves initially.


where initially == 1st couple of weeks, 1 month tops. After that speciality shops will have boxes (possibly upgraded) available (just like with the s2dt). I never expected to see the Series3 in the major B&M retailers. After a price reduction, maybe.

Troy


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

jfh3 said:


> Unless Comcast rolls out a new box with a much larger hard drive, most people will find the box is inadequate for HD recording (12-15 hours, if lucky). No upgrades possible.
> 
> Series 3 - full-featured Tivo, HD, and upgradability (almost certainly).


If I only get 12-15 hours of HD I'll be OK. I can always get two or archive to PC. I'll still be using a S2DT for SD content anyway.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ChuckyBox said:


> No, the average Joe does not have to buy into it (though I am sure TiVo would like him to at least _desire_ it). As various TiVo execs have said, and has been repeated endlessly here, the S3 is a high-end product aimed at the sophisticated home theater buff. These people want the best, and they're willing to pay for it, and technical complexity doesn't bother them. Almost nobody in this survey (so far) has indicated a willingness to pay more than $800 for what will arguably be the premiere product in its category; there are many thousands of people who wouldn't bat an eye at paying that much for a pair of 10 ft. speaker cables or a pair of 3 ft. interconnects. The HT market is crowded with high-end vendors trying to catch some of the money people are throwing around like it grows on trees.
> 
> The S3 is a prestige product for TiVo, and it will class up the whole product line. The question isn't "are they charging too much for the average Joe?" but rather "are they charging enough to get the attention of their target market?"


Good point if that what TiVo wants low volume high price (maybe make money on the hardware for a change) but the Cable Co will still come out with units that can use external HD (SA has that allready..you can put your own HD on their box if it has the new software), I still think high end people will still have to have a non DVR digital box from the cable co for their On Demand and other stuff they will not want to give up on.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

rainwater said:


> Also, don't be surprised if Tivo.com is the first and only place you will get this box initially. So you will be buying atleast a year of service and not be buying the box by itself. Considering the cost of the box is going to be much higher than current S2 units and the type of audience they are targetting, I don't think you will see major retailers having these boxes lined up and down the shelves initially.





TroyJB said:


> where initially == 1st couple of weeks, 1 month tops. After that speciality shops will have boxes (possibly upgraded) available (just like with the s2dt). I never expected to see the Series3 in the major B&M retailers. After a price reduction, maybe.


Not what I would assume, according the documents posted with the FCC. TiVo specifically mentions that it "...will be generally available in retail stores soon." There's no mention of availability at TiVo.com (though I am sure it will be) - my point is that, from their statement, it's pretty clear the S3 will be concurrently available at retail outlets. I'd be VERY surprised if it's not.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

There's not more than $400 worth of parts in the S3. ATSC tuners are much cheaper than they were a few years ago, and hard drives are way cheaper. I'll add $100 to pay for TiVo's R&D. Sell it to me for $499 and I'll buy at least 2 of them. Make it $1000 and I won't buy one.


----------



## mick66 (Oct 15, 2004)

classicX said:


> I considered that when making the poll, but I wanted to see the spread for people who plan on buying an S3, how much of a factor the price is, and whether it would change their "decision" to buy.
> 
> For people who will not buy an S3 at all, the price doesn't really matter, wouldn't you say?


Not having a need for one doesn't mean that I wouldn't buy one if the price were low enough. Your poll doesn't offer that price as a choice.


----------



## Jasoco (Mar 30, 2004)

Is the Comcast thing still happening? When's the timeframe on that one? Same time as the Series 3?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If they're more then $1,000 I may only buy one. If they're less I'm definitely going to buy two. And if they're less then $500 then I'm probably going to buy three. 

Dan


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

mick66 said:


> The poll neglects the many people like myself that have no need for a series 3 Tivo.


I'm in a similar boat.....I do not have HD yet......nor an HD TV.......but I would still consider buying an S3 in preparation. Would I spend 300-5000...maybe. Would make a nice X-mas gift. Plus, I would save some if I was on normal pricing, going from $12.95+$6.95 to just $12.95.

Not sure........I vote "undecided" for now....


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

mick66 said:


> Not having a need for one doesn't mean that I wouldn't buy one if the price were low enough. Your poll doesn't offer that price as a choice.


Based on your argument, it can be inferred that you do not have specific plans to purchase the S3. I meant this poll for those who do.

My apologies.


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

$400

yeah, I know..... I'm gonna have to wait a while.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

I have no plans to buy one when it comes out - but that is because I am not looking to spend buckets of money on HD. 

so I know my price point on an S3 is 500$ for hardware but even if it came out day 1 for 500$ I probably would not buy one until late 2007 anyway.

I agree that the S3 is a premium product with a lot of R&D spent on it and it really is for HD content but it will have the other differentiator of being able to play Mpeg4 content which may make a big difference in what downloaded content it can play. That could draw me in quicker than the HD content


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

I think the folks that are picking $300 are kidding themselves.

I see sub $500 in a year, but, without significant volume, can't see how Tivo can sell these for $300.

Remember - Tivo has said they aren't going to subsidize the Series 3 hardware to the same levels as the Series 2 boxes.

For me, I won't pay more than $750 for one. If the price point is $500, I'd get at least two. However, I think $500 would be a very agressive price point for Tivo and would be very surprised to see that. I suspect anything over $500 will significantly limit their S3 sales though (perhaps by design).


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

jfh3 said:


> I think the folks that are picking $300 are kidding themselves.
> 
> I see sub $500 in a year, but, without significant volume, can't see how Tivo can sell these for $300.


$300 + $19.95x12months = $539.

Seems a little low but I can see the upgrade fee being between 300-600 bucks.


----------



## andydumi (Jun 26, 2006)

i put 500 assuming the monthly price will not increase past 12.95.
if we go to 16-25 a month, i am only willing to pay about 200-300 after rebates and whatnot.


----------



## andydumi (Jun 26, 2006)

rainwater said:


> $300 + $19.95x12months = $539.
> 
> Seems a little low but I can see the upgrade fee being between 300-600 bucks.


i think the idea is you will have it more than 1 year, and i think of it more as a 2-3 year item.

When you look at it as a 2-3 year, you have 24or36*20+300, and you have 800-1100, much more inline with the product.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Arcady said:


> There's not more than $400 worth of parts in the S3. ATSC tuners are much cheaper than they were a few years ago, and hard drives are way cheaper. I'll add $100 to pay for TiVo's R&D. Sell it to me for $499 and I'll buy at least 2 of them. Make it $1000 and I won't buy one.


Could you WAG a breakdown of how you get to $400? I think people under estimate the BOM for things like this.


----------



## Stanley Rohner (Jan 18, 2004)

classicX said:


> Based on your argument, it can be inferred that you do not have specific plans to purchase the S3. I meant this poll for those who do.
> 
> My apologies.


No need to apologize. I think everyone but mick66 knew not to bother with the poll if they weren't planning on buying one.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I've added an option for those who don't have plans to buy a S3

Dan


----------



## Y-ASK (Aug 17, 2001)

And I get to be the 1st to say I have no plans on buying an S3.

Y-ASK


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I have no plans to buy one when it comes out - but that is because I am not looking to spend buckets of money on HD.
> 
> so I know my price point on an S3 is 500$ for hardware but even if it came out day 1 for 500$ I probably would not buy one until late 2007 anyway.
> 
> I agree that the S3 is a premium product with a lot of R&D spent on it and it really is for HD content but it will have the other differentiator of being able to play Mpeg4 content which may make a big difference in what downloaded content it can play. That could draw me in quicker than the HD content


The S3 is unfortunately slated to be the only TiVo product capable of receiving OTA ATSC channels. But OTA standard-def ATSC probably won't draw many additional customers to an expensive hi-def oriented DVR.

A standard-def ATSC capable dual-tuner Series 2 would definitely draw additional customers!

Why not fill that coverage gap? How much extra would an ATSC/QAM capable dual-tuner cost?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I agree that the S3 is a premium product with a lot of R&D spent on it and it really is for HD content but it will have the other differentiator of being able to play Mpeg4 content which may make a big difference in what downloaded content it can play. That could draw me in quicker than the HD content


Thinking about this and what other people are saying, I'm wondering how Tivo is planning to recoup the R&D cost. We on the outside don't know what they are working on and how many resources have been put into the S3, but to me it seems like they have put most of their eggs into this basket. It's not difficult to work up a simple set of numbers based on a projected selling price:

Let's assume that the manufacturing costs (including distribution and other overhead) comes out to a reasonable $700 per unit. Let's also assume that the results of this poll (at this time) correctly reflect the spectrum of comsumers who affirmatively plan to purchase this product, and apply the percentages to a nice round number of consumers: 100,000. For simplicity's sake, let's say that these consumers will be buying only one S3, and none are current Tivo owners, so no subscriptions. Also, none are prepaying for their subscriptions, so the standard $16.95 / mo will apply.

*Selling at $800 per box:*
28% of users will pay $800 or more. Therefore, 28,000 units will sell, at a profit of $100 per unit, which comes to $2.8 million for box sales. 28,000 subscriptions @ 16.95 / mo = $474,600. There is no loss to recoup.

*Selling at $500 per box:*
73% of users will pay $500 or more. Therefore, 73,000 units will sell, at a loss of $200 per unit, which comes to a total loss of $14.6 million. 73,000 subscriptions @ 16.95 / mo = slightly more than $1.2 million steady revenue stream. Loss will be recouped in 13 months.

*Selling at $300 per box:*
100% of users (who affirmatively plan to buy one S3) will pay $300. Therefore, 100,000 units will sell, at a loss of $400 per unit, which comes to a loss of $40 million. 100,000 subscriptions @ 16.95 / mo = just about $1.7 million / mo of steady revenue stream. Loss will be recouped in 2 years.

Now while these numbers are extremely simple, it's easy to see Tivo's dilemma. Comparing $800 to $500, 13 months after, selling for $800 would put them in the black more than $8.8M, while at $500, they will just be breaking even, though they would catch up at around 9 or 10 months - then the added subscription revenue would put them through the roof, with another $13.4 million every year after that.

Of course these numbers don't take into account other costs (like warranty repairs / replacements), cancellations, multi-box discounts, prepayment discounts, etc., or other revenues (multiple box purchases, accessory purchases), or price differentials ($700 for a 40 hours unit, $500 for a 20 hour S3), but Tivo pays people to do all that. ;-)

There's also the fact that the life of your S3 is finite - those revenue streams will start to break at the 3 year mark. This could be another opportunity (to sell lots of S4s and maybe even S5s) or a serious downer (who wants to buy an S4 when my expensive S3 lasted only a few years?).

With a company in Tivo's position though, it's going to be hard to get that kind of credit (selling at a loss), assuming they don't already have that kind of cash (which I doubt). All indications look like they are going to go the "safe" route and sell units at cost or at a small profit.

Personally though, I don't see them even reaching 20,000 units sold at $800 each., and I certainly wouldn't pay $800 when my cable company's DVR can do more than half of what the S3 can. I would probably consider $500 though. One now, maybe another one in a month or two...

And once again I've said too much... (is that a new sig?)


----------



## Stanley Rohner (Jan 18, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I've added an option for those who don't have plans to buy a S3
> 
> Dan


Why ? 


The title of the thread is - What is your cutoff price for buying an S3 ?
The title pretty much means you must plan on buying one if you participate in the thread.

Maybe add an option for - Don't know what an S3 is.
Maybe add an option for - Don't know what a TiVo is.
Maybe add an option for - Don't own a TV.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Y-ASK said:


> And I get to be the 1st to say I have no plans on buying an S3.
> 
> Y-ASK


Third. ;-)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Stanley Rohner said:


> Why ?


Because it gives people who don't fit into one of the other categories something to vote for so they can see the results without having to keep pressing the "View Results" link.

And why does it matter? It's not like one added option, at the bottom, ruins the poll in some way.

Dan


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Probably not more than $500. It has to compete with cable DVRs. I'm getting by fine with my cable DVR, and even though TiVo is better, the cable DVR dors the job.


----------



## KizzaMe (Nov 21, 2002)

I'll never buy another TIVO until lifetime service is brought back.


----------



## alansplace (Apr 30, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Because it gives people who don't fit into one of the other categories something to vote for so they can see the results without having to keep pressing the "View Results" link.
> 
> And why does it matter? It's not like one added option, at the bottom, ruins the poll in some way.
> 
> Dan


i have no plans to buy an s3 because i won't even consider purchasing a hd tv set till the prices come down to a reasonable (reasonable imho) level.
--
Alan


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

KizzaMe said:


> I'll never buy another TIVO until lifetime service is brought back.


Then you'll never buy another TiVo.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

I chose $500.

DirecTV may stick me with their HR20 HD-DVR for recording Cable-HD channels, but I can still use the TiVo Series 3 for recording OTA HD.

I may go higher for the Series 3, but if it's higher than $500, I'll most likely wait until sometime next year.

While I'd like to see it cheaper, I do understand that the Series 3 is a premium product... and I wouldn't be too surprised to see a SD digital TiVo and a new HD unit that supports either/both CableCard 2.0 and/or OCAP.

~Alan


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> The S3 is unfortunately slated to be the only TiVo product capable of receiving OTA ATSC channels. But OTA standard-def ATSC probably won't draw many additional customers to an expensive hi-def oriented DVR.
> 
> A standard-def ATSC capable dual-tuner Series 2 would definitely draw additional customers!
> 
> Why not fill that coverage gap? How much extra would an ATSC/QAM capable dual-tuner cost?


it would still need to record and playback HD to make OTA worthwhile as a draw to buy it. It would not be far removed from an S3 anyway. You want OTA for SD then get a Stand Alone single tuner or two. they are free now with a year of service for an 80 hour refurb

so to sum up - if TiVo could produce an HD OTA box - how much would you pay for it? 200$ 400$ 800$ - would it make sense to even put one out that could not do digital cable HD ??

so to go back somewhat on topic - at 800$ TiVo will not sell a lot of these to the strictly OTA HD crowd unless they wanted a TiVo anyway for digital cable.
but at 300$ I would think the OTA HD crowd would snatch them up.

same questions of 
Where is the sweet spot for pricing?
How many of these is TiVo trying to get out the door to new customers vs keeping the current customers faithful until a full blown cable card 2, or whatever the full standard will be, can be shipped to retail?


----------



## Frankenstien (Feb 8, 2006)

I think the premium product approach could be a little tricky for me at least. 

I can get Time Warner's HD DVR offering for about $16.95 ($10.00 for the basic set top & $6.95 for the DVR upgrade). 

The Series 3 would have a service fee of $6.95 (assuming it will be eligible for MSD). 

So, the cost of the Series 3 box itself will really decide it. If its in the lower estimate range the its gonna be pretty easy, but the higher it goes the tougher the choice. 

The resistance Cable is putting up also plays in. The SDV and CableCard issues make it a little risker investment. Especially in Time Warner land.

I've had the Cable DVR before and it was painful. I was very happy to get back to TiVo. But, I really like the HD, my TV feels its not being used to its full potential. 

So, I wait eagerly to see where the price is and how the SDV/CableCard battles go.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...so to go back somewhat on topic - at 800$ TiVo will not sell a lot of these to the strictly OTA HD crowd unless they wanted a TiVo anyway for digital cable...


Zeo - You're describing me to a T...except that I have no desire for digital cable (though that may eventually come whether I like it or not). I'll be getting the S3 * STRICTLY* for it's dual tuner, HD OTA recording/tuning capabilities....and that's it. Will it be expensive? You bet. Do I mind paying $800 for that? A little. But you know what, there's NOTHING out there now for home theater customers like me that will have the great TiVo interface, reliability, dual HD tuners and expandibility.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

OK, so as much as I hate my krufty SA box, my cable bill just came.

Outside of the $39.99 for the digital silver (for six months), I'm paying $19.90 for my two HD DVRs. ($9.95 per box).

NO OTHER BOX FEES.

Tivo, I love you, but you have a fight. Up front costs aside, the monthly charge for two Tivo boxes has to come in at $25 or less or I can't justify this to the wife.


----------



## johnd7 (Feb 23, 2002)

Can everyone just lie and say they will pay very little since some Tivo execs may see this poll?

Not too mention, who even thinks this thing is still actually coming out?


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

classicX said:


> Up front costs aside, the monthly charge for two Tivo boxes has to come in at $25 or less or I can't justify this to the wife.


The monthly charge for two TiVo boxes is $19.90.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

johnd7 said:


> Not too mention, who even thinks this thing is still actually coming out?


Well, eventually the fat cats at TiVo may put down their hookahs and get off the cushions in the TiVo Executive Coffee House and Opium Den long enough to put out some kind of new product resembling the S3, but they've only got another 147 days until it is officially late.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

How does one go about applying for a job at TiVo?


----------



## amjustice (Mar 9, 2006)

Jasoco said:


> Is the Comcast thing still happening? When's the timeframe on that one? Same time as the Series 3?


I recently called Comcast and they said that they will start putting those boxes out in the field in October/November.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

classicX said:


> Tivo, I love you, but you have a fight. Up front costs aside, the monthly charge for two Tivo boxes has to come in at $25 or less or I can't justify this to the wife.


Two TiVos is only $19.90. $12.95 for the first one and $6.95 for the second. Although you will have to rent 4 CableCARDs, which will cost $4-$12/mo. Plus the up front fee. Bascially you have to decide if TiVo is worth a premium to you. If it's not then stick with your cable DVR. For me the premium price is worth it and the cable DVR is going back as soon as the S3s are available.

Dan


----------



## amjustice (Mar 9, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Two TiVos is only $19.90. $12.95 for the first one and $6.95 for the second. Although you will have to rent 4 CableCARDs, which will cost $4-$12/mo. Plus the up front fee. Bascially you have to decide if TiVo is worth a premium to you. If it's not then stick with your cable DVR. For me the premium price is worth it and the cable DVR is going back as soon as the S3s are available.
> 
> Dan


You must be more patient then I Dan, I wont even get the cable company DVR, We still just use our Series 2 for most stuff and watch things live in HD when we want to see them. So basicly right now the High Def cable gets used for Entorage, Sopranos (when it comes back on), Tourgasm, and other random things that are on in HD.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

My cable company uses MOXI software, which from what I've heard is one of the better ones out there. While it's far from TiVo quality it's been sufficient enough to hold me over and keep me from having to watch *gasp* live TV.  Although I ONLY use it for HD, I still use the TiVos for everything else. However with the majority of prime time programming switching to HD next season, if the S3 is not out that little MOXI is going to gte a work out.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> it would still need to record and playback HD to make OTA worthwhile as a draw to buy it. It would not be far removed from an S3 anyway. You want OTA for SD then get a Stand Alone single tuner or two. they are free now with a year of service for an 80 hour refurb
> 
> so to sum up - if TiVo could produce an HD OTA box - how much would you pay for it? 200$ 400$ 800$ - would it make sense to even put one out that could not do digital cable HD ??
> 
> ...


Since this thread is about what Forum posters' would pay for Series 3, I'll reply to your questions *here*.


----------



## dolcevita (Jan 1, 2004)

I voted at a $500 cap...

BUT this poll got me to thinking about the way I use Tivo and why I wouldn't consider switching to a cable or Directv DVR-- and those reasons make me question whether I should bother with the S3. 

I travel more than 50% of the time. I was an early adopter of tivo because of this and Tivo's # 1 feature that keeps me from switching to Directv is Tivo to Go. I also now have a Slingbox, which, hooked up to a tv with a Tivo, means I can now even watch my shows in the airport (and occasionally on a plane parked at the gate if I can get a wifi signal.)

My main TV (which is HD) has dual tuners...so with a DT Tivo hooked up to one tuner to record shows and an HD box hooked up to the other, I can watch HD live when i am home. Most of the time, though, I am watching my recordings via Tivo to Go or Slingbox. Due to the probable size of the HD recordings and the fact that I am usually watching them on my laptop -- well, suddenly buying the S3 doesn;t make that much sense - for me at least.

Hmmm... think I need to change my vote.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> My cable company uses MOXI software, which from what I've heard is one of the better ones out there.


 That's funny, the impression I got was MOXI was among the worst out there both in terms of reliability and software. For example not having a grid-based guide seems like a major useability drawback. Though I suppose unless a reviewer has had comprehensive time with all the major solutions it's hard to get a fair and balanced comparison between them. I think it's safe to say though that none of the cable solutions out there compare favorably to Tivo (other than in Price of course).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Arcady said:


> There's not more than $400 worth of parts in the S3. ATSC tuners are much cheaper than they were a few years ago, and hard drives are way cheaper. I'll add $100 to pay for TiVo's R&D. Sell it to me for $499 and I'll buy at least 2 of them. Make it $1000 and I won't buy one.


I'mnot so sure of those prices. Earlier this year Directv stated in an investor conference call that the HR10-250 COSTS them about $500- 600 to produce. Granted the series 3 could have less parts since it's newer, the decoder that can do mpeg2+mpeg4 certainly will be more then the one in the HR10 that just does MPEG2. Also it will have 2 encoders for analog.(or a fancier all in one chip that can handle that). SATA ports, 2 cablecard posts, So I'm not sure it will only cost them $400.

(it might- I'm just not sure of it...)


----------



## Jasoco (Mar 30, 2004)

amjustice said:


> I recently called Comcast and they said that they will start putting those boxes out in the field in October/November.


If true then great! I think I can suffer with a regular Comcast box until then. (Sadly I just can't take watching S-Video TiVo Series 2 passed through my DVD Recorder upconverted to Component. So I can wait.)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

moyekj said:


> That's funny, the impression I got was MOXI was among the worst out there both in terms of reliability and software. For example not having a grid-based guide seems like a major useability drawback.


Wait, do series 2 Tivos have a grid-based guide? Series 1s definitely don't.
(I know the DirecTivos do..)


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

mattack said:


> Wait, do series 2 Tivos have a grid-based guide? Series 1s definitely don't.
> (I know the DirecTivos do..)


They do but I don't know how people use that layout. IMHO the TiVo guide is much better for scanning to find a show to record. I guess if you want to see what is on now (live) the grid guide may have some value but I can't remember when I last watched live TV.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

mattack said:


> Wait, do series 2 Tivos have a grid-based guide? Series 1s definitely don't.
> (I know the DirecTivos do..)


Yes, you have the option of the TiVo style guide, or the grid style guide.

Having had satellite (Dish and DirecTV) for many years, I prefer the grid style.

I have to use the TiVo style on the HD TiVo though, as grid style is just too dang slow.

phox


----------



## jdmclemore (Jan 29, 2002)

I voted $500, but I'll actually be using my TiVo rewards points for the S3! Anybody else doing this?

I signed up for the TiVo Mastercard just before we bought and moved into our new house a couple months ago. It was great timing (LOTS of expenses related to moving). We put every purchase we can on the card and pay it off each month. Up to 33000 points very quickly.

I'm wondering how much the S3 will be and how quickly it will go up on the rewards site....


----------



## KizzaMe (Nov 21, 2002)

I guess so. There have been some attempts at creating a "TIVO-killer" and I think that we'll see it sooner than we'd guess. In the meantime, I don't like being locked into paying subscription fees. I have my Series 2 and love it dearly, but mainly because I feel like I actually OWN it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The S2DT took a couple of weeks to be posted on the rewards site. So I would expect the S3 to go up there fairly quickly.

However I don't think 33,000 is going to be enough for a S3. Right now the S2DT is 25,000 points and has a retail value of $249. Even if the S3 only costs $500 the equivelent point value would be about 50,000.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

KizzaMe said:


> I guess so. There have been some attempts at creating a "TIVO-killer" and I think that we'll see it sooner than we'd guess. In the meantime, I don't like being locked into paying subscription fees. I have my Series 2 and love it dearly, but mainly because I feel like I actually OWN it.


You own your phone and still pay for phone service. You own your computer and still pay for internet service. Why is it that the TiVo service has to be included in a lump sum for you to feel like you own your TiVo?

Dan


----------



## jdmclemore (Jan 29, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Even if the S3 only costs $500 the equivelent point value would be about 50,000.
> 
> Dan


Yeah - that's about what I figured. I'm not done saving up points, by any stretch. I'm hoping by the time its released I'll have enough.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> You own your phone and still pay for phone service. You own your computer and still pay for internet service. Why is it that the TiVo service has to be included in a lump sum for you to feel like you own your TiVo?


The same phone or computer works with different companies providing the phone and ISP services, a TiVo without the service is dead. Phones are also much cheaper than a TiVo. Lots of computers were sold before the internet, so they have an intrinsic value beyond being an internet interface.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The computer/internet connection may not have been the best analogy, but the phone one was. In fact TiVo can best be correlated to cell phones. With a cell phone you technically own the phone but it's almost always tied to a specific carrier. So you have to pay them for service or the phone is basically useless.

Dan


----------



## Riverdome (May 12, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> The computer/internet connection may not have been the best analogy, but the phone one was. In fact TiVo can best be correlated to cell phones. With a cell phone you technically own the phone but it's almost always tied to a specific carrier. So you have to pay them for service or the phone is basically useless.
> 
> Dan


Sorry the phone analogy doesn't work.

Cell phones are cheap or free. S3 is expected to be very expensive. I have the option of getting a new phone (again either cheap or free) every two years or when my contract expires. Tivo boxes are not nearly so disposable.

As much as I dislike my current cable company HD DVR I just can't see myself spending $500+ plus a monthly service fee for a S3. I'll use my two S2 with lifetime on SD TV sets forever, but I'm afraid I'll miss out on all the S3 fun. As many have already said, it's a personal decision based on how important the Tivo interface (and other Tivo advantages) is to you.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Riverdome said:


> Cell phones are cheap or free. S3 is expected to be very expensive. I have the option of getting a new phone (again either cheap or free) every two years or when my contract expires. Tivo boxes are not nearly so disposable.


The S3 is not TiVo's only option! The S2 is like TiVos version of the cheap phone. It's free if you catch the right deal, or still less then $100 if you pay full retail.

The S3 is more like the Treo of DVRs. It costs extra because it's fancier and has a lot more features.

Dan


----------



## KizzaMe (Nov 21, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> You own your phone and still pay for phone service. You own your computer and still pay for internet service. Why is it that the TiVo service has to be included in a lump sum for you to feel like you own your TiVo?
> 
> Dan


It's just another one of those things in life that I'm just not used to paying for. For example, I loved listening to Howard Stern on the radio, but I don't feel compelled to pay monthly to hear him. I'd gladly pay a "reasonable" amount for a lifetime subscription.

I pay monthly for my cable, my internet, my alarm service, my insurance, my newspaper delivery, my magazine subscriptions, my utilities, my mortgage, my Netflix, my taxes, and a number of things I'm probably forgetting. It just seems that every time I turn around there's another monthly bill to pay.

I never said I made sense, it just makes sense to me.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

KizzaMe said:


> It's just another one of those things in life that I'm just not used to paying for. For example, I loved listening to Howard Stern on the radio, but I don't feel compelled to pay monthly to hear him. I'd gladly pay a "reasonable" amount for a lifetime subscription.


I was going to mention satellite radio lifetime, but I guess people that had that have bought it before. (from http://radio.about.com/od/satelliteradio/a/blsatcomparecht.htm, Sirius ended lifetime on 1/31/06, and XM apparently never had it.)

Still, if that data is still current, XM radio has a 5 year plan for $600.. so you save a few bucks a month over paying monthly.

Oh yeah, and people have also mentioned some magazines that have lifetime subscriptions.. So there are other ongoing things that have (or had) lifetime subscriptions.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

mattack said:


> Still, if that data is still current, XM radio has a 5 year plan for $600.. so you save a few bucks a month over paying monthly.


I have XM (and love it), but wouldn't sink $600 into it at once. XM doesn't appear to be on stable ground.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=AP&Date=20060727&ID=5901010


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

I thought I -needed- an S3 Tivo until I got a TWC SA8300HD box last week in preparation for HD Plasma panel coming soon.

I was very impressed with the SA8300HD box. I would say it has 90% of Tivo's functionality (some features implemented -better-), dual tuners, much faster than Series 2, better PQ than S2, 90 hrs standard and 25 hrs HD, with soon to be implemented SATA port for external storage of your choice. I've seen the HD quality and it's pretty spectacular.

Hardware is free, DVR is $8.95/mo. S3 is going to have to do a lot more to get me to pay $500+.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

mattack said:


> I was going to mention satellite radio lifetime, but I guess people that had that have bought it before. (from http://radio.about.com/od/satelliteradio/a/blsatcomparecht.htm, Sirius ended lifetime on 1/31/06, and XM apparently never had it.)
> 
> Still, if that data is still current, XM radio has a 5 year plan for $600.. so you save a few bucks a month over paying monthly.
> 
> Oh yeah, and people have also mentioned some magazines that have lifetime subscriptions.. So there are other ongoing things that have (or had) lifetime subscriptions.


Sirius has extended its lifetime subscription plan for another year.

*Sirius subscription plans*


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Riverdome said:


> Sorry the phone analogy doesn't work.
> 
> Cell phones are cheap or free. S3 is expected to be very expensive.


I can tink of lots of 600$ cell phones and 300$ and 100$ and free - just like TiVo models. depends on the features


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

mattack said:


> ...XM radio has a 5 year plan for $600.. so you save a few bucks a month over paying monthly.


Talk about a bad deal just for convenience! XM gives no *price breaks* after the third year.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> Talk about a bad deal just for convenience! XM gives no *price breaks* after the third year.


Maybe, maybe not. I took advantage of the 2 year package last year to *lock* in my rate. (They gave us a heads up when the first announced there was going to be a price hike.)


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

KizzaMe said:


> I guess so. There have been some attempts at creating a "TIVO-killer" and I think that we'll see it sooner than we'd guess. In the meantime, I don't like being locked into paying subscription fees. I have my Series 2 and love it dearly, but mainly because I feel like I actually OWN it.


The Tivo-killer doesn't necessarily mean it's actually _better_ than a Tivo. Quantity is a heckuva lot more important to Americans, I'd say. Cell phones are a prime example.

Remember years ago when Sprint was advertising it's service with that "pin drop" campaign? The call quality was supposed to be awesome, like the person was almost right in the room with you. What happened to that?

Just look at a Cingular ad - "fewest dropped calls." There is no cell phone ad today that advertises better call quality as a feature - it's only about minutes, anytime minutes, dropped calls, friends networks, and "the most subscribers".

Is this the way Tivo is headed? A lesser product that technically works but is inferior to the Tivo wins because of - price? It seems that way. Tivo can, of course, save itself by getting more deals like the Comcast deal, and even go one step further - make their software the ONLY dvr software available from a cable company. If they don't, they might go the way of the BetaMAX.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

skanter said:


> I thought I -needed- an S3 Tivo until I got a TWC SA8300HD box last week in preparation for HD Plasma panel coming soon.
> 
> I was very impressed with the SA8300HD box. I would say it has 90% of Tivo's functionality (some features implemented -better-), dual tuners, much faster than Series 2, better PQ than S2, 90 hrs standard and 25 hrs HD, with soon to be implemented SATA port for external storage of your choice. I've seen the HD quality and it's pretty spectacular.
> 
> Hardware is free, DVR is $8.95/mo. S3 is going to have to do a lot more to get me to pay $500+.


While I agree with your sentiment, the S3 will have several feature above and beyond that of the cable company DVR. HMO. TTG. Wishlists. Online Scheduling. Digital Music. Photos.

It all depends of what you are willing to pay for those types of services, seeing as how (mentioned above) Two Tivo subscriptions (with a discount for the second) costs almost exactly the same for two cable company DVRs (if they are $10 / month). I'd be willing to pay $500 per box or less to be able to record a show in my family room and watch it in my bedroom because I don't feel like going downstairs, or take my shows with me when I go on a business trip. (Channel surfing in a hotel? No way!).

That said, I've been living with two cable company DVRs for more than two years now, and while less convenient than my old DirecTivo (which could also record two shows at once), as far as recording shows I want, even if the time slot changes, it gets the job done. And it does it in high definition.

If the S3 comes in at $799, I'd be hard pressed to justify that cost to myself, let alone my wife. Especially since it really won't get rid of the monthly payments, they'll just go to Tivo instead of the cable company. Add to that the fact that it's a machine with hardware that won't typically last more than 3-5 years, incurring repair costs when my cable company DVR would just be switched out with no questions asked.

<Eastwood>
So you gotta ask yourself a question. Is it worth it? Well, IS IT, PUNK?
</Eastwood>


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

classicX said:


> ... Add to that the fact that it's a machine with hardware that won't typically last more than 3-5 years, incurring repair costs when my cable company DVR would just be switched out with no questions asked....


Why do you assume the TiVo will require repairs? The vast majority of TiVos (that are old enough) have lasted longer than that with no need of repairs. I don't see a lot of folks here complaining about box breakdowns.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Dual tuner unit (buffering 2 tuners all the time) + high bitrate High Definition recordings means a lot more wear and tear on the hard drive so I would count on hard drive replacement in a 3-5 year time frame.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

moyekj said:


> Dual tuner unit (buffering 2 tuners all the time) + high bitrate High Definition recordings means a lot more wear and tear on the hard drive so I would count on hard drive replacement in a 3-5 year time frame.


I don't know about you but I look forward to a hard drive replacement in mine. Means more space when I upgrade it. 

I wouldn't recommend anyone voiding a warranty to replace the drive however, unless it was a freebee.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

moyekj said:


> Dual tuner unit (buffering 2 tuners all the time) + high bitrate High Definition recordings means a lot more wear and tear on the hard drive so I would count on hard drive replacement in a 3-5 year time frame.


You're assuming that people with an S3 will be watching/recording HD content all the time. That will not be the case. Plus a lot of folks will be adding eSATA drives which will ease the use somewhat.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Actually from what I hear the vast majority of primetime content is going to switch to HD this coming season, so people might be watching a lot more HD then last season.

That being said... The HD DirecTiVos have been out for years and they don't have a failure rate that's any higher then any other TiVo, so I don't think recording HD makes much of a difference.

Dan


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Actually from what I hear the vast majority of primetime content is going to switch to HD this coming season, so people might be watching a lot more HD then last season....


I hope you're right, Dan. I look forward to the day when I just tune in one of the major networks during primetime without having to wonder if it'll be HD or not.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> You're assuming that people with an S3 will be watching/recording HD content all the time. That will not be the case. Plus a lot of folks will be adding eSATA drives which will ease the use somewhat.


 Prime attraction of the S3 is for HD recording (OTA or QAM), certainly for me - it will be a dedicated HD only unit as is my current cable company DVR. I have no plans to add an external SATA drive - I've been getting along OK with 160GB drive in my DCT6416 so 250G will be a good enough bonus for the meantime.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

classicX said:


> If the S3 comes in at $799, I'd be hard pressed to justify that cost to myself, let alone my wife. Especially since it really won't get rid of the monthly payments, they'll just go to Tivo instead of the cable company. Add to that the fact that it's a machine with hardware that won't typically last more than 3-5 years, incurring repair costs when my cable company DVR would just be switched out with no questions asked.
> 
> <Eastwood>
> So you gotta ask yourself a question. Is it worth it? Well, IS IT, PUNK?
> </Eastwood>


Wow, talk about lowered expectations!

Are hard drives, miraculous as they are, still not ready to dance in prime time? Kay Thode & Ray Tube put on quite a show!


----------



## Jasoco (Mar 30, 2004)

I wish the S3 or Comcast TiVo's would get here soon because I just got a temporary Comcast Motorola HD DVR box to replace my S2 (Which looked like crap on my new HDTV and not much better upconverted to Component through my DVD Recorder.) and well.. let's say the Comcast DVR is NOT a TiVo. I miss my TiVo. I want my TiVo.

But David Letterman and Conan O'Brien in HD makes it all worth it.

Now if I could figure out how to make a Season Pass on this thing.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

moyekj said:


> Prime attraction of the S3 is for HD recording (OTA or QAM), certainly for me - it will be a dedicated HD only unit as is my current cable company DVR. I have no plans to add an external SATA drive - I've been getting along OK with 160GB drive in my DCT6416 so 250G will be a good enough bonus for the meantime.


Not me. I plan to replace all my S2 TiVos with a couple of S3s, and record everything from the HD channels. That way, even if a show is not in HD right now, if it ever changes I'll get it in HD without having to rearrage things. To do this I'll probably have to throw an eSATA drive on each unit to at least double the space. (60 hours of HD per unit should be good)

Dan


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Not me. I plan to replace all my S2 TiVos with a couple of S3s, and record everything from the HD channels. That way, even if a show is not in HD right now, if it ever changes I'll get it in HD without having to rearrage things. To do this I'll probably have to throw an eSATA drive on each unit to at least double the space. (60 hours of HD per unit should be good)
> 
> Dan


I only have one HD set, so my purchase if its affordable will be for the one set that can display the HD content. I doubt however that I will be an early adopter.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I only have one HDTV as well. However between me and Cynthia we record enough stuff to keep 5 SA TiVos busy, so I need at least 2 S3s if I want my plan to work out. (if they come in cheap enough I'm actually going to buy 3)

Dan


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Dual tuner unit (buffering 2 tuners all the time) + high bitrate High Definition recordings means a lot more wear and tear on the hard drive so I would count on hard drive replacement in a 3-5 year time frame.


actaully the hard drive in a tivo runs non stop anyhow doesn't matter if it's a single tuner sd or dual tuner hd. I dont think it would matter significantly.

Daul tuenrs might move heads more frequently but that's the only difference i can think of.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Actually from what I hear the vast majority of primetime content is going to switch to HD this coming season, so people might be watching a lot more HD then last season.
> 
> That being said... The HD DirecTiVos have been out for years and they don't have a failure rate that's any higher then any other TiVo, so I don't think recording HD makes much of a difference.
> 
> Dan


Actually in my head- the vast majority of prime time content from he big 4 has been HD for a while now.

Basically only reality and news programs are regularly not in HD.

Most everything else is HD.

(I could be wrong- but i cant recall anythign besides reality or news magazines that's not in HD.- even late night, most sports, and the morning news shows are in HD or moving to HD.)


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> Why do you assume the TiVo will require repairs? The vast majority of TiVos (that are old enough) have lasted longer than that with no need of repairs. I don't see a lot of folks here complaining about box breakdowns.


Nature of the technology. Hard drives are warrantied for between 1 and 3 years for a reason.

Besides, the number of users that post here is a small subset of subscribers, so the fact that there aren't a lot of posts about boxes breaking down is little evidence.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> Actually in my head- the vast majority of prime time content from he big 4 has been HD for a while now.


There were still a few hold outs last season. This year everything but reality TV is supose to be HD, and even some of the reality shows are going HD.

Dan


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> There were still a few hold outs last season. This year everything but reality TV is supose to be HD, and even some of the reality shows are going HD.
> 
> Dan


It's kind of like the captions from years ago that said "In surround sound, where available." In our area only one local channel is carried by the cable co in HD. All the other HD channels are in the HD tier and include espn and the premium channels. At this point I'm only interested in HD for the big 4, possibly including the new CW, but that's about it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah The WB/CW is the only station in my area that I can't get in HD. Their ATSC transmitter is a low power temporary and only outputs 480p anyway, and Charter only carries it as analog. However this year that may change. I contacted the local WB affiliate a couple months ago and the woman I talked to said that they are replacing their transmitter and striking a deal with Charter to carry HD _before_ the CW switch over, which is supose to happen in September. So I might be able to watch Smallville and Supernatural in HD this season. 

The holdouts I was talking about were shows that I actually had access to the HD channel, but the show itself was not HD. Like Scrubs. Last season only the finale was broadcast in HD. This season all episodes are supose to be HD.

Dan


----------



## lmurray (May 23, 2002)

I voted for $300.00 and under, but I have my doubts. 

A little about me though first. I bought my first tivo back in late 2000. It's a Sony SVR-2000 30 hr which went for around $300 in the day. Somewhere along the line, tivo offered a special to upgrade to a lifetime sub, which I did for $250. Of course, since then I've added more space, and also added a tivo net card (yeah, the old school ISA one) to the mix. I figure, I've got around $700 or so in that tivo. Since that time, I've had a TON (10+) of tivos come my way. Some broken parts machines from ebay, and others that people just "gave" me. Some I've fixed, some I've sold. Currently, I have 4 tivos. 2-Sony SVR-2000's w/ LifeTime subs, a Toshiba SDH-400 DVD player S2, and a 540 S2 w/ a 80 gig drive in it. 

I've been waiting for HD for years now. I told myself I wouldn't buy a new TV until my current one died, or until tivo came out w/ a HD unit. (I currently have TWC Digital). So, do I want to give tivo $500 or more for a new S3? I'm not sure. I know HD is great, and I know that it'll cost some cash to get a decent sized HD tv, but $500 (or more) for a tivo. I'm just not sure it's worth the cash. (Convince me that it is....) 

There are two things that make me want the S3. One, it'll have dual (or more) tuners (Which is no different then a DT-S2 or 2 S2 w/ MRV) Second, it'll work on SD or HD TV. Do I buy one when they first come out? Do I wait? Will tivo offer the lifetime-sub swap again (i suspect they will) Do I make do w/ the 4 tivos I have? 

Make it simple tivo, please make these boxes around $300. This will make my decision easier. 

-Lloyd-


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

Assuming current service plans / pricing ... basically ...

Without Firewire (or some other way for a compressed TS in/out w/ QoS) - I won't pay more than $200

With Firewire (or some other way for compressed TS in/out w/ QoS) - I won't pay more than $600

As noted above ... lots of other things come into play. Service plans / pricing, MRV features and functionality, CableCard pricing, M-Card availability, Cable company rates for their DVR and other services, Vista MCE pricing and functionality, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicX said:


> Nature of the technology. Hard drives are warrantied for between 1 and 3 years for a reason.
> 
> Besides, the number of users that post here is a small subset of subscribers, so the fact that there aren't a lot of posts about boxes breaking down is little evidence.


warrenty time doesn't mean much. Is a hyundai a better car them a bmw becasue the warrenty is longer.

I think you have that backwards. People with problems complain much longer, louder, and publically then those without problems. You are more apt to see a HIGHER incidence of issues posted then of happier subs.

hows that saying go "make your customer happy, they tell a friend. Piss them off and they tell the next 10 people they bump into..."


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

I was very excited about the S3 initially until I realized there were still so few HD channels. My cable system offers 8 of them. And 7 more if I pay an extra $8/mo.

I watch a lot more cable TV than network TV, so until the content is there in X years, there's not much point for me. What's the holdup with content?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> warrenty time doesn't mean much. Is a hyundai a better car them a bmw becasue the warrenty is longer.
> 
> I think you have that backwards. People with problems complain much longer, louder, and publically then those without problems. You are more apt to see a HIGHER incidence of issues posted then of happier subs.
> 
> hows that saying go "make your customer happy, they tell a friend. Piss them off and they tell the next 10 people they bump into..."


If that's true, then why does Maxtor sell the exact same 250GB with the exact same hardware as two different model numbers? One goes through more initial testing and the warranty is three years. The lesser model (with the same hardware): 1 year warranty.

And yes, Hyundai's cars are better, in terms of reliability.

You should've said Honda... ;-)


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> What's the holdup with content?


Networks and MVPDs applying the same logic as you (ie, with so few HD viewers why invest the $$$ to deliver the content).


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> I was very excited about the S3 initially until I realized there were still so few HD channels. My cable system offers 8 of them. And 7 more if I pay an extra $8/mo.
> 
> I watch a lot more cable TV than network TV, so until the content is there in X years, there's not much point for me. What's the holdup with content?


It's just your cable provider. I have Comcast and have every network in HD (CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, WB) and: ESPNHD, ESPNHD2, TNTHD, Discovery HD, INHD1, INHD2, and 2 PBS HD channels. That's 13 HD channels, not including the premium channels (HBOHD, Starz! HD, Showtime HD, etc.)

There are also other channels that I don't get, like Universal HD. And I miss Universal HD.

Do I want EVERY channel to be in HD all the time? Of course. I'd love to see shows like Monk and the 4400 in HD - but that's far off into the future.

Call up your cable company and complain, tell them they don't have enough HD content. Call every week. Get your friends and neighbors to call. They'll see the light soon enough.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> warrenty time doesn't mean much. Is a hyundai a better car them a bmw becasue the warrenty is longer.


I agree. How long is a CRT warranteed for? A year? But unless something happens early on they usually last for 10-15 years and often still work fine at 20 (but aren't as bright).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HD is just starting to hit it's full stride. I think over the next 5 years we'll start to see some of the more popular cable networks, like FX, USA, Comedy Central, etc... offering HD versions of their channels.

Dan


----------



## Jasoco (Mar 30, 2004)

The problem with some of those HD networks is only certain programs are actually in HD. The rest, like syndicated older programs and stuff aren't going to come in HD anyway. The "Bug" in the corner will be HD, but the program itself will just be scaled up SD. Is Monk even in HD yet? I know Earl is. And Conan or Letterman. Even the crappy talk shows like Leno and Craig and Carson. (Daly, not Johnny.)

Eventually, hopefully soonish, all new shows will be HD. Sure we'll still have to put up with older SD programming in syndication, but at least stuff that comes out new will be HD goodness.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's kind of how TNT-HD is now. New shows, like the Stephen King one on right now, are in real HD. While syndicated shows like The X Files are simply upsampled to HD resolution. Although even those upsampled shows look better then the same show on the analog version of the channel, so it's better then nothing.

Dan


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> HD is just starting to hit it's full stride. I think over the next 5 years we'll start to see some of the more popular cable networks, like FX, USA, Comedy Central, etc... offering HD versions of their channels.
> 
> Dan


When that happens is when I'll soften my stance on not paying the cable company a nickel more than I have to. Right now, all I pay is for expanded basic packaged with "hi-speed" Internet (Mediacom). Until then, it's OTA all the way for me. I get CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and PBS all in HD now OTA (and hopefully CW soon). And, with minimal or no antenna movement needed, I'll be fine for recording with the S3. But when the cable networks start getting their act together is when I start contemplating coughing up more $$ to the cable company. I certainly would like to have ESPN and ESPN2 in HD, but, for now it's not a deal-breaker for me. And there's not enough HD content with programs I like on TNT (plus I will NEVER pay more for "premium" cable HD). So I'm sittin' tight for now....waiting for my S3...


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

Bierboy said:


> When that happens is when I'll soften my stance on not paying the cable company a nickel more than I have to.


I hate my cable company. I added $10/mo worth of "digital tiers," and my bill went up $20. I tell you, they're going to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.


----------



## maki (Oct 23, 2003)

I read somewhere on the forum that people say $800 would be a deal for those who've spent thousands of dollars on their HD setups... I don't see how they can call this unit a "Series 3" if it's simply going to be a premium option.

If what they wanted was a super beefy unit to sell to a few elite, they should have made a "Series 2 HD" or something along those lines.

It'd be a strange thing to continue the line of TiVo's with an outrageously priced unit. If there are reasonable package deals, the price of buying the box outright may be suited at that amount.

If a package deal isn't affordable either it doesn't make much sense. It'd be like Apple introducing the next generation iPod, to replace older units, and asking $1500 for it.


----------



## maki (Oct 23, 2003)

KizzaMe said:


> I'll never buy another TIVO until lifetime service is brought back.


I felt the same way... but now I have a DT


----------



## Deacon West (Apr 16, 2006)

Why didn't you get lifetime on your DT?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

maki said:


> I read somewhere on the forum that people say $800 would be a deal for those who've spent thousands of dollars on their HD setups... I don't see how they can call this unit a "Series 3" if it's simply going to be a premium option.


The majority of people who throw that kind of money around ($13000 for a projector!) usually want their components hidden away. I like the idea of showing what's recording on the front, and the sleek looking design, but if no one's going to see it, why bother? I don't really feel like having to walk around to my closet to see if something is in the middle of recording before I turn on the TV, and I'm sure most won't.

This is probably a non-issue though. In another 6 months to a year Tivo may release a Series 3 Lite or something, with JUST QAM tuners and cablecard for 1 to 2 hundred bucks cheaper. This will let them keep the high price tag on the S3 for as long as possible.

<truth.com>
Shoot high and fill in the gaps along the way as a business strategy? WTFXUP?
</truth.com>


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

classicX said:


> This is probably a non-issue though. In another 6 months to a year Tivo may release a Series 3 Lite or something, with JUST QAM tuners and cablecard for 1 to 2 hundred bucks cheaper.


CableCard products must (currently) include an NTSC tuner (via CableLabs licensing) ... and possibly, (depending on your interpretation of some FCC regulations, if you want to label the product as "digital cable ready or other similar terminology") an ATSC tuner so ...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicX said:


> If that's true, then why does Maxtor sell the exact same 250GB with the exact same hardware as two different model numbers? One goes through more initial testing and the warranty is three years. The lesser model (with the same hardware): 1 year warranty.
> 
> And yes, Hyundai's cars are better, in terms of reliability.
> 
> You should've said Honda... ;-)


you really beleive there's a differnce between the 2 maxtor drives?

They come off the same line I'm sure. So just becasue the test one harder on day one it will last longer?

Never mind drives then- lets say Honda's? how's that?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

maki said:


> I read somewhere on the forum that people say $800 would be a deal for those who've spent thousands of dollars on their HD setups... I don't see how they can call this unit a "Series 3" if it's simply going to be a premium option.
> 
> If what they wanted was a super beefy unit to sell to a few elite, they should have made a "Series 2 HD" or something along those lines.
> 
> ...


We don't know the price.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

classicX said:


> In another 6 months to a year Tivo may release a Series 3 Lite or something, with JUST QAM tuners and cablecard for 1 to 2 hundred bucks cheaper.


I'll be surprised if they come out with a stripped Series 3.

Anyway, I'd rather see a standard-def dual-tuner Series 2 "heavy" with internal NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuners and the current ability to control one external cable or satellite STB ! 

Perhaps we'll both have to dream on!!!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> you really beleive there's a differnce between the 2 maxtor drives?
> 
> They come off the same line I'm sure. So just becasue the test one harder on day one it will last longer?
> 
> Never mind drives then- lets say Honda's? how's that?


Intel used to sell the exact same processor as multiple products based on how much heat they could withstand. So a processor with some defects that made it run hotter would be sold as a slower proc while better runs were sold as higher speed procs. I don't see why a device that met higher test standards shouldn't be sold at a higher price, however in this case the price difference may just be the warranty.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Jasoco said:


> The problem with some of those HD networks is only certain programs are actually in HD. The rest, like syndicated older programs and stuff aren't going to come in HD anyway. The "Bug" in the corner will be HD, but the program itself will just be scaled up SD. Is Monk even in HD yet? I know Earl is. And Conan or Letterman. Even the crappy talk shows like Leno and Craig and Carson. (Daly, not Johnny.)
> 
> Eventually, hopefully soonish, all new shows will be HD. Sure we'll still have to put up with older SD programming in syndication, but at least stuff that comes out new will be HD goodness.


I think mush goign forward will be HD.

If you look at alot of the new stuff on the discovery networks and PBS, much is shot 16:9 with bars. You cant find some of programs in HD anyplce, but i'm guessing the masters are in HD and at some point down the road you'd see them on some new HD channel.

I'm sure the same thing happened with Color. I remember as a young kid there was still plenty of black and white reruns even though the Tv's were all color and the stations were all color for probably 10-15 years at that point.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Stormspace said:


> Intel used to sell the exact same processor as multiple products based on how much heat they could withstand. So a processor with some defects that made it run hotter would be sold as a slower proc while better runs were sold as higher speed procs. I don't see why a device that met higher test standards shouldn't be sold at a higher price, however in this case the price difference may just be the warranty.


Use to? They still do that. Even on their new Core 2 line all the chips are exactly the same except for the clock speed. (and the extreme has the multiplier unlocked so it can be over clocked)

Dan


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Intel used to sell the exact same processor as multiple products based on how much heat they could withstand. So a processor with some defects that made it run hotter would be sold as a slower proc while better runs were sold as higher speed procs. I don't see why a device that met higher test standards shouldn't be sold at a higher price, however in this case the price difference may just be the warranty.


actually my borther in law works at intel and last we talked about it still do the same thing. (I haven't talked about it in the recent past so maybe it's changed- i never thought to keep asking once he explained it once) All the chips come off the line designed as 4ghz (or whatever the max speed is) and then they beat on them and test for defects and decide what to call it and lock the speed to at that point. There is basically no such thing as a perfect chip they all have issues, it's a matter of how many issues/ bad transisitors each chip has that determines it's performance. (My BIL actually is in the group that works to fix the issues and increase the yeilds)

It used to be they locked the speed to exactly what the cpu could handle and then sell it as the next lowest name- so for instance a pentium that could run at 102 mhz probbaly would have been sold as a pentium 100 or 90 but you might check system info and see it was a p102. I think now a days they are fancier and lock it to the speed they sell it at.

(BTW the real crappy ones they either toss or they put them aside and make keychains and the like out of them- it's pretty funny the key chain collection I have...)

Anyway- they all come with the exact same warrenty and i'd think you'd be hard pressed to find a differnce in failure rates assuming the chips weren't overclocked.

As far as hard drives, I think MUCH if not all of the warrenty difference is in the PRICE. They add a 3 year instead of a 1 year warrenty and add x% to the retail to account for the addtional exchanges they anticipate over the extra 2 years. I'd really doubt there is a significant amount of addtional testing. I dont see how they can test a finished product for a few minutes and determine it's longevity over the course of years but maybe they can?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> you really beleive there's a differnce between the 2 maxtor drives?
> 
> They come off the same line I'm sure. So just becasue the test one harder on day one it will last longer?
> 
> Never mind drives then- lets say Honda's? how's that?


You missed the point - which was that a warranty term can be an indication of the expected failure rate. The drives DO come off the same line - they are exactly the same. One is tested longer and is expected to fail less than the other - hence the longer warranty period.

And the Honda comment was a joke.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Jumpin_Joe said:


> There is a direct correlation between how many pairs of shoes the wife recently purchased to how much I can spend (unquestioned by my wife) on a new Tivo.
> 
> So if the wife spends a lot of money just before the S3 is released, the more I can spend on the S3
> 
> Edit: I voted for no more than $500


So, the more money she spends, the more the total sum of available money grows...? I wish my economy worked like that. 

I am not willing to pay more than $500 for this... as much as I want HD (currently have no built-in tuner), I'll do fine with SD rather than pay more.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> you really beleive there's a differnce between the 2 maxtor drives?
> 
> They come off the same line I'm sure. So just becasue the test one harder on day one it will last longer?


The difference between name brands in electronics (and other areas) is often only quality control. It might be the exact same product with just two different names, but the Name Brand (TM) one costs 50% more than the NoName one. The reason is that Name Brand gets the stuff that's gone through multiple quality control testing procedures, to insure the continued worth of their brand, while the NoName one just goes through a simpler testing procedure, since they set the bar (and the price!) lower.

So yes, just because one is tested more, it is expected to last longer, thus they give a longer warranty.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicX said:


> You missed the point - which was that a warranty term can be an indication of the expected failure rate. The drives DO come off the same line - they are exactly the same. One is tested longer and is expected to fail less than the other - hence the longer warranty period.
> 
> And the Honda comment was a joke.


see my later post- I dont think any 3 or 5 minute test as the drive comes off the line can accurately predict failure rates years down the road. I think it's simply a matter of them using the warrenty as a marketing device so they increase the warrenty time and jack up the MSRP also.

Similar to how they lower OEM drive prices with the same warrenty coverage as they dont need to handle you when the drive fails- the send you to the device maker to sort it out.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MickeS said:


> The difference between name brands in electronics (and other areas) is often only quality control. It might be the exact same product with just two different names, but the Name Brand (TM) one costs 50% more than the NoName one. The reason is that Name Brand gets the stuff that's gone through multiple quality control testing procedures, to insure the continued worth of their brand, while the NoName one just goes through a simpler testing procedure, since they set the bar (and the price!) lower.
> 
> So yes, just because one is tested more, it is expected to last longer, thus they give a longer warranty.


now that makes sense so maybe it has somethign to do with it. Good point.

So some might be a better QC'd product but plenty of the price difference is simply appyling a differnt logo to the front bezel and sendign it on it's way.

For a time when Directv had 3 or 4 differnt brand name Tivo based DVR's they could be had for differnt prices although they all were made at the same factory with the same main components and I suspect all had the same testing. So plenty of it is marketing that drives the price. (and RCA if I recall decided to have a 2 year warrenty for whatever reason as opposed to the others with shorter terms.)


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

I am struck by how much comment there is about broadcast HD (cable&OTA) and none about non-broadcast content - anything from ripped 480p DVD to internet downloads @ 1080i/p - which might be displayed far better on an S3.

A significant cornerstone to the premium value of the S3 is its ability to play something that didn't come from your cable co. Its also a significant part of TiVo's planned business future.

So if this audience isn't talking about it, but rather about having only one basic HD channel plus 5 premium ones on their cable system, I really wonder.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

HDTiVo said:


> I am struck by how much comment there is about broadcast HD (cable&OTA) and none about non-broadcast content - anything from ripped 480p DVD to internet downloads @ 1080i/p - which might be displayed far better on an S3.


 Good point. But the broadcast recordings recorded from OTA or cable are a lot more readily accessible compared to HD internet downloads and in any case most of internet downloads available from torrent sites and such are derived from broadcasts. I don't think there is much 1080p content out there easily accessible and even if there is, downloading them over internet would take quite a long time even in MPEG4 format. 480p DVD rips though is certainly an interesting idea and if/once Blue Ray and/or HDDVD encryption is cracked then perhaps higher resolution content will be more easily accessible to a S3 user.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

How could TiVo come out with an S2 with an ATSC tuner that records in SD? ATSC signals are digital. If the signal source is high def, you still have to record all the bits to get the show. So, the hard drive will need to be just as big to store an hour from an ATSC channel on an SD box as an HD box, unless it was going to downconvert it and reencode it, which would require even more or different hardware. The only difference would be the outputs. I don't see how that's too much of a cost savings.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> How could TiVo come out with an S2 with an ATSC tuner that records in SD? ATSC signals are digital. If the signal source is high def, you still have to record all the bits to get the show. So, the hard drive will need to be just as big to store an hour from an ATSC channel on an SD box as an HD box, unless it was going to downconvert it and reencode it, which would require even more or different hardware. The only difference would be the outputs. I don't see how that's too much of a cost savings.


ATSC is digital but often is standard-def. An ATSC tuner downconverts hi-def to standard-def or whatever resolution a set requires.

*"Your ATSC tuner will convert whatever format it receives into whatever format your set supports."*


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> ATSC is digital but often is standard-def. An ATSC tuner downconverts hi-def to standard-def or whatever resolution a set requires.
> 
> *"Your ATSC tuner will convert whatever format it receives into whatever format your set supports."*


That's for display. My understanding is, the digital bits come in (in HD), and they're converted to analog and then down-rezzed to 480. That's great for an SD display with an ATSC tuner. But a TiVo has to save the program to a hard disk. How does the program go back to digital data once downconverted to SD?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> I am struck by how much comment there is about broadcast HD (cable&OTA) and none about non-broadcast content - anything from ripped 480p DVD to internet downloads @ 1080i/p - which might be displayed far better on an S3.
> 
> A significant cornerstone to the premium value of the S3 is its ability to play something that didn't come from your cable co. Its also a significant part of TiVo's planned business future.
> 
> So if this audience isn't talking about it, but rather about having only one basic HD channel plus 5 premium ones on their cable system, I really wonder.


I get about 12 HD stations on my Comcast system non of them are what you would call premium (HBO Etc). The Series 3 would in theory replace my Moto DVR cable box. It will not give me a better picture as all Comcast HD is in 720P (for now). I am sure the Series 3 will record 720P from the cable HD channels. I don't think the Series 3 will be a general purpose HD recorder for 1080I or 1080P. It will not have any HD input connectors outside of the digital cable inputs. This is a cable HD DVR replacement with a much better interface for recording and you will not have OnDemand or PPV services (using the S 3).


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> That's for display. My understanding is, the digital bits come in (in HD), and they're converted to analog and then down-rezzed to 480. That's great for an SD display with an ATSC tuner. But a TiVo has to save the program to a hard disk. How does the program go back to digital data once downconverted to SD?


So you believe that digital hi-def must be converted to analog and then re-converted to standard-def digital before being displayed as analog. Can anyone on the Forums confirm that? I thought that an ATSC/QAM tuner downrezzes completely in the digital domain.

After being recorded at TiVo's buffer (best) quality, a program still looks good when re-recorded on another DVR at high (second best) quality. Doing so entails two (A/D: D/A to A/D: D/A) reconversions which is analagous to what aindik believes would be necessary for hi-def to standard-def conversions.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

TiVo Troll said:


> So you believe that digital hi-def must be converted to analog and then re-converted to standard-def digital before being displayed as analog. Can anyone on the Forums confirm that? I thought that an ATSC/QAM tuner downrezzes completely in the digital domain.
> 
> After being recorded at TiVo's buffer (best) quality, a program still looks good when re-recorded on another DVR at high (second best) quality. Doing so entails two (A/D: D/A to A/D: D/A) reconversions which is analagous to what aindik believes would be necessary for hi-def to standard-def conversions.


Digital HD is recorded in digital format on the Hard Drive..their is no loss at that point that why the cable DVRs do not give you recording quality settings for HD. It takes about 9 G of Hard Drive space per hour of 720P HD recording. Coming off the HD, the signal can stay digital using HDMI connector or be converted to component (three RCA connectors for video Blue, Green and Red) or further converted to SVHS or composite RCA (one Yellow connector), each conversion degrades the signal although on my 65 inch HDTV I can't see any difference between HDMI and the component output.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

lessd said:


> Digital HD is recorded in digital format on the Hard Drive..their is no loss at that point that why the cable DVRs do not give you recording quality settings for HD.


I don't know if there are currently any standard-def cable STB DVR's which record directly from QAM tuners. Aindik's question assumes a standard-def DVR with an ATSC/QAM tuner.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> So you believe that digital hi-def must be converted to analog and then re-converted to standard-def digital before being displayed as analog. Can anyone on the Forums confirm that? I thought that an ATSC/QAM tuner downrezzes completely in the digital domain.
> 
> After being recorded at TiVo's buffer (best) quality, a program still looks good when re-recorded on another DVR at high (second best) quality. Doing so entails two (A/D: D/A to A/D: D/A) reconversions which is analagous to what aindik believes would be necessary for hi-def to standard-def conversions.


Displaying it in real time at a lower resolution (an analog thing) is different than saving it to a hard drive in the lower resolution (a digital thing). You'd need, at the very least, some kind of encoder, since you wouldn't be saving the digital bits as they came in (because that would save the show in HD and take up 9 times the space).


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> I don't know if there are currently any standard-def cable STB DVR's which record directly from QAM tuners. Aindik's question assumes a standard-def DVR with an ATSC/QAM tuner.


Which is what people are proposing as an cheaper alternative to the S3. I was questioning whether it's possible (to actually make it cheaper, that is).


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> I was questioning whether it's possible (to actually make it cheaper, that is).


I've *posted* on another thread about what I'd like to see in an upgraded Series 2.

But right now I'd like to see an authoritative answer to your *post* in this thread.


----------



## doormat (Sep 15, 2004)

I'm a little late to the party here, but my limit on the S3 TiVo is $649 assuming I pay $20/mo (S2 + S3 TiVos). If my monthly sub goes up, my initial price has to go down. 

I'd love to see a parts list. HDs are falling like a rock. I'm not so sure the parts cost over $500, but given how long this has taken to get out, the per unit R&D is probably $200+ over the sales lifetime.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

TiVo Troll said:


> I've *posted* on another thread about what I'd like to see in an upgraded Series 2.
> 
> But right now I'd like to see an authoritative answer to your *post* in this thread.


I'm surprised that nobody has posted in reply to aindik's question. After searching for an answer and not finding one, and thinking about it today, I'm inclined to think that he brought up a valid point.

His view, if true, explains perfectly why TiVo has chosen to upgrade their DVR line by using hi-def rather than digital capability as the foundation.

If aindik's take on Series 2 is true, then Dan's view that there won't be any further upgrades to Series 2 makes perfect sense, and the upcoming Series 3 will introduce a new paradigm of DVR products.

Series 3 won't be capable of receiving video programming directly from from an external source. Perhaps future DVR's will be capable of accepting digital signals from IEEE 1394 (Firewire) ports but Series 3 won't, at least at first. And until CableCARD 2 becomes a working standard Series 3 won't be capable of recording all program sources that less ambitious cable company DVR's can.

I originally thought that Series 3 for $800. would be acceptable. No longer. $500. is more like it!


----------



## maki (Oct 23, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> If aindik's take on Series 2 is true, then Dan's view that there won't be any further upgrades to Series 2 makes perfect sense, and the upcoming Series 3 will introduce a new paradigm of DVR products.


As happened with the Series 1 once the Series 2 was out.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> How could TiVo come out with an S2 with an ATSC tuner that records in SD? ATSC signals are digital. If the signal source is high def, you still have to record all the bits to get the show. So, the hard drive will need to be just as big to store an hour from an ATSC channel on an SD box as an HD box, unless it was going to downconvert it and reencode it, which would require even more or different hardware. The only difference would be the outputs. I don't see how that's too much of a cost savings.


But then I see *this*, which appears to be a dual tuner standard-def digital QAM/analog NTSC cable box and I'm back to square 1 about the truth of aindik's view! Why can't Series 2 be upgraded to do what Scientific Atlanta's SA 8000 apparently does?

Then Series 3 can go back to being a hi-end $800. DVR instead of Series 2's replacement!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

maki said:


> As happened with the Series 1 once the Series 2 was out.


I don't think that's going to happen here. The Series 1 was phased out because the S2 was basically the same product just cheaper to make and with more functionality. The S2DT and the S3 are two different animals with two different target audiences. The S2DT is the low end entry box aimed at the millions of analog cable users who don't want to upgrade to digital cable just to get a DVR from their cable company. The S3 is the high end box actually meant to compete with the cable DVRs on the grounds that a better user experience is worth the increased cost. Because of this I think the S2DT and the S3 will coexist for at least another fw years. At that point I think the hardware will have gotten cheap enough that TiVo will replace both with a next gen design that is cheap enough for the low end but advanced enough for the high end.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> I don't think that's going to happen here. The Series 1 was phased out because the S2 was basically the same product just cheaper to make and with more functionality. The S2DT and the S3 are two different animals with two different target audiences. The S2DT is the low end entry box aimed at the millions of analog cable users who don't want to upgrade to digital cable just to get a DVR from their cable company. The S3 is the high end box actually meant to compete with the cable DVRs on the grounds that a better user experience is worth the increased cost. Because of this I think the S2DT and the S3 will coexist for at least another fw years. At that point I think the hardware will have gotten cheap enough that TiVo will replace both with a next gen design that is cheap enough for the low end but advanced enough for the high end.
> 
> Dan


Do you have any "inside info" or is your opinion based on the same sources as mine or anyone else's?

As currently formulated (or projected) both the dual tuner Series 2 and the Series 3 have shortcomings.

Until CableCARD 2 becomes available and an IEEE 1394 port is added, Series 3 or its successor won't be a "full service" standalone DVR for non-satellite digital signals. For now Series 3 is an EXPENSIVE alternative to cable company DVRs, likely to be chosen only by a small subset of viewers. TiVo's features are unsurpassed as long as a viewer watches TV the way TiVo is designed for. Otherwise TiVo's "sizzle" is way over the top for the price.

It will be interesting to compare Comcast's upcoming TiVo based STB with Series 3 for prices, features, and (lack of) extras. It's interesting that, in my region, Comcast apparently doesn't differentiate between "hi" and "low" "ends", and its hi-def dual tuner DVR is what they provide for $10. monthly to all customers who request DVR service. Before we got a hi-def monitor I'd have been satisfied with a SA 8000.

After looking at SA's 8000, I'd much rather have that for a "low end" dual tuner cable DVR than a dual tuner Series 2 , and use a single tuner Series 2 for OTA. The cheap dual tuner Series 2 as currently configured is probably good for TiVo Inc.'s bottom line, but is otherwise a seriously crippled product when a user requires anything but analog "extended basic" cable service.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> But then I see *this*, which appears to be a dual tuner standard-def digital QAM/analog NTSC cable box and I'm back to square 1 about the truth of aindik's view! Why can't Series 2 be upgraded to do what Scientific Atlanta's SA 8000 apparently does?
> 
> Then Series 3 can go back to being a hi-end $800. DVR instead of Series 2's replacement!


That box doesn't record ATSC channels, and probably doesn't record the high def channels on the cable service. Only the standard def channels in the digital service.

TiVo can make a cablecard box that does that, but (under my understanding of the technology) it can't also include an ATSC tuner, unless it's going to either save the digital bits in high def or find some way to re-encode them in standard def.

So yeah, TiVo can come out with a box that records the same thing my non-HD digital cable box can see. But it sees locals from the analog feed. That's where TiVo would have to record locals from. Which means we still have the MPEG encoders we've had in standalone boxes since the S1.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Sory I'm not totally following-
besides the hard drive size what does it matter if the thing records lots of bits by recording the HD stream or fewer bits of recording the SD stream of the same channel?

I guess the output chipset will be differnt , but I'm wondering if current decoder/output chips dont all already include the ability to convert HD to SD anyhow. Maybe such chips cost a few extra dollars?

So what's the big deal? Is it that we concerned that $50 in addtional hardware in a bigger hard drive/updated output chipset is going to doom such a box?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> That box doesn't record ATSC channels, and probably doesn't record the high def channels on the cable service. Only the standard def channels in the digital service.
> 
> TiVo can make a cablecard box that does that, but (under my understanding of the technology) it can't also include an ATSC tuner, unless it's going to either save the digital bits in high def or find some way to re-encode them in standard def.
> 
> So yeah, TiVo can come out with a box that records the same thing my non-HD digital cable box can see. But it sees locals from the analog feed. That's where TiVo would have to record locals from. Which means we still have the MPEG encoders we've had in standalone boxes since the S1.


Adding ATSC capability to a QAM tuner wouldn't cost much. The SA 8000 DVR already has 2 A/D encoders.

Whatever the SA 8000 DVR does sounds great to me! My current digital (non-DVR) STB, included with Comcast's digital service, doesn't receive hi-def only cable channels but does fine with digital premium channels.

I'd gladly use my Lifetime Gift Card for TiVo Service on a dual-tuner Series 2 with ATSC/QAM capabilities, which could thus handle satellite, OTA, and premium cable channels without the limitations of a cable card. I don't need Series 3 for hi-def and it's not worth paying for Series 3 just for digital OTA.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> Sory I'm not totally following-
> besides the hard drive size what does it matter if the thing records lots of bits by recording the HD stream or fewer bits of recording the SD stream of the same channel?
> 
> I guess the output chipset will be differnt , but I'm wondering if current decoder/output chips dont all already include the ability to convert HD to SD anyhow. Maybe such chips cost a few extra dollars?
> ...


You are discounting the importance of hard drive size. A 180 GB drive records 180 hours of basic. People are used to that. Now, it's going to record 20 hours, for no perceivable advantage (because the box still displays in SD).

People were assuming, put an ATSC tuner in an S2 TiVo and watch it fly off the shelves as a low cost alternative to the S3. My point is, you won't be able to market that as a 180 hour box anymore. It's now a 20 hour box.

There is no SD stream of your local channels in ATSC or any other digital format (except on the odd cable system that has gone all digital, or unless we're talking about the secondary channels). That's the point. If there were, this wouldn't be a problem - the new S2 Digital could record that stream and still store an hour of it at 1 GB instead of 9.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> Adding ATSC capability to a QAM tuner wouldn't cost much. The SA 8000 DVR already has 2 A/D encoders.
> 
> Whatever the SA 8000 DVR does sounds great to me! My current digital (non-DVR) STB, included with Comcast's digital service, doesn't receive hi-def only cable channels but does fine with digital premium channels.
> 
> I'd gladly use my Lifetime Gift Card for TiVo Service on a dual-tuner Series 2 with ATSC/QAM capabilities, which could thus handle satellite, OTA, and premium cable channels without the limitations of a cable card. I don't need Series 3 for hi-def and it's not worth paying for Series 3 just for digital OTA.


Then we're back to square one. If you're recording an ATSC stream, you're either saving it at 9 GB per hour, or you're compressing or reencoding it before you save it.

Also, I'm missing how such a device would handle satellite? Do you mean via an S-Video input and analog audio inputs? If that's all you need, then an S2 can handle satellite and digital OTA now. Just get a DirecTV HD (non-DVR) box, and tell your TiVo to control it with an IR blaster.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> The S2DT is the low end entry box aimed at the millions of analog cable users who don't want to upgrade to digital cable just to get a DVR from their cable company. Dan


actually I would not call the S2 DT low end. But rather that it has to compete on price. It is indeed aimed at the millions of users who don't want to upgrade to digital cable. I am one of them. The DT thus has everything I would want in a DVR currently except for ability to download and play mpeg4, but I think this feature is not something the average consumer is after.

anyhow for an analog customer to simply hook the cable up to the back of the DVR and do a simple guided setup and then record two things at once is the way to try and get some market traction. The other aspect is price which is why from TiVo Inc's perspective, anything that does not add to simply hooking up analog cable and recording needs to be seriously looked at from an ROI point of view. that 99$ price has always been perceived as the sweet spot to sell DVR hardware by TiVo. Go over 99$ and sales to average users start slipping fast is a message we have heard from TiVo on various investor calls.

the only reason the IR blaster/serial cable is there is for legacy customers. 
Ethernet - as has been pounded out by this board - Ethernet ports and the chip set for them is now so common and so integrated as to probably cost money to get a design without Ethernet. But to really promote OTA recording you would need to add the digital OTA ability (even if law did not mandate it) and when you can decrease cost by taking out OTA all the way, it looks like the ROI for having antenna capability just gets very weak. This is my speculation on why it was stripped out.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the only reason the IR blaster/serial cable is there is for legacy customers.


What about customers who live in parts of the country where analog cable doesn't have all the analog channels in the clear, and a box (analog or digital) is required for certain channels? They'll need an IR blaster or a serial cable (and S-Video and RCA audio inputs, which you imply are also not necessary). Unless you cede them to the cable company DVR, or assume they'll buy an S3.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> Do you have any "inside info" or is your opinion based on the same sources as mine or anyone else's?


No I do not have any inside info. That was just my opinion based on what I've seen here and years of experience seeing how TiVo does things.



TiVo Troll said:


> For now Series 3 is an EXPENSIVE alternative to cable company DVRs, likely to be chosen only by a small subset of viewers.


There has been no officially anounced price point for the S3, so as of right now that argument is pretty speculative.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> Then we're back to square one. If you're recording an ATSC stream, you're either saving it at 9 GB per hour, or you're compressing or reencoding it before you save it.


*Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8000 description*



> Also, I'm missing how such a device would handle satellite? Do you mean via an S-Video input and analog audio inputs? If that's all you need, then an S2 can handle satellite and digital OTA now. Just get a DirecTV HD (non-DVR) box, and tell your TiVo to control it with an IR blaster.


Series 2 can be used with satellite STB's via line inputs and IR/Serial control. But Series 2 can't tune OTA ATSC/NTSC tuners. Satellite (or cable) "OTA" doesn't necessarily offer the same channels as a good ol' antenna can receive!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> *Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8000 description*


I saw that the first time. It doesn't say anything about digital OTA (ATSC) tuning. No cable box, from a cable company, is going to have that anyway.

This box records analog cable and digital SD cable.



TiVo Troll said:


> Series 2 can be used with satellite STB's via line inputs and IR/Serial control. But Series 2 can't tune OTA ATSC/NTSC tuners. Satellite (or cable) "OTA" doesn't necessarily offer the same channels as a good ol' antenna can receive!


Series 2 can tune OTA NTSC (analog) channels. But not digital ATSC channels.

Satellite HD receivers can tune OTA ATSC channels. They can be downconverted to S-Video and sent to an S2 TiVo the same way anything else is sent to an S2 TiVo.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

aindik said:


> You are discounting the importance of hard drive size. A 180 GB drive records 180 hours of basic. People are used to that. Now, it's going to record 20 hours, for no perceivable advantage (because the box still displays in SD).
> 
> People were assuming, put an ATSC tuner in an S2 TiVo and watch it fly off the shelves as a low cost alternative to the S3. My point is, you won't be able to market that as a 180 hour box anymore. It's now a 20 hour box.
> 
> There is no SD stream of your local channels in ATSC or any other digital format (except on the odd cable system that has gone all digital, or unless we're talking about the secondary channels). That's the point. If there were, this wouldn't be a problem - the new S2 Digital could record that stream and still store an hour of it at 1 GB instead of 9.


Interesting point. But a 250gb hard drive like in the HR10-250 would hold at least 27 hours at 9GB/hour. Most people dont record only HD so real world such a box would probably have 40-100 hours of content on it at anyone time. Only recently have the "80hr" tivo's become norm. And that 80hour is at crappy quality. What's that on best quality- 26 hours? So a 250gb drive would have much better quailty on it for the 40ish hours it could have. So compared to current stand alone tivo's its "sort of" equal....

How you market such a box though I dont know- what do you say "could be 250 hours, or maybe just 27 depends on what you record"- what an ugly disclaimer on teh side of the box...

And as you point out- tough sell to the guy who has used an 180GB cable company dvr.

Some neat thoughts in this discussion- somethign to think about...


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

aindik said:


> Series 2 can tune OTA NTSC (analog) channels.


But not the new DT's, IIRC.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> No I do not have any inside info. That was just my opinion based on what I've seen here and years of experience seeing how TiVo does things.


I respect your experience with TiVo and these Forums. Regarding Series 2, you're probably right but I hope you're wrong! 



> There has been no officially anounced price point for the S3, so as of right now that argument is pretty speculative.
> 
> Dan


The prevailing speculation supposedly based on comments from TiVo sources is that Series 3 will be pricey. And why not?

There are projected gaps between Series 2 and Series 3 capabilities. Choosing a DVR is going to get more complicated, not simpler, and "complicated" choices favor offerings from cable or satellite providers, not TiVo, IMHO.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> I saw that the first time. It doesn't say anything about digital OTA (ATSC) tuning. No cable box, from a cable company, is going to have that anyway.
> 
> This box records analog cable and digital SD cable.
> 
> ...


Why are you being disingenuous? We've already gone over these points in earlier posts.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> Why are you being disingenuous? We've already gone over these points in earlier posts.


I'm hardly being disingenuous. I'm simply responding to your posts. If you think I should stop posting, please let me know why.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> I'm hardly being disingenuous. I'm simply responding to your posts. If you think I should stop posting, please let me know why.


Well, no. Don't stop. Actually your first post was an eye opener for me. I thought about your points at length and searched for evidence to verify or refute them. I was almost ready to conceed the issue until I ran across the *Scientific Atlanta website*.

If it truly wasn't practical to enable a DVR to record digital standard-def except by double D/A conversion at relatively high cost it would explain TiVo's Ser. 3 vs. Ser. 2 capabilities. Dan doesn't believe that TiVo will upgrade the current dual Series 2. He's probably right, but I hope not.

I don't understand the underlying thinking behind the dual tuner Series 2's limitations. I want to be able to tune OTA channels received from an antenna plus the ability to control an external STB to receive premium content w/o a cable card. Series 3 is (probably) going to be expensive. It doesn't pay to get it unless a user wants its hi-def capabilities.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> If it truly wasn't practical to enable a DVR to record digital standard-def except by double D/A conversion at relatively high cost it would explain TiVo's Ser. 3 vs. Ser. 2 capabilities.


Of course it is possible to record digital in standard def if the digital source is in standard def. That's what the Scientific Atlanta 8000 does. It records the channels on your digital cable box with numbers higher than 100 that way - saving the bits as they come in, already in SD. The channels with numbers lower than 100 are recorded from analog and then encoded to MPEG by the box, just like the S2 TiVo.

What I don't think can be done is to record digital in standard def when the digital source is high def. Since (nearly) all OTA digital broadcasts (I'm talking about the main channels, not the subchannels) are in high def, this is where a standalone box that records digital OTA in standard def is going to be a problem.

There are programs for PCs that convert High Def content (recorded from an OTA tuner) to a DVD. I don't know much about them, but an SD TiVo would need to be able to run something like that in real time in order to save an HD program in SD (and avoid wasting the extra 8 GB per hour).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> Well, no. Don't stop. Actually your first post ...
> 
> I don't understand the underlying thinking behind the dual tuner Series 2's limitations. I want to be able to tune OTA channels received from an antenna plus the ability to control an external STB to receive premium content w/o a cable card. Series 3 is (probably) going to be expensive. It doesn't pay to get it unless a user wants its hi-def capabilities.


I want a pony.

But I want a nice sized SUV that can get 150 mpg on used vegitable oil and only costs $3k loaded.

J/K

Joking aside- sometimes what we want just isn't a reality of the current technology.


----------



## Abner (May 17, 2006)

I certainly would not pay over $300. And I think that it should not be priced over $249! Cable companies currently give HD boxes for about $12 a month, so they will loose a huge market, if they price the units over $250. Yes, many here are willing to pay $500 or $1000, but I don't think that it represents what the majority of the market is willing to pay. I would bet that not too many people will be jumping to spend $500 or a $1000 for the S3s. But, for $249, TiVo would have a hard time keping up with demand!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

aindik said:


> Of course it is possible to record digital in standard def if the digital source is in standard def. That's what the Scientific Atlanta 8000 does. It records the channels on your digital cable box with numbers higher than 100 that way - saving the bits as they come in, already in SD. The channels with numbers lower than 100 are recorded from analog and then encoded to MPEG by the box, just like the S2 TiVo.
> 
> What I don't think can be done is to record digital in standard def when the digital source is high def. Since (nearly) all OTA digital broadcasts (I'm talking about the main channels, not the subchannels) are in high def, this is where a standalone box that records digital OTA in standard def is going to be a problem.
> 
> There are programs for PCs that convert High Def content (recorded from an OTA tuner) to a DVD. I don't know much about them, but an SD TiVo would need to be able to run something like that in real time in order to save an HD program in SD (and avoid wasting the extra 8 GB per hour).


I think it's getting closer to reality, the ability to reencode HD in real time, but it's still a bit pricy.

I am not aware of software that can handle it real time but there are hardware solutions comign along. Sort of related example = Sanyo makes palm sized camcorder that can save ED or 720p 30 fps HD to an SD card. So on the fly it is capable of downrezzing the HD imaging chips raw data to 480p MPEG4. So it's possible for sub $1000 devices to ingest a pile of raw data and make it something smaller. Who knows what the encoder part of the doodah costs though, I'd bet it's expensive enough that it would had some heft to the price of the S2- toss in the fancier tuner- the larger harddrive, etc and you are probably getting in the ballpark of what they plan to sell the Series3 for. Just a WAG...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Abner said:


> I certainly would not pay over $300. And I think that it should not be priced over $249! Cable companies currently give HD boxes for about $12 a month, so they will loose a huge market, if they price the units over $250. Yes, many here are willing to pay $500 or $1000, but I don't think that it represents what the majority of the market is willing to pay. I would bet that not too many people will be jumping to spend $500 or a $1000 for the S3s. But, for $249, TiVo would have a hard time keping up with demand!


I'm sure it was said earlier in theis thread but likely the price will be fat early on so they can maximize how much they exract from everyone. Once they get the intial fat cash out of the masses they'll drop the price some to make it more pallatable to the middle of the pack.

Can anyone say HMO? It cost $99 when it first came out. Then the website to buy it stopped taking orders one day. Next thing ya know a week later it was free for everyone.

It's just the way life is.

PS- I'm still waiting for the 'make it up to you bone' that Tivo implied they would toss the people that shelled out the $99!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Abner said:


> I certainly would not pay over $300. And I think that it should not be priced over $249! Cable companies currently give HD boxes for about $12 a month, so they will loose a huge market, if they price the units over $250. Yes, many here are willing to pay $500 or $1000, but I don't think that it represents what the majority of the market is willing to pay. I would bet that not too many people will be jumping to spend $500 or a $1000 for the S3s. But, for $249, TiVo would have a hard time keping up with demand!


When the iPod came out I was thinking, "This thing has got to drop to under a hundred dollars at some point." , however it hasn't happened. Why? Mainly because of a following of people with expendible income. Maybe the hardware costs haven't come down quickly either, though I doubt that. The point is that as long as some idiot(s) will pay for it, and TiVo makes a profit, the price will be as high as they can make it. They don't care if you use it or not, or how many people use it if the money isn't there for them.

So what do you do? Well, in the iPod situation I purchased a competing product that was more reasonably priced, but with a couple features missing. The same will go for the TiVo, if it's 500+ I'll repurpose one of the PC's at home and buy an HD Tuner for it to use with MythTV. What I won't do is get a cable DVR.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

aindik said:


> What about customers who live in parts of the country where analog cable doesn't have all the analog channels in the clear, and a box (analog or digital) is required for certain channels? They'll need an IR blaster or a serial cable (and S-Video and RCA audio inputs, which you imply are also not necessary). Unless you cede them to the cable company DVR, or assume they'll buy an S3.


well by legacy I mean they wanted someone with a current Single Tuner series 2 to feel they can get the DT and at least still do as they did before with Digital. Also for those you point out as needing it even if a new customer.

My point is still that they did not add a second IR balster due to the cost and complexity. They could have but the targeted market seems to be simply analog recording and grabbing some shows off of HBO or whatever digital tier.

I think a cheaper series 3 will be the way to go and has been the approach in the past with the series 1 to 2 to 2.5(540 model) hardware. A cheap 3.5 will be the thing to come out in a few years.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> There are projected gaps between Series 2 and Series 3 capabilities. Choosing a DVR is going to get more complicated, not simpler, and "complicated" choices favor offerings from cable or satellite providers, not TiVo, IMHO.


The only feature a S2DT has that a S3 wont is the ability to record from an external box. Every other feature the S2DT has will also be included in the S3, plus a whole lot more. What exactly do you see as the "gaps" between their capabilities?

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I want a pony.
> 
> But I want a nice sized SUV that can get 150 mpg on used vegitable oil and only costs $3k loaded.
> 
> ...


Just because there's a pile of horsepucky doesn't mean there's a pony associated with it.

How many ATSC OTA channels limit their signals to exclusively high-def content anyway?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> Just because there's there's a pile of horsepucky doesn't mean there's a pony associated with it.
> 
> How many ATSC OTA channels limit their signals to exclusively high-def content anyway?


All the ones anyone buying a DVR would want to watch.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> The only feature a S2DT has that a S3 wont is the ability to record from an external box. Every other feature the S2DT has will also be included in the S3, plus a whole lot more. What exactly do you see as the "gaps" between their capabilities?
> 
> Dan


An external STB is the difference between receiving satellite programming or not.

Digital cable STB compatibility allows Series 2 to access programming that Series 3 won't be able to, because of inherent limitations of CableCARD 1.0.

Series 2 can record any NTSC formatted signal delivered through its line input. Isn't an IEEE 1394 port the digital equivalent of an analog line input?

Why should a prospective buyer consider Series 3 if s/he only needs standard-def resolution? Why shouldn't a prospective buyer have a TiVo option if s/he needs standard-def ATSC/NTSC OTA reception, satellite reception, or digital cable reception?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> All the (channels) anyone buying a DVR would want to watch.


Actually information about any given station's programming is fragmented at best and hard to research.

*Here's* a list of digital TV broadcasters in the Pacific Northwest. But the list doesn't identify the resolution that a station uses.

*Here's* the Seattle PBS station's schedule. PBS is a booster of both digital and hi-def and it broadcast both simultaneously.

*Here's* an overview of possibilities.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

Random data sample...

In my area I can only get the UPN OTA digitally, but not also in HD (nor in analog).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBOC-TV

Glad I looked that up. I see Aug 21 they are switching it to a Fox station since UPN/WB is going away. :up: (Hopefully it will also switch to HD.  )


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> Series 2 can record any NTSC formatted signal delivered through its line input.


So can the S3.



TiVo Troll said:


> Isn't an IEEE 1394 port the digital equivalent of an analog line input?


No. It's designed to allow digital transfers between STBs and recording devices. (i.e. D-VHS recorders) However it's encoded using a special encryption scheme called 5C which has some serious limitations and restrictions, which may not fit well into TiVo's home network scheme.



TiVo Troll said:


> Why should a prospective buyer consider Series 3 if s/he only needs standard-def resolution?


For the ability to record two digital channels at once. Or record ATSC programs along with their digital cable channels. (cable DVRs don't do ATSC)



TiVo Troll said:


> Why shouldn't a prospective buyer have a TiVo option if s/he needs standard-def ATSC/NTSC OTA reception, satellite reception, or digital cable reception?


Really the only option for such a buyer is either the original S2 unit or the S3. Since cable DVRs don't do OTA or DSS, DSS DVRs don't do OTA or cable, and the S2DT doesn't do OTA.

Dan


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

> Why should a prospective buyer consider Series 3 if s/he only needs standard-def resolution? Why shouldn't a prospective buyer have a TiVo option if s/he needs standard-def ATSC/NTSC OTA reception, satellite reception, or digital cable reception?


You seem to be under the impression that it's possible to build a significantly cheaper box that would be able to record SD ATSC only, rather than both SD & HD. It's not. When recording a digital broadcast, it's by far cheapest and easiest to just dump to disk whatever bits you receive, without having to reencode. This is what all of the DVRS that can receive digital channels directly are doing, including cable DVRs on the digital cable channels, satellite integrated DVRs, the series 3 on digital cable channels, plus defunct OTA digital DVRs like LG & Sony. These OTA DTV stations are for the most part broadcasting 100% in HD, upconverting their 4:3 SD programming, with the exception of some stations running an SD sub-channel, and PBS stations which are the only ones really making substantial use of SD multi-casting during non-primetime. Once you have these bits recorded, and decoded, it's pretty easy to output HD & run through a scaler and output whatever resolution your display can handle. It doesn't save you any money to cripple the box & make it output SD only. The ATSC tuning components you buy to make your box always tune both HD/SD; there's no market for SD only tuning, because (a) it wouldn't be significantly cheaper, (b) no one wants a tuner that can only tune in a couple subchannels (often showing something silly like weather radar, what one local affiliate does), + PBS daytime. And once you have the bits, of course it's easiest just to dump to disk, and scale *after* decoding if you need to. It's an expensive operation to reencode to a lower res.

If you don't have HDTV & won't for a long time, just stick with cheaper series 2. There's no way to make a "series 2.5" that would be SD digital, that would be any cheaper than a series 3 would be.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> When the iPod came out I was thinking, "This thing has got to drop to under a hundred dollars at some point." , however it hasn't happened.


While not exactly what you're talking about, there IS an iPod available for under $100 -- the 512 MB shuffle, at $69 (1 gig at $99).

..and probably closer to what you are talking about, a 1 gig nano (with screen and so on) for $149.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

TiVo Troll said:


> _Series 2 can record any NTSC formatted signal delivered through its line input._





Dan203 said:


> *So can the S3.*


The S3 doesn't have a line input of any kind.



> _Isn't an IEEE 1394 port the digital equivalent of an analog line input?_





> *No. It's designed to allow digital transfers between STBs and recording devices. (i.e. D-VHS recorders) However it's encoded using a special encryption scheme called 5C which has some serious limitations and restrictions, which may not fit well into TiVo's home network scheme.*


So there's no possibility of Series 3 recording anything which isn't available from a broadcast/cable source, unlike all previous TiVo's.



> _Why should a prospective buyer consider Series 3 if s/he only needs standard-def resolution?_





> *For the ability to record two digital channels at once. Or record ATSC programs along with their digital cable channels. (cable DVRs don't do ATSC)*


Choosing Series 3 for recording two digital standard-def programs at the same time only makes sense below a certain price point.

The biggest shortcoming of all Series 2's is their inability to control outboard digital tuner STB's, although any Series 2 can record their output. Perhaps extending Series 2's control capabilities to include NTSC/ATSC/QAM STB's would be cheaper than upgrading their tuner(s).

Since ATSC/QAM tuners are readily available there don't appear to be technical reasons prohibiting them in a standard-def Series 2. Hi-def content wouldn't be available on such a DVR in the identical manner that hi-def from a QAM tuner isn't available on a standard-def cable DVR w/QAM tuner. But including an NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuner would enable standard-def recording from all broadcast and cable sources.



> _Why shouldn't a prospective buyer have a TiVo option if s/he needs standard-def ATSC/NTSC OTA reception, satellite reception, or digital cable reception?_





> *Really the only option for such a buyer is either the original S2 unit or the S3. Since cable DVRs don't do OTA or DSS, DSS DVRs don't do OTA or cable, and the S2DT doesn't do OTA.*
> 
> Dan


Yeah; so, practically speaking, TiVo is a poor choice for something which should be simple and routine.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Stephen Tu said:


> You seem to be under the impression that it's possible to build a significantly cheaper box that would be able to record SD ATSC only, rather than both SD & HD. It's not. When recording a digital broadcast, it's by far cheapest and easiest to just dump to disk whatever bits you receive, without having to reencode. This is what all of the DVRS that can receive digital channels directly are doing, including cable DVRs on the digital cable channels, satellite integrated DVRs, the series 3 on digital cable channels, plus defunct OTA digital DVRs like LG & Sony. These OTA DTV stations are for the most part broadcasting 100% in HD, upconverting their 4:3 SD programming, with the exception of some stations running an SD sub-channel, and PBS stations which are the only ones really making substantial use of SD multi-casting during non-primetime. Once you have these bits recorded, and decoded, it's pretty easy to output HD & run through a scaler and output whatever resolution your display can handle. It doesn't save you any money to cripple the box & make it output SD only. The ATSC tuning components you buy to make your box always tune both HD/SD; there's no market for SD only tuning, because (a) it wouldn't be significantly cheaper, (b) no one wants a tuner that can only tune in a couple subchannels (often showing something silly like weather radar, what one local affiliate does), + PBS daytime. And once you have the bits, of course it's easiest just to dump to disk, and scale *after* decoding if you need to. It's an expensive operation to reencode to a lower res.
> 
> If you don't have HDTV & won't for a long time, just stick with cheaper series 2. There's no way to make a "series 2.5" that would be SD digital, that would be any cheaper than a series 3 would be.


If re-encoding is technically required; don't record such hi-def bitstreams on digital standard-def DVR's in the same manner as a *cable standard-def digital DVR* doesn't record hi-def programs. Possibly, such hi-def bitstreams could be "passed through" for realtime viewing only.

I have several NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuners. Most OTA (and cable) digital programming doesn't appear to be exclusively hi-def.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> If re-encoding is technically required; don't record such hi-def bitstreams on digital standard-def DVR's in the same manner as a *cable standard-def digital DVR* doesn't record hi-def programs. Possibly, such hi-def bitstreams could be "passed through" for realtime viewing only.
> 
> I have several NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuners. Most OTA (and cable) digital programming doesn't appear to be exclusively hi-def.


For most people in the country, their ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox affiliates, if broadcasting in ATSC digital, are doing so in HD. If a DVR can't record them, you can't reasonably market it as recording OTA digital. The fact that it can record the secondary SD subchannel on a PBS affiliate isn't good enough.

I think the answer for your concern is that TiVo simply needs to add IR codes to the S2 for the digital OTA STBs that will come out closer to the digital transition, which will take care of receiving the HD signal, downconverting it to 480i and sending it via S-Video to the Tivo.

But the current S2 won't be able to control an OTA STB and a cable box at the same time.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

When an ATSC/QAM tuner outputs a 480i NTSC baseband signal from a hi-def source, how is that done? Why couldn't that signal be re-encoded by the same MPEG-2 encoder(s) that a dual Series 2 already employs?

I agree that a quick and dirty solution for enabling the dual tuner Series 2, as currently configured, to receive ATSC standard-def, may be to add support for ATSC STB's. There actually are a number of NTSC/ATSC/QAM STB's available. Along with IR control codes, supporting such tuners also requires "mapping" the digital channels and subchannels. But such combo STB's can't receive scrambled cable services. In my area Comcast provides "Extended Basic service in both NTSC and scrambled QAM. Only "Limited Basic is available as unscrambled QAM.

The lack of NTSC UHF reception is actually as big a deficiency of dual Series 2's as their inability to record standard-def ATSC/QAM. Currently there's only one ATSC channel available in my area, along with ten NTSC channels. The ATSC channel and five of the NTSC channels are UHF.

Within the next few years seven of the ten *NTSC* channels will begin *ATSC* broadcasts. Canada is behind the US in digital broadcasting and, as of now, still doesn't have a projected NTSC cutoff date.

I have an NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuner (also a hi-def DVR) which uses TV Guide OS. Interestingly TV Guide OS let's a user manually map all channels, digital and analog, for which it gets guide data. TV GUIDE OS apparently can't integrate cable and antenna OTA into a single guide display, although it can display an EPG from either source.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

TiVo Troll said:


> When an ATSC/QAM tuner outputs a 480i NTSC baseband signal from a hi-def source, how is that done? Why couldn't that signal be re-encoded by the same MPEG-2 encoder(s) that a dual Series 2 already employs?


Because it's the obvious answer!

Or because it's dumb.

You figure it out.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> For most people in the country, their ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox affiliates, if broadcasting in ATSC digital, are doing so in HD. If a DVR can't record them, you can't reasonably market it as recording OTA digital. The fact that it can record the secondary SD subchannel on a PBS affiliate isn't good enough.


Here are a couple of resources for ferreting out what is available from ATSC OTA:

National Association of Broadcasters: * DTV stations by DMA ranking* (Takes a few seconds to download.)

*TitanTV QuickGuide to TV schedules* which can be sorted to select only digital and/or hi-def listings from cable, satellite, and OTA for all DMA's.

After briefly reviewing Titan's guide for available programming in randomly selected DMA's, aindik's premise appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Digital broadcast TV is a mixed bag at best!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> Here are a couple of resources for ferreting out what is available from ATSC OTA:
> 
> National Association of Broadcasters: * DTV stations by DMA ranking* (Takes a few seconds to download.)
> 
> ...


My understanding is that if a station broadcasts in HD any portion of the time, all of that station's programming will take up 9 GB an hour if stored, whether the actual program is in HD or not. Is that wrong?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> When an ATSC/QAM tuner outputs a 480i NTSC baseband signal from a hi-def source, how is that done? Why couldn't that signal be re-encoded by the same MPEG-2 encoder(s) that a dual Series 2 already employs?


It doesn't. And ATSC/QAM tuner simply tunes to a specific frequency and then outputs an MPEG2 transport stream. It's up to the other hardware to do something with it. In the case of the S3 the MPEG2 stream is simply saved directly to the hard drive, where it is then read back, decoded, then finally scaled as necessary. (the S3 has S-Video and RCA outputs which can only do 480i) In order to make a similar device that actually downsampled the signal upon reciept it would actually need *more* hardware then the S3 because it would need a decoder and scaler dedicated to each tuner, plus a decoder for displaying the recorded stream.

Making a non-HD ATSC box is completely impractical and will never be done by any company.

Dan


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> The S3 doesn't have a line input of any kind.


I misundstood what you were saying. I thought you were talking about it being able to record an NTSC antenna signal. Which the S3 can do. In fact if you really wanted to record something on the S3 from an external source you could connect it to the antenna input on the S3 and simply record from channel 3.



TiVo Troll said:


> So there's no possibility of Series 3 recording anything which isn't available from a broadcast/cable source, unlike all previous TiVo's.


Actually if you can modulate whatever it is to an RF signal then it can be recorded just like a S2. The S3 is simply missing the line level inputs the S2 has.



TiVo Troll said:


> Choosing Series 3 for recording two digital standard-def programs at the same time only makes sense below a certain price point.


And as I said before we really don't know what the S3's price point is yet, so it might be more viable then you think.



TiVo Troll said:


> The biggest shortcoming of all Series 2's is their inability to control outboard digital tuner STB's, although any Series 2 can record their output. Perhaps extending Series 2's control capabilities to include NTSC/ATSC/QAM STB's would be cheaper than upgrading their tuner(s).


The problem is there is no standard control protocol for external STBs. Even DirecTV receivers, which did have a standard, ended up being hard for them to support due to manufacturers vearing from the standard.



TiVo Troll said:


> Since ATSC/QAM tuners are readily available there don't appear to be technical reasons prohibiting them in a standard-def Series 2. Hi-def content wouldn't be available on such a DVR in the identical manner that hi-def from a QAM tuner isn't available on a standard-def cable DVR w/QAM tuner. But including an NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuner would enable standard-def recording from all broadcast and cable sources.


Most ATSC channels are boradcast in HD resolution even if the content isn't HD. (it's upsampled at the station) So limiting a box to record SD ATSC only would eliminate the vast majority of stations and make that box pretty useless.



TiVo Troll said:


> Yeah; so, practically speaking, TiVo is a poor choice for something which should be simple and routine.


If it's so simple then why isn't anyone else making a box that does what you're proposing? Heck I don't even think that there is PC hardware available to do what you want, so you couldn't even roll your own.

Dan


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

> If re-encoding is technically required; don't record such hi-def bitstreams on digital standard-def DVR's in the same manner as a cable standard-def digital DVR doesn't record hi-def programs. Possibly, such hi-def bitstreams could be "passed through" for realtime viewing only.


That particular box (SA 8000) you reference can't even tune to the HD QAM channels. That's an old box that was developed before their 8000HD model was ready; hardly any cable company deploys that anymore since there's no significant cost advantage in being non-HD. If you order DVR service w/o a HDTV they just give you the HD-DVR box. The few people who had the 8000 and upgraded to 8000HD aren't being charged any more for the HD model. Once you have a tuner that can tune to an HD channel + a decoder that can display it, where exactly are the cost savings vs. a series 3?



> I have several NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuners. Most OTA (and cable) digital programming doesn't appear to be exclusively hi-def


A lot of it is upconverted. But if you look at the info display of your tuners, you will see that the vast majority of stations, other than PBS, are still broadcasting 720p/1080i mode full time, even on their 4:3 upconverted content, not switching to 480i/p broadcast mode.
(I guess looking at your subsequent post you are in Canada & don't have many ATSC stations yet, but this is the current situation in regions that do have many ATSC stations).



> When an ATSC/QAM tuner outputs a 480i NTSC baseband signal from a hi-def source, how is that done?


Either the HD MPEG decoder chip includes a built-in scaler that will downrez to 480i, or you feed its output to an external scaling chip.



> Why couldn't that signal be re-encoded by the same MPEG-2 encoder(s) that a dual Series 2 already employs?


It could in principle, but it would be absurdly stupid to do it. You already have the HD bits to decode, why not just save direct to disk? Sure you could save a little space (HD space is cheap, why bother!) by reencoding & sacrificing a ton of quality, but then you are sacrificing one MPEG decoder to feed your encoder. Then you need a second decoder to view whatever show the viewer actually wants to see. Again, you have the bits, you have the HD MPEG decoder, you have everything you need for a series 3. You don't save money by trying to cripple it to be SD only.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> My understanding is that if a station broadcasts in HD any portion of the time, all of that station's programming will take up 9 GB an hour if stored, whether the actual program is in HD or not. Is that wrong?


Probably. Why should it?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

TiVo Troll said:


> When an ATSC/QAM tuner outputs a 480i NTSC baseband signal from a hi-def source, how is that done? Why couldn't that signal be re-encoded by the same MPEG-2 encoder(s) that a dual Series 2 already employs?





Dan203 said:


> It doesn't. And ATSC/QAM tuner simply tunes to a specific frequency and then outputs an MPEG2 transport stream. It's up to the other hardware to do something with it.
> 
> Making a non-HD ATSC box is completely impractical and will never be done by any company.
> 
> Dan


So how does the SA 8000 do what *this* claims it does? (See page 2 "Hardware Specifications".)

What is intrinsically different about ATSC from QAM?


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> *I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were talking about it being able to record an NTSC antenna signal. Which the S3 can do. In fact if you really wanted to record something on the S3 from an external source you could connect it to the antenna input on the S3 and simply record from channel 3.
> 
> Actually if you can modulate whatever it is to an RF signal then it can be recorded just like a S2. The S3 is simply missing the line level inputs the S2 has.*


That's true. Manual recordings from an external source will be possible on a Series 3 by treating RF channel three as a line input.



> *And as I said before we really don't know what the S3's price point is yet, so it might be more viable then you think.*


 Hey Tivo; if you want Series 3 to be your only DVR which can record from QAM/ATSC/NTSC formats regardless of whether programs are hi-def or not, you'd be well advised to sell it cheap!



> _The biggest shortcoming of all Series 2's is their inability to control outboard digital tuner STB's, although any Series 2 can record their output. Perhaps extending Series 2's control capabilities to include NTSC/ATSC/QAM STB's would be cheaper than upgrading their tuner(s)._





> *The problem is there is no standard control protocol for external STBs. Even DirecTV receivers, which did have a standard, ended up being hard for them to support due to manufacturers vearing from the standard.*


Nobody said that making a DVR that works well in covering all common applications is simple. But to succeed a DVR has to appear simple when supplying prospective customers' requirements.



> *Most ATSC channels are broadcast in HD resolution even if the content isn't HD. (it's upsampled at the station) So limiting a box to record SD ATSC only would eliminate the vast majority of stations and make that box pretty useless.*


That's an interpretation that I dispute. I can be convinced otherwise but not by a casual post without references. If a program was upsampled before being broadcast it would basically be crummy "hi-def" when an ATSC tuner received it. TiTan's *QuickGuide* lists digital stations' standard-def programs apart from hi-def and also has a "HD only" category which can be separately designated.



> *If it's so simple then why isn't anyone else making a box that does what you're proposing? Heck I don't even think that there is PC hardware available to do what you want, so you couldn't even roll your own.
> 
> Dan*


Other than TiVo, and LG's one MS based offering, who else is currently offering DVR service except cable and satellite providers and PC software developers? The versatility issue only exists with "standalone" DVR products. I'm not familiar with the PC side of the DVR business.

Bottom line is that I don't have answers, but I haven't seen authoritative answers with references from other posters. I wish that someone like megazone would reply.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Stephen Tu said:


> *That particular box (SA 8000) you reference can't even tune to the HD QAM channels. That's an old box that was developed before their 8000HD model was ready; hardly any cable company deploys that anymore since there's no significant cost advantage in being non-HD. If you order DVR service w/o a HDTV they just give you the HD-DVR box. The few people who had the 8000 and upgraded to 8000HD aren't being charged any more for the HD model. Once you have a tuner that can tune to an HD channel + a decoder that can display it, where exactly are the cost savings vs. a series 3?*


I'm not surprised. But the issue is about what's technically possible not whether a given STB is offered. What's different about ATSC from QAM?



> *A lot of (standard-def programming) is upconverted. But if you look at the info display of your tuners, you will see that the vast majority of stations, other than PBS, are still broadcasting 720p/1080i mode full time, even on their 4:3 upconverted content, not switching to 480i/p broadcast mode.
> (I guess looking at your subsequent post you are in Canada & don't have many ATSC stations yet, but this is the current situation in regions that do have many ATSC stations).*


I'm not in Canada but receive all but two OTA signals from Canada. If what you say about resolution is true (I'll check and see what can be determined from the tuner display) the route to cheap digital standard-def would be to enable Series 2 to control outboard NTSC/ATSC/QAM STB's. The current dual Series 2 isn't optimally configured to do that, true.



> *Either the HD MPEG decoder chip includes a built-in scaler that will downrez to 480i, or you feed its output to an external scaling chip.*


It's so easy to record from an outboard NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuner now; what's needed is channel mapping and IR control codes.



> *(Using the existing A/D converters) could in principle (re-encode a signal), but it would be absurdly stupid to do it. You already have the HD bits to decode, why not just save direct to disk? Sure you could save a little space (HD space is cheap, why bother!) by reencoding & sacrificing a ton of quality, but then you are sacrificing one MPEG decoder to feed your encoder. Then you need a second decoder to view whatever show the viewer actually wants to see. Again, you have the bits, you have the HD MPEG decoder, you have everything you need for a series 3. You don't save money by trying to cripple it to be SD only.*


If you're right it'll be TiVo's problem when trying to entice the mass market to its "standalone" DVR's. There won't really be standalone DVR's in the digital environment. Every segment of the program delivery industry will be trying to "lock up" OEM products to support their specific service.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> So how does the SA 8000 do what *this* claims it does? (See page 2 "Hardware Specifications".)
> 
> What is intrinsically different about ATSC from QAM?


I never said it was impossible, just impractical. The S3 can downsample HD to SD, and to do it any differently would require more parts, not less, thus making the resulting product more expensive to make. That means if TiVo wants to focus on ATSC/QAM recording they're much better off subsidizing the cost of the S3 then building some inbetween unit that actually costs more but goes for less.

Dan


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Dan, aindik, and Stephen present consistent arguments. Until I'm shown that you're all wrong I'll accede to your premises. 

If you're correct, it appears that Series 3 is slated to be the only DVR product suitable for ATSC OTA reception other than hi-def satellite DVR's which also feature an ATSC tuner. The OTA viewing audience consists of the second largest segment (Comcast is #1) of TV viewers; over 20 million. 

Cable DVR's are now TiVo's biggest competitors because they're generally offered without a contract or commitment; already offer dual tuners w/hi-def; can be exchanged free if they fail; and have monthly fees simliar to TiVo's $12.95 fee for the first TiVo in a household.

TiVo's intensely loyal niche audience may eat it up but Series 3 will be a difficult sell to the mass-market at $500.! TiVo might even offer Series 3 at a higher price if projected revenue curves support doing so. No matter how cheap, Series 3 is going to cost a lot more than its "free" competition! TiVo will have its work cut out to offer its flagship product so that it can successfully compete!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TiVo Troll said:


> That's an interpretation that I dispute. I can be convinced otherwise but not by a casual post without references. If a program was upsampled before being broadcast it would basically be crummy "hi-def" when an ATSC tuner received it. TiTan's *QuickGuide* lists digital stations' standard-def programs apart from hi-def and also has a "HD only" category which can be separately designated.


It's telling you which shows are actually in HD, and which ones are in SD. But the fact that they're in SD doesn't mean that they're not using the entirety of the 19.4Mbps available to an ATSC channel. They don't change the bitrate of the stream when they are showing something in SD (except for PBS, whose digital stations seem to turn on the HD during primetime and use four SD streams during the rest of the day).

19.4Mbps = 2.425MBps = 145.5MB per minute = 8730 MB per hour

A QAM channel showing Encore Westerns is not using 19.4Mbps of bandwidth, because it's never in HD. That's why an SD DVR can record it using much less disk space.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> ...it appears that Series 3 is slated to be the only DVR product suitable for ATSC OTA reception other than hi-def satellite DVR's which also feature an ATSC tuner....


You're forgetting the Sony DHG and LG 34XX units. While both are single tuner and have been discontinued, they are still being used and sold.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> You're forgetting the Sony and LG units. While both have been discontinued, they are still being used and sold.


True, but essentially they're history! But tomorrow; who knows!

(I've got the LG. hi-def DVR and like its ability to manually map the digital subchannels. Sony is supposed to use the same TV Guide OS EPG as LG does.)

TV Guide OS has serious limitations but still is a lot better than the impression that a reader who only knows it from Forum posts would guess.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

TiVo Troll said:


> True, but essentially they're history! But tomorrow; who knows!
> 
> (I've got the LG. hi-def DVR and like its ability to manually map the digital subchannels. Sony is supposed to use the same TV Guide OS EPG as LG does.)
> 
> TV Guide OS has serious limitations but still is a lot better than the impression that a reader who only knows it from Forum posts would guess.


I agree. I had several of the Sony units over a period of several months, and the PQ was excellent. Functionality was OK. TVGOS was marginal....as you say, not as bad as some post, but still nothing compared to the TiVo.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

TiVo Troll said:


> Dan203 said:
> 
> 
> > Most ATSC channels are broadcast in HD resolution even if the content isn't HD. (it's upsampled at the station) So limiting a box to record SD ATSC only would eliminate the vast majority of stations and make that box pretty useless.
> ...


I wasn't able to find the references you are looking for, but I can tell you for a fact that my local ABC and FOX stations broadcast at 720p and CBS and NBC stations broadcast at 1080i 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The programing is indeed upconverted at either the head end (the network) or at the affiliate end. Yes it is a "crummy" HD picture, but sometimes it is better than their SD picture.

I'm not trying to fool you here, just trying to share how my local broadcasters handle their ATSC broadcasts. Personally I think it's cheaper and easier for local broadcasters to convert everything to their main broadcast format rather than having an ATSC encoder that automatically switches everytime the resolution changes.

I don't know if you have an ATSC tuner or not, but the easiest way to look at this is how commercials are handled. The broadcast resolution doesn't drop to 480i/p during SD commercials.

If you do have an ATSC tuner, try this for yourself. Watch daytime TV from one of your local broadcasters and see if their SD programing is broadcasted at a SD resolution or a HD resolution.

So I have to agree with Dan, if you were to limit a box to only record 480p or 480i then the majority of local programing could not be recorded in at least my area.


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

> [referencing assertion that most ATSC stations upconvert their 4:3 SD programming & broadcast at 1080i/720p]
> That's an interpretation that I dispute. I can be convinced otherwise but not by a casual post without references


What reason would we have to lie to you about this? All I can say is go over to the HD Tivo portion of this site, and the HDTV programming / reception sections of the parent avsforum.com site, do searches on "upconvert", "upconversion" & you will see everyone say the same thing.



> What's different about ATSC from QAM?


ATSC used for OTA DTV transmission in North America uses 8VSB modulation, while the DVB used on cable uses QAM. Basically different methods of manipulating the base carrier frequency signal to carry bits of information.



> The route to cheap digital standard-def would be to enable Series 2 to control outboard NTSC/ATSC/QAM STB's.
> 
> It's so easy to record from an outboard NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuner now; what's needed is channel mapping and IR control codes.


It would have to be taught the concept of subchannels ... Yes, this could be done in theory. The problem is that only a miniscule percentage of users have any desire for this, and I think as time goes on this number shrinks, not grows, so Tivo wouldn't have any reason to work on this. People who have HDTV want to record in HD, not downconverted to SD. The people with HD have some money & will shell out for the current options to record in HD, like cable DVRs, PC tuner cards, the HR10-250 Tivo, the discontinued LG/Sony DVRs.



> it appears that Series 3 is slated to be the only DVR product suitable for ATSC OTA reception other than hi-def satellite DVR's which also feature an ATSC tuner.
> 
> TiVo's intensely loyal niche audience may eat it up but Series 3 will be a difficult sell to the mass-market at $500.!


And now you are back with the general consensus, this thread can die or return to original topic ...


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Stephen Tu said:


> It would have to be taught the concept of subchannels ... Yes, this could be done in theory. The problem is that only a miniscule percentage of users have any desire for this, and I think as time goes on this number shrinks, not grows, so Tivo wouldn't have any reason to work on this. People who have HDTV want to record in HD, not downconverted to SD. The people with HD have some money & will shell out for the current options to record in HD, like cable DVRs, PC tuner cards, the HR10-250 Tivo, the discontinued LG/Sony DVRs.


In 2009, Uncle Sam will be giving everyone who doesn't have cable or satellite a box that will let them view digital OTA channels on their old TV (obviously, in SD). So, while there's no real point, currently, in recording from digital OTA if you don't want HD, there may be a point when analog OTA goes away.

Though, I can't imagine that the people who a) can't or won't pay for satellite or cable TV, but b) can and will pay for a DVR is very high.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

aindik said:


> In 2009, Uncle Sam will be giving everyone who doesn't have cable or satellite a box that will let them view digital OTA channels on their old TV (obviously, in SD). So, while there's no real point, currently, in recording from digital OTA if you don't want HD, there may be a point when analog OTA goes away.


*Not exactly.* Our beloved Uncle doesn't work quite that way!


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

Stephen Tu said:


> What reason would we have to lie to you about this? All I can say is go over to the HD Tivo portion of this site, and the HDTV programming / reception sections of the parent avsforum.com site, do searches on "upconvert", "upconversion" & you will see everyone say the same thing.


Hey; I just hollered "Uncle"!



> ATSC used for OTA DTV transmission in North America uses 8VSB modulation, while the DVB used on cable uses QAM. Basically different methods of manipulating the base carrier frequency signal to carry bits of information.


That I knew. I was referring to practical differences regarding recording from each type of signal.



> (TiVo) would have to be taught the concept of subchannels ... Yes, this could be done in theory. The problem is that only a miniscule percentage of users have any desire for this, and I think as time goes on this number shrinks, not grows, so Tivo wouldn't have any reason to work on this. People who have HDTV want to record in HD, not downconverted to SD. The people with HD have some money & will shell out for the current options to record in HD, like cable DVRs, PC tuner cards, the HR10-250 Tivo, the discontinued LG/Sony DVRs.


The problem with ATSC OTA TV is that it will require expensive digital recorders just for recording in standard-def. Rather than buying Series 3, many OTA customers will opt for whatever becomes available that is cheaper. TV Guide OS already provides manual channel mapping. IMHO, present limitations inherent in recording ATSC in standard def will affect future products. I don't have a definitive answer, but international venture capitalism is virtually inexorable.



> And now you are back with the general consensus, this thread can die or return to original topic ...


Yep.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo Troll said:


> That I knew. I was referring to practical differences regarding recording from each type of signal.


None really. Both use MPEG2 transport streams once demodulated, so a DVR that can do one can easily do the other as long as the tuner supports both types of modulation. (which most do these days)

Dan


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> None really. Both use MPEG2 transport streams once demodulated, so a DVR that can do one can easily do the other as long as the tuner supports both types of modulation. (which most do these days)
> 
> Dan


But the practical reality is that most ATSC stations transmit at a bitrate requiring over 8 GB of of disc space per hour, and most QAM digital channels (i.e. the ones that are in SD 24/7, commonly known as "digital cable") transmit at a much lower bitrate permitting storage space of less than 2 GB per hour.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

aindik said:


> But the practical reality is that most ATSC stations transmit at a bitrate requiring over 8 GB of of disc space per hour, and most QAM digital channels (i.e. the ones that are in SD 24/7, commonly known as "digital cable") transmit at a much lower bitrate permitting storage space of less than 2 GB per hour.


Who cares about the amount of space required? Space requirements aren't really a practical difference expecially since the 8VSB and QAM modulations of ATSC both can carry bitrates of 19MBit/s. So, as Dan said, once you demodulate the signal they are essentially the same in regards to recording.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

terryfoster said:


> Who cares about the amount of space required? Space requirements aren't really a practical difference expecially since the 8VSB and QAM modulations of ATSC both can carry bitrates of 19MBit/s. So, as Dan said, once you demodulate the signal they are essentially the same in regards to recording.


Someone who wants to sell an SD DVR that a) records local digital channels and b) is cheap would care about space required.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Note that QAM 256 can carry up to around 38Mbps which is why cable companies can (and do) carry more than 1 HD channel per QAM 256 carrier. With a little bitrate shaping for example it's pretty easy to carry 2 1080i + 1 480i channel in 1 256 QAM without sacrificing resolution or much of the bitrate of the sources. Also not all HD channels are 1080i consuming around 8+ GB/hour. 720p channels consume more on the order of around 5-6GB/hour since their overall bitrate is quite a bit lower than 1080i broadcasts.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

aindik said:


> Someone who wants to sell an SD DVR that a) records local digital channels and b) is cheap would care about space required.


Space requirements are not a practical difference between recording either 8VSB or QAM modulations since both carry an ATSC stream. So, the only difference is the modulation of the signal, after that they are the same.

You're getting into the programing that is contained on that ATSC stream which is an entirely different story.


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

> The problem with ATSC OTA TV is that it will require expensive digital recorders just for recording in standard-def. Rather than buying Series 3, many OTA customers will opt for whatever becomes available that is cheaper


Aren't that many OTA customers. Only ~15% of TVs in use are OTA only. Much smaller than this for current Tivo customers. Most people using solely OTA not only aren't going to buy series 3 now, they didn't buy series 1/2 either.

Just have to wait a couple years for a cheaper solution (maybe only 1!) ... my first Tivo cost ~$500 for 15GB single tuner! Price for series 3 level will drop eventually. The July 2007 FCC mandate for digital tuners in VCRs & the like will also drive down prices and should spur new product development.


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

Stephen Tu said:


> Aren't that many OTA customers. Only ~15% of TVs in use are OTA only..


And about 30% of all stats are made up 

I seem to remember reading somewhere (I'll try to look it up when I'm back at work) that the break down is Comcast, OTA, TWC, and then others.


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

> And about 30% of all stats are made up


But not that one ... I got that estimate from here


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

aindik said:


> But the practical reality is that most ATSC stations transmit at a bitrate requiring over 8 GB of of disc space per hour, and most QAM digital channels (i.e. the ones that are in SD 24/7, commonly known as "digital cable") transmit at a much lower bitrate permitting storage space of less than 2 GB per hour.


8GB an hour is about the max ATSC can do, my CBS transmits one stream around 17Mb/s and an hour recording comes in just under 8GB. None of the other digitals in my area transmit that high, Fox is the lowest, usually around 4 GB.


----------



## TiVo Troll (Mar 23, 2006)

terryfoster said:


> I seem to remember reading somewhere (I'll try to look it up when I'm back at work) that the break down is Comcast, OTA, TWC, and then others.


*Cable TV statistics: 1*

*Cable TV statistics: 2*.

*Long NAB advocacy document with OTA statistics.* (Scroll down)

*Overview of largest TV program providers from Multichannel News* (Scroll down)


----------



## terryfoster (Jul 21, 2003)

Thanks TiVo Troll,

So, by those numbers (yes I am combining 2006 numbers with 2005 numbers, but I don't expect the numbers to be that much different)...

110,600,000 Households with TVs
65,500,000 Households with cable
26,700,000 Households with satellite
Leaving 18,400,000 households with OTA only

The breakdown of subscribers is as follows:
Comcast - 21.5 Mil
OTA - 18.4 Mil
D* - 15 Mil
E* - 11.7 Mil
TWC - 10.9 Mil

So the 15% is just about right. Cable wins out with 59.2%, then Satellite with ~24% and then OTA with 16%. Sure 18.4 Million people is small in the grand scheme of things, but 18.4 Million is still quite a few people.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

aindik said:


> My understanding is that if a station broadcasts in HD any portion of the time, all of that station's programming will take up 9 GB an hour if stored, whether the actual program is in HD or not. Is that wrong?


I see this has been covered some more- but to add more detail - there is no reason a station cant change resolutions during the day- go HD with HD content and SD the other times, but aside from the PBS channels mentioned above basically no one deos it. There's a whole thread about it at AVS- it's very interesting- a discussion between a bunch of broadcasting engineers discussing it.

THe nut shell- early tuners balked if the resolution was changed, so if you ran sd for the local dinner news and hten flipped to HD for primetime people that watched your channel the whole time might have their tv's lock up when the HD content came on. THis freaked the broadcasters and they avoid changing resolutions like the plague.

Seems the PBS stations as a whole have figured out a pretty simple work around- they have say 6 subchannels. THe main x-1 channel is HD, x-2 through x-6 are SD, when the HD channel is up the other 5 sd channels are shut down and vice versa. They channels are kept in the channel guide and PSIP data stream but the programming streams are turned on or off. THis keeps tuners from balking.

I guess the commercial stations dont like that approach because they never want anyone to tune to their main channel x-1 and see a black screen

So yes mr troll that is how it works in the real world.

It's a crying shame but it's what they do. HD stations transmit HD all the time even if they are just upcomverting black and white SD.

try a search at AVS you can see the thread yourself...


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

If a station only has one stream there wouldn't be much benefit for the station to switch the stream back to 480i. My cbs was having trouble with their hd encoder so they switched the stream to 480i but they were running that 480i stream over 15Mb/s.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I think it's STUPID to have just one stream. There's no reason to not have subchannels during the day when there is only SD programming. There are large parts of the day when there are only SD feeds, those are perfect times to put up another couple SD sub channels. Then when you go HD- act like PBS and shut down the SD feeds to get the bandwidth to show a good HD picture.

They could add their beloved shopping channels during those times, or let a religious channel hop in. Add a far off foreign language channel (you could probbaly time it right so you could carry the nighttime news from some far off lands in real time). Toss up a cable in the classroom channel (although I guess you'd call it 'broadcasters in the classroom'). Etc, etc. It's a total waste of the systems flxibility to transmit one HD channel 24/7 or alternately to transmit tons of subchannels all the time- they should vary it during the day like PBS.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

If those extra channels would make money they would be on 24/7, HD be damned. PBS has different goals than commercial stations. Eventually they will be HD most of the day anyway. Syndicated shows are starting to go HD, ABCs good morning america is now hd, one of the soaps is HD, some stations have local hd news. Some stations would have to toggle the sub channels on and off multiple times per day if they went with your approach.

Besides, I really enjoy CSI at 17Mb/s, PQ is amazing.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

and why cant they toggle the subb channels on or off every half hour if need be? Once the system is in place- what's it matter? 

THe move to HD is moving pretty fast now- Morning news seems to be destined for HD. Regis and Oprah probably soon toon. Soaps I think are on that route? The after dinner syndicated stuff like Jeopardy and wheel of fortune are going HD this fall. Basically all of primetime is HD too. 

Still there are plenty of slot3s during the day when they could turn on some SD sub channels during the day. Particularly on the weekends. Probably a good 5 years till there are enough reruns in HD so most of those are no longer in SD.

CSI probably would look amazing 480p at half that bitrate.

I guess you hit the nail on the head though- it's all about money so why bother trying to do anything good.... But they could knock off a bunch of their public service stuff that way... 
But cash is king for sure.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jan 18, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> CSI probably would look amazing 480p at half that bitrate.


Agh! You may be a target customer of Dish or Directv "HD"


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I would love it if the network affiliates would use subchannels to re-air the prime time shows for the next day.

(Similar to an idea I've mentioned before -- I'd pay premium channel prices for a cable channel that did the same thing -- repeat the networks' shows for the next day... even with commercials.. This would remove the need/want for multiple tuners.)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

kb7oeb said:


> Agh! You may be a target customer of Dish or Directv "HD"


I hear ya- going to cable when the series 3 comes out but..

i believe we were talkign about SD CSI (at least i was figuring that- for HD that would stink but for SD 9.5mbs 480p probably looks great)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mattack said:


> I would love it if the network affiliates would use subchannels to re-air the prime time shows for the next day.
> 
> (Similar to an idea I've mentioned before -- I'd pay premium channel prices for a cable channel that did the same thing -- repeat the networks' shows for the next day... even with commercials.. This would remove the need/want for multiple tuners.)


that's a great idea. They could do it in the middle of the night or the middle of the next day when everything is SD anyhow.


----------

