# TiVo, a leader in failure?



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

"But the most thoughtful analysis so far may be the one posted Thursday morning at Roughly Drafted Magazine by Daniel Eran Dilger, who looks at what Apple should - and perhaps more important, shouldn't - do with Apple TV.

"Analysts have voiced a lot of terrible ideas that would actually dismantle or saddlebag Apple TV," he writes, "converting it from a fun hobby into a burdensome money pit failure."

Here, in thumbnail form, are his take on what he calls some of the worst ideas:

Add a DVR, perhaps by buying up TiVo. "The only thing worse than jumping into a dead market long after the lights have been turned out is buying out the leading failure in the market in order to do so."

Quote from 
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/02/05/can-apple-save-hollywood/

Hmmm, any thoughts on that? I thought TiVo was going on the path to success.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

If apple advertised TiVos the way they advertise iTouch/Phone... think of the possibilities.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

berkshires said:


> If apple advertised TiVos the way they advertise iTouch/Phone... think of the possibilities.


1. Commercial showing TiVo in an all white background, revolving on a podium with zoom ins and an added shiny paint

OR

2. 2 guys one looking really nerdy the other like a guy in college making funny quirky remarks about how the TiVo can whoop a cable DVR's butt.

Kidding around.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> "Analysts have voiced a lot of terrible ideas


enough said there on the experts you quote.

anyhow - umm, Apple has figured out how to *sell* TV shows. Why they would even think about working on or buying something to record them for free instead is just not understandable by me.

DVR market has always been a tough sale as it does not have an immediate uptake in oh, I really *need* that, until _after_ you have it. The fact that TiVo has weathered many storms, kept investors interested in the company, switched over to a more business oriented direction at a key moment, always been on the winning side in court, has positive cash flow and a pile of money versus a pile of debt - makes TiVo a fighter, not a failure.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> 1. Commercial showing TiVo in an all white background, revolving on a podium with zoom ins and an added shiny paint
> 
> OR
> 
> ...


people overlayed in wild colors dancing around their TiVo in a Rhapsody/TiVo joint commercial?

ETA You know another thing just hit me - kids buy/get iPods because it is portable and fine by tjhe parents. iPhones are similarly a singular device for the big kids A DVR though is stationary and changes how the whole family watches TV. Even if the nextGenners all want a DVR, the parents who are not concerned about it are not as likely to go along. So either the family has some disposable income and the kid(S) get(s) a TV and DVR for his viewing area or else resorts to a PC if that is available instead. I know if I was in college now I would make the PC do the DVR work for my must see shows as it less to haul around whne moving between semesters and one less thing to pay for. I might ask for a TiVo for a present but at 500$ to have lifetime my parent's back in the day would have had a good laugh.

With DVR the problem may well be you gotta sell cool, hip tech to fogeys.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> enough said there on the experts you quote.
> 
> anyhow - umm, Apple has figured out how to *sell* TV shows. Why they would even think about working on or buying something to record them for free instead is just not understandable by me.
> 
> DVR market has always been a tough sale as it does not have an immediate uptake in oh, I really *need* that, until _after_ you have it. The fact that TiVo has weathered many storms, kept investors interested in the company, switched over to a more business oriented direction at a key moment, always been on the winning side in court, has positive cash flow and a pile of money versus a pile of debt - makes TiVo a fighter, not a failure.


Wasnt that cashflow almost all from the lawsuit they won?

EDIT: what would their bank account look like minus the lawsuit money?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Wasnt that cashflow almost all from the lawsuit they won?
> 
> EDIT: what would their bank account look like minus the lawsuit money?


what would their bank account look like if DISH had made a deal instead of willfully infringing?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DAccardi said:


> Wasnt that cashflow almost all from the lawsuit they won?
> 
> EDIT: what would their bank account look like minus the lawsuit money?


Not has good as it would have look if dish had paid TiVo for their property instead of stealing it and forcing TiVo to win partial payment through a court settlement.

Thanks,


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ZeoTivo - looks like great minds think alike

Thanks,


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> people overlayed in wild colors dancing around their TiVo in a Rhapsody/TiVo joint commercial?
> 
> ETA You know another thing just hit me - kids buy/get iPods because it is portable and fine by tjhe parents. iPhones are similarly a singular device for the big kids A DVR though is stationary and changes how the whole family watches TV. Even if the nextGenners all want a DVR, the parents who are not concerned about it are not as likely to go along. So either the family has some disposable income and the kid(S) get(s) a TV and DVR for his viewing area or else resorts to a PC if that is available instead. I know if I was in college now I would make the PC do the DVR work for my must see shows as it less to haul around whne moving between semesters and one less thing to pay for. I might ask for a TiVo for a present but at 500$ to have lifetime my parent's back in the day would have had a good laugh.
> 
> With DVR the problem may well be you gotta sell cool, hip tech to fogeys.


That got me thinking, and actually I think they are doing it or something like it, they should license the software to be used on computers. And that is probably that NeroLiquid software. That is a goodway to stay with that younger generation even when they move to laptops. Right?


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

Also, what would their account look like without winning a lawsuit, seriously, what did the TiVo itself actually earn. I'm not interested in what if and imagine that.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> That got me thinking, and actually I think they are doing it or something like it, they should license the software to be used on computers. And that is probably that NeroLiquid software. That is a goodway to stay with that younger generation even when they move to laptops. Right?


Nero liquid PC has a very nice TiVo implementation. Cable Card support is not the same in a PC and I do not think it has QAM mapping either.
once a PC enters the equation then why buy TiVo and pay monthly versus using open source or the media center that comes on most any PC bought nowadays. Competing against Cable company DVRs is tough. Competing against free is just pointless.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> once a PC enters the equation then why buy TiVo and pay monthly versus using open source or the media center that comes on most any PC bought nowadays. Competing against Cable company DVRs is tough. Competing against free is just pointless.


Then TiVo screwed up in making NeroLiquidTV? It will be a bust?

http://www.nero.com/enu/liquidtv-introduction.html

EDIT: Nevrmind you answered it, yes, it was dumb of TiVo to do this, there competition is free.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DAccardi said:


> Then TiVo screwed up in making NeroLiquidTV? It will be a bust?


I think that was the general feeling in this forum. There were some fairly long threads about it's merits sometime back seems like I remember much more negative than positive comments.

Thanks,


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Also, what would their account look like without winning a lawsuit, seriously, what did the TiVo itself actually earn. *I'm not interested in what if and imagine that*.


So you're asking what if tivo didn't win the lawsuit?


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

Test said:


> So you're asking what if tivo didn't win the lawsuit?


Fox News forum, if it offends our guy, we dont report it. Cant believe everyone is dodging it.:down: Seriously, I would like to know what the TiVo hardware earned for the year and not what the lawsuit sent into the bank account. No what ifs now.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DAccardi said:


> Then TiVo screwed up in making NeroLiquidTV? It will be a bust?
> 
> http://www.nero.com/enu/liquidtv-introduction.html
> 
> EDIT: Nevrmind you answered it, yes, it was dumb of TiVo to do this, there competition is free.


Well actually I am guessing Nero/Tivo consider the competition to be SnapStream/Beyond TV and SageTV neither of which is free or offers all the _potential_ benefits that a Nero/Tivo product does. That said liquidtv does not appear to be currently living up to its potential and the fact that it doesn't work with Hauppauge's USB HD PVR is a big big minus in my mind.

Thanks,


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> what would (TiVo's) bank account look like if DISH had made a deal instead of willfully infringing?


What's different about Echostar's DVR technology than all the others? Why is Echostar the only DVR maker who's been sued by TiVo?

TiVo makes excellent products which are 'more than a DVR'. Echostar makes excellent products which are nothing (little?) more than a DVR.

Echostar is a far larger company than TiVo with the resources to pay the judgement. Echostar's DVRs benefit all DVR users because they compete with TiVo and offer 'sixpack' DVR features which TiVo doesn't.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

DAccardi said:


> Also, what would their account look like without winning a lawsuit, seriously, what did the TiVo itself actually earn. I'm not interested in what if and imagine that.


Take a look at their earnings report. They clearly separate continuing operations from special events such as litigation proceeds. They have not yet reported Q4, but looking at Q3, despite collecting on their first installment, they actually have NEGATIVE net earnings from litigation. They report collecting $105m and had an earnings of $100m so you can do the math.

edit - dyslexic again 105m not 150m


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

DAccardi said:


> Also, what would their account look like without winning a lawsuit, seriously, what did the TiVo itself actually earn. I'm not interested in what if and imagine that.


http://investor.tivo.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=350732

_TiVo received compensation in the amount of approximately $105 million in initial litigation damages from EchoStar

Net Income for the third quarter was $100.6 million compared to a loss of ($8.3) million in the year-ago quarter. Excluding the EchoStar damages award net loss would have been ($0.9) million._


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

DAccardi said:


> Also, what would their account look like without winning a lawsuit, seriously, what did the TiVo itself actually earn. I'm not interested in what if and imagine that.


The payment they received just about doubled their cash on hand. They are still owed an absolute minimum of $16 million more. Depending on the results of the next hearing that number *could* grow substantially.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DAccardi said:


> ... Seriously, I would like to know what the TiVo hardware earned for the year and not what the lawsuit sent into the bank account. ...


It is likely that TiVo didn't (and wont) earn much of anything from hardware. My guess is that TiVo branded hardware is nothing more than a necessary evil for TiVo. They are actually trying to sell/license their software/service/intellectual property. If TiVo could stop making/selling hardware and just sell/license their software/service/intellectual property I am sure they would in a heart beat.

That's why the final outcome of all the lawsuits with Dish still matter.

Thanks,


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Then TiVo screwed up in making NeroLiquidTV? It will be a bust?


Did TiVo develop LiquidTV? I thought it was developed by Nero. I still think the main point of LiquidTV will be seen in other markets (other than the US).

As far as Apple buying TiVo - the iPod was not the first MP3 player, and the iPhone not the first smart phone. In both cases Steve has shown the ability to wrangle terms with industry groups to secure advantages for their device.

If anyone thinks an Apple-owned TiVo (Or merely an AppleTvDvR) couldn't at the very least do something to fix the Cablecard fiasco I think you're mistaken.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Is this Liquid thing shipping yet?


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

berkshires said:


> Is this Liquid thing shipping yet?


http://www.nero.com/enu/store-liquidtv.html


----------



## BigInJapan (Aug 10, 2008)

> If anyone thinks an Apple-owned TiVo (Or merely an AppleTvDvR) couldn't at the very least do something to fix the Cablecard fiasco I think you're mistaken.


Might have the clout to fix that, but I'd sooner dig my VCR out of the attic than have to integrate my TiVo with iTunes.


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

I really don't want an iTivo... Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Also, what would their account look like without winning a lawsuit, seriously, what did the TiVo itself actually earn. I'm not interested in what if and imagine that.


it is not what if or imagine that.
The lawsuit was based around harm being done to TiVo due to DISH being able to put a good DVR out far more quickly than if they had not figured out and copied how TiVo did it. The number of people using DISH would be less and the number using TiVo would be more based on a DVR differentiation that would have existed if DISH did not have as good a DVR from the start. That is a matter of law and how the damages were figured out that went into the money being paid to TiVo.

PS - I have said repeatedly in this forum that DISH does have a good DVR and indeed if you are looking DBS and want HD then use the DISH one now or else wait and see how the new DirectTV TiVo will be. I told a friend last week who wanted to go HD now but not with cable that DISH was the correct choice at this current time.

Still at the end of the day - TiVo has a pile of cash and not a pile of debt. That keeps them in fighting mode and not in failure mode. How that pile of cash accumulated seems only secondary at best.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> it is not what if or imagine that.
> The lawsuit was based around harm being done to TiVo due to DISH being able to put a good DVR out far more quickly than if they had not figured out and copied how TiVo did it. The number of people using DISH would be less and the number using TiVo would be more based on a DVR differentiation that would have existed if DISH did not have as good a DVR from the start. That is a matter of law and how the damages were figured out that went into the money being paid to TiVo.
> 
> PS - I have said repeatedly in this forum that DISH does have a good DVR and indeed if you are looking DBS and want HD then use the DISH one now or else wait and see how the new DirectTV TiVo will be. I told a friend last week who wanted to go HD now but not with cable that DISH was the correct choice at this current time.
> ...


I was just curious how much they earned as opposed to given, thats all. And the I dont want what ifs was in reference to you and atmuscerellas saying "if" that or this happened.



ZeoTiVo said:


> what would their bank account look like if DISH had made a deal instead of willfully infringing?





atmuscarella said:


> Not has good as it would have look if dish had paid TiVo for their property instead of stealing it and forcing TiVo to win partial payment through a court settlement.
> 
> Thanks,


Thats all , I just wanted cold hard numbers. Alllllllll good.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> I was just curious how much they earned as opposed to given, thats all. And the I dont want what ifs was in reference to you and atmuscerellas saying "if" that or this happened.
> 
> Thats all , I just wanted cold hard numbers. Alllllllll good.


my point is the numbers could look similar since the lawsuit was about subs not obtained by TiVo - the only difference is that the money came in a lump sum versus paid out over time. 
A real business analysis has to take that into account. if you want to ignore it, that is your prerogative but the resulting analysis is flawed, but that is alllll good with me as well.


----------



## elwaylite (Apr 23, 2006)

Look at everyone thats come and gone, and tivo is still here.

I love people on the forum that like to report Tivo is destined to die any day, while they continue to ink more agreements with third parties like Netflix.

Just get over it and enjoy the damn box.

BTW, if you want to know how much they made without a lawsuit, peruse their financials.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> my point is the numbers could look similar since the lawsuit was about subs not obtained by TiVo - the only difference is that the money came in a lump sum versus paid out over time.
> A real business analysis has to take that into account. if you want to ignore it, that is your prerogative but the resulting analysis is flawed, but that is alllll good with me as well.


Ok, sorry for ruffling feathers, I again was just curious what they made aside from a lawsuit. I dont know why that question is wrong. Sorry. I didnt ask anything about business analysis or anything else.



elwaylite said:


> Look at everyone thats come and gone, and tivo is still here.
> 
> I love people on the forum that like to report Tivo is destined to die any day, while they continue to ink more agreements with third parties like Netflix.
> 
> ...


 And I never said tivo will fail unless somehow my name changed and I'm the guy in the article... I thought I said I thought they were succeeding. Maybe I should have been more vocal in my support for tivo. Maybe then people will just see the question as it was and still is, a question, in no way, shape or form a "bash" or "flame" or anything even close.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Maybe then people will just see the question as it was and still is, a question, in no way, shape or form a "bash" or "flame" or anything even close.


never did see it as a bash and certainly TiVo is not raking in money hand over fist. They do exist in a tough market.

I do work with financial business people all day long though and interpret what they work with and need into process and system design requirements. So it is second nature for me to look for the holes in ideas such as yours and then hammer them out.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

How much did TiVo make with the lawsuit?


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...The lawsuit was based around harm being done to TiVo due to DISH being able to put a good DVR out far more quickly than if they had not figured out and copied how TiVo did it. The number of people using DISH would be less and the number using TiVo would be more based on a DVR differentiation that would have existed if DISH did not have as good a DVR from the start. That is a matter of law and how the damages were figured out that went into the money being paid to TiVo.


Dishnetwork's first HDD product was Dishplayer, a joint project of E* and MS which was seriously handicapped by having two motherboards, one developed by each partner, which didn't communicate well with each other. Dishplayer was originally indroduced as a pause-and-play satellite STB only. After a few months E* offered DVR functionality for an extra monthly fee. Digitally hip DVR users routinely called the Dishplayer a POS. UltimateTV, 'er, was ultimately developed by MS as a solo project for DirecTV based in large part on its half of the DP. UTV didn't suffer from DP's all too frequent hiccups.

All this took place right around the time that TiVo and ReplayTV introduced their first DVRs, which unlike Dish's utilized A/D converters instead of receiving an all digital satellite signal. I find it hard to relate your account of TiVo's lawsuit as it relates to those times. My take on your synopsis is that it's incomplete and assumes facts not in evidence.



> PS - I have said repeatedly in this forum that DISH does have a good DVR and indeed if you are looking DBS and want HD then use the DISH one now or else wait and see how the new DirectTV TiVo will be. I told a friend last week who wanted to go HD now but not with cable that DISH was the correct choice at this current time.


Echostar's basic DVR philosophy (not necessarily its engineering) is very different than TiVo's, and the results of competition between Dish and DirecTV satellite services based on DVR functionality and style may be informative.

It's unfortunate for cable viewers (but probably fortunate for TiVo) that E*'s business interests don't allow it to offer a hi-def cable compatible DVR ala TiVo with flat rate Lifetime Service. E*, IMHO, would pulverize Digeo's Moxi if they went head to head!


----------



## riffjim4069 (Oct 8, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> TiVo makes excellent products which are 'more than a DVR'. Echostar makes excellent products which are nothing (little?) more than a DVR.


Perhaps you should actually try using the Award Winning/Best in Show 622, 722 and future 922 before making such a biased statement. Don't get me wrong, I really like my Tivo HD...but if EchoStar makes a digital cable ready version of the 922 that I can use with FiOS TV, the Tivo HD is getting tossed in the bedroom. The EchoStar VIP series HD DVRs have clearly better hardware and arguably better software. I should know, I still have three 622 HD DVR still sitting in a spare bedroom closet. It's too bad EchoStar is such an unethical company (Tivo, VOOM, etc.) with a such a terrible HD-Lite product.

Anyway, just a few facts about EchoStar's "nothing more than a DVR" units.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-vid...2-200/4505-6474_7-31778299.html?tag=mncol;lst
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-vid...22-hd/4505-6474_7-32638974.html?tag=mncol;lst
http://www.echostar.com/downloads/pdf/news/press_releases/BestofCESJan09.pdf


----------



## riffjim4069 (Oct 8, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> It's unfortunate for cable viewers (but probably fortunate for TiVo) that E*'s business interests don't allow it to offer a hi-def cable compatible DVR ala TiVo with flat rate Lifetime Service. E*, IMHO, would pulverize Digeo's Moxi if they went head to head!


Yes, but EchoStar signed a Tru2Way licensing agreement with CableLabs back in August and stated, "EchoStar enters the cable industry with a strong consumer electronics background in innovative and intuitive products, including state-of-the-art, award-winning set-top boxes and value-added features such as Sling Medias innovative and award-winning placeshifting technology." Additionally, at CES2009 it was reported, "EchoStar will also leverage the features of the 922 by announcing this spring a tru2way SlingLoaded STB for trials for the cable industry." Source: CNN Money. Things should really "heat up" should EchoStar can get past the Cable Cartel (Motorola, SA, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.).


----------



## SteveHC1 (Dec 12, 2008)

The guy is very clearly operating from both false assumptions and lack of any real - or at least obvious information.

The author gives NO indication, neither in his presentation nor in his conclusions, of any real awareness of the history of Apple and how it has gotten to where it is today. I see a multitude of similarities between Apple and TiVo - in terms of history, corporate practices, product development and distribution. I am convinced that not only would the two be a perfect match for each other, but that Apple should seriously consider acquiring TiVo - but not until AFTER it acquired a thorough, working knowledge not only of the products' engineering and manufacture but also of those aspects of its unique product distribution channels - to which Apple has not had any really direct exposure to.

I do see TiVo as a persevering fighter, not as a failure. In the not-too-distant past there were plenty of shmucks like this guy who CONSTANTLY tried to portray Apple as a "loser." Time has proven the shmucks to be wrong, just as everyone who really knew a lot about Apple and its products knew they were.

Unfortunately, TiVo does not seem to have studied Apple's history, does not seem to have made the effort to learn from Apple's mistakes and successes. The enormous parallels and similarities that I see between the two companies appear to exist entirely by sheer coincidence, and this is NOT as it could - or even should - be. If TiVo really wants to succeed beyond most people's beliefs and expectations it should study Apple's path very carefully, and learn particularly from Apple's experiences and conclusions as they relate to relationships with a) consumers, b) third-party developers, and c) other hardware manufacturers. Only then do I believe TiVo will succeed in becoming a true mark of excellence among home-networked multimedia hubs that it seems to be striving for.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

DAccardi said:


> Ok, sorry for ruffling feathers, I again was just curious what they made aside from a lawsuit. I dont know why that question is wrong. Sorry. I didnt ask anything about business analysis or anything else.


Then why not just look it up? From their most recent 10Q filing:



> Excluding these EchoStar related items, TiVo would have posted a net loss of ($0.9) million. This compared to TiVo's guidance of a net loss of ($7) to ($9) million for the third quarter and a net loss of ($8.3) million in the third quarter of last year.


http://investor.tivo.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-08-251359


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

riffjim4069 said:


> Perhaps you should actually try using the Award Winning/Best in Show 622, 722 and future 922 before making such a biased statement. Don't get me wrong, I really like my Tivo HD...but if EchoStar makes a digital cable ready version of the 922 that I can use with FiOS TV, the Tivo HD is getting tossed in the bedroom. The EchoStar VIP series HD DVRs have clearly better hardware and arguably better software. I should know, I still have three 622 HD DVR still sitting in a spare bedroom closet. It's too bad EchoStar is such an unethical company (Tivo, VOOM, etc.) with a such a terrible HD-Lite product.
> 
> Anyway, just a few facts about EchoStar's "nothing more than a DVR" units.
> 
> ...


I had hoped that E*'s OTA DTVPal DVR would include the exchangable external HDD feature that E* offers for $40 with the VIP's. If E* offers a future OTA DVR with exchangable external HDD support and discrete dual outputs they'll sell another one. If it's QAM compatible with manual channel mapping, maybe three! 

I'm a Comcast sub. now but used to sub to Dish and still have a Dish 301 receiver and 501 DVR (which would work without a DVR Service Fee)!

When I state that E* DVRs are little more than DVRs I mostly refer to their lack of internet associated features. From the CNET links:
_*The bad:
annoying interstitial PPV page; defaults to "all episodes" for EPG-initiated recordings; uglier EPG and menu system than TiVo HD and DirecTV; no built-in networking functionality.*_

So PPV listings are crammed together too closely? (Pictures are still worth a thousand words.)

I've never considered TiVo's menus things of beauty and always considered DirecTV's EPG the most unattractive grid styled EPG. Dish's EPG was BIG; relatively easy to read even on a 20" CRT. I haven't seen the latest versions of DTV or E* GUIs.

Apparently 922 will pursue at least some internet linkability.

Thing is, I don't have much interest in TiVo's 'more than DVR' features while basic DVR features matter a lot. TiVo is (except for the pretty expensive and as yet unverified for analog, Moxi) the only game in town for a cable DVR with an analog input. And TiVo works good like a DVR should! I'm basically a meat and potatoes, DVR six-packer!

Way too often ancillary stuff is developed just because it's possible and hopefully will generate revenue. For instance it's much simpler and quicker just to take a DVD to the next room instead of MRVing.

I'm afraid that when S4 TiVo gets released it will no longer provide an analog input of any kind. If true it'll be time to say goodbye.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

fallingwater said:


> Digitally hip DVR users routinely called the Dishplayer a POS. UltimateTV, 'er, was ultimately developed by MS as a solo project for DirecTV based in large part on its half of the DP. UTV didn't suffer from DP's all too frequent hiccups.


 correct that POS was not derived from TiVo ideas and obviously showed DISH that it had a lot of work to do to figure out how to make a useable DVR


> All this took place right around the time that TiVo and ReplayTV introduced their first DVRs, which unlike Dish's utilized A/D converters instead of receiving an all digital satellite signal. I find it hard to relate your account of TiVo's lawsuit as it relates to those times. My take on your synopsis is that it's incomplete and assumes facts not in evidence.


 the facts are that TiVo did approach DISH about making a DVR for them before the TiVo standalone came out. DISH showed interest in doing a deal and got talks to the pint of TiVo presenting a prototype DVR to DISH to show how it would perform. Soon after that the prototype disappeared and DISH said they changed their mind.
In the long winded court case that has taken many years - the jury found that DISH *wilfully* infringed Tivo patents and that the early DISH DVR models after the Microsoft fiasco did indeed utilize the approach invented by TiVo. Those are the facts, and DISH was just told by a judge that they do not get to retry those facts and so there is no need to do so here either.



> Echostar's basic DVR philosophy (not necessarily its engineering) is very different than TiVo's, and the results of competition between Dish and DirecTV satellite services based on DVR functionality and style may be informative.
> 
> It's unfortunate for cable viewers (but probably fortunate for TiVo) that E*'s business interests don't allow it to offer a hi-def cable compatible DVR ala TiVo with flat rate Lifetime Service. E*, IMHO, would pulverize Digeo's Moxi if they went head to head!


and the rest of this is only half correct. That being that of course DISH looks at direct competition with DirectTV but also does indeed look at cable and standalone DVRs as competition to its now independent DVR division.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...DISH showed interest in doing a deal and got talks to the pint of TiVo presenting a prototype DVR to DISH to show how it would perform. Soon after that the prototype disappeared and DISH said they changed their mind.
> In the long winded court case that has taken many years - the jury found that DISH *wilfully* infringed Tivo patents and that the early DISH DVR models after the Microsoft fiasco did indeed utilize the approach invented by TiVo. Those are the facts, and DISH was just told by a judge that they do not get to retry those facts and so there is no need to do so here either.


You sound a bit defensive! But whatever...

The simple question, which I asked earlier, is what's different about E*'s DVR design than all others. Is the basis for TiVo's suit the fact that its prototype disappeared while in E*'s hands?



> DISH looks at direct competition with DirectTV but also does indeed look at cable and standalone DVRs as competition to its now independent DVR division.


Perhaps then E* will consider producing a QAM capable DVR with an analog tuner as well. That'd be worth considering as long as it was available at a flat-rate Lifetime Service price, provided manual QAM mapping, the capability of employing exchangeable external standard HDDs (such capability costs $40 now), and two discrete video outputs (as their VIP DVR's do now).

If they paid royalties to TiVo, TiVo couldn't complain, and could only improve as a result of a competitor offering features unavailable from TiVo.


----------



## Boulder345 (Nov 5, 2007)

Tivo has had a good run thus far. Open source is a threat to every software company, and it the end that is what Tivo really is - SaaS (Software as a Service). 

IMHO Tivo marketing has gotten weaker over the past couple of years. Without strong marketing and strong executive leadership no high tech company can survive.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

fallingwater said:


> The simple question, which I asked earlier, is what's different about E*'s DVR design than all others. Is the basis for TiVo's suit the fact that its prototype disappeared while in E*'s hands?


No, the basis is that Dish infringed on a set of specific software and hardware features that TiVo developed to make a responsive DVR practical and cost effective. The fact that they examined a prototype which was never returned simply strengthened TiVo's case that the infringement was willful.

We don't know who else might be infringing TiVo's patents. A small company trying to sue multiple big companies at the same time doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to pick the best case you have, win in court, and then use that leverage to extract agreements from other companies with the the need for an expensive court case.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Boulder345 said:


> Tivo has had a good run thus far. Open source is a threat to every software company, and it the end that is what Tivo really is - SaaS (Software as a Service).


While I would love to see OSS provide more and better competition for TiVo it will have to be a commercialized version if it's going be able to deal with the cable cards and video download services. Without access to digital content beyond OTA OSS isn't an option for most people.



> IMHO Tivo marketing has gotten weaker over the past couple of years. Without strong marketing and strong executive leadership no high tech company can survive.


TiVo has wisely scaled back marketing for their standalone boxes to bring expenses in line with their subscriber base. No amount of marketing is going to sell enough standalone boxes to make their costs when most consumers are satisfied with a cheap and easy (if inferior) solution from the programming provider.

Eventually improved cable support or online content may make it worthwhile for TiVo to increase marketing for their standalone boxes. But now is not the time to spend marketing on a premium product.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

nrc said:


> Then why not just look it up? From their most recent 10Q filing:
> 
> http://investor.tivo.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-08-251359


So if I see that correctly without the lawsuit there in the negative. Hmmmmmmm interesting. So they really aren't making money from their product yet. Sad. I hope they do.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

fallingwater said:


> Is the basis for TiVo's suit the fact that its prototype disappeared while in E*'s hands?


yes, the whole basis of the multi million dollar award was just that You gloss right over that the suit is over and TiVo won and was already awarded the money. If you just want to post silly stuff then have fun with that but obviously the actual facts get in your way.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> What's different about Echostar's DVR technology than all the others? Why is Echostar the only DVR maker who's been sued by TiVo?
> 
> TiVo makes excellent products which are 'more than a DVR'. Echostar makes excellent products which are nothing (little?) more than a DVR.
> 
> Echostar is a far larger company than TiVo with the resources to pay the judgement. Echostar's DVRs benefit all DVR users because they compete with TiVo and offer 'sixpack' DVR features which TiVo doesn't.





fallingwater said:


> http://investor.tivo.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=350732
> 
> _TiVo received compensation in the amount of approximately $105 million in initial litigation damages from EchoStar
> 
> Net Income for the third quarter was $100.6 million compared to a loss of ($8.3) million in the year-ago quarter. Excluding the EchoStar damages award net loss would have been ($0.9) million._





fallingwater said:


> Dishnetwork's first HDD product was Dishplayer, a joint project of E* and MS which was seriously handicapped by having two motherboards, one developed by each partner, which didn't communicate well with each other. Dishplayer was originally indroduced as a pause-and-play satellite STB only. After a few months E* offered DVR functionality for an extra monthly fee. Digitally hip DVR users routinely called the Dishplayer a POS. UltimateTV, 'er, was ultimately developed by MS as a solo project for DirecTV based in large part on its half of the DP. UTV didn't suffer from DP's all too frequent hiccups.
> 
> All this took place right around the time that TiVo and ReplayTV introduced their first DVRs, which unlike Dish's utilized A/D converters instead of receiving an all digital satellite signal. I find it hard to relate your account of TiVo's lawsuit as it relates to those times. My take on your synopsis is that it's incomplete and assumes facts not in evidence...





ZeoTiVo said:


> correct that POS was not derived from TiVo ideas and obviously showed DISH that it had a lot of work to do to figure out how to make a useable DVR
> the facts are that TiVo did approach DISH about making a DVR for them before the TiVo standalone came out. DISH showed interest in doing a deal and got talks to the pint of TiVo presenting a prototype DVR to DISH to show how it would perform. Soon after that the prototype disappeared and DISH said they changed their mind.
> In the long winded court case that has taken many years - the jury found that DISH *wilfully* infringed Tivo patents and that the early DISH DVR models after the Microsoft fiasco did indeed utilize the approach invented by TiVo. Those are the facts, and DISH was just told by a judge that they do not get to retry those facts and so there is no need to do so here either.
> 
> ...DISH looks at direct competition with DirectTV but also does indeed look at cable and standalone DVRs as competition to its now independent DVR division.





fallingwater said:


> ...The simple question, which I asked earlier, is what's different about E*'s DVR design than all others. Is the basis for TiVo's suit the fact that its prototype disappeared while in E*'s hands?...
> 
> ...If [E*] paid royalties to TiVo, TiVo couldn't complain, and could only improve as a result of a competitor offering features unavailable from TiVo.





ZeoTiVo said:


> yes, the whole basis of the multi million dollar award was just that You gloss right over that the suit is over and TiVo won and was already awarded the money. If you just want to post silly stuff then have fun with that but obviously the actual facts get in your way.


Where did I gloss over that TiVo won the lawsuit. My link to TiVo's Press Release is the first post in this thread which spells out in detail the initial damages which have been awarded.

I asked twice about what constituted the core of TiVo's lawsuit before you replied. Your reply finally put the lawsuit in perspective.

Information about the particulars of the missing prototype DVR incident is skimpy at best. Do you know of anything more substantive (such as trial transcripts) than this quote from Carlton Bale's blog?
http://www.carltonbale.com/2007/11/switching-to-tivo-hd-and-leaving-directv/#comment-3725

Carlton Bale Says:

December 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pm 
Tracy, let me be honest with you: I hate it when employees of a company leave self-serving comments without divulging their affiliation. I feel that it's unethical marketing.

Since you asked, here are the reasons I would not chose Dish Network.
1) Dish Network is not free and Over-the-Air broadcasts are.
2) Dish Network does not offer HD local stations in all markets that over-the-air local networks cover.
3) The Dish Network DVR offers none of the advanced features offered by a TiVo HD. Did you read the post above? Multi-room viewing, TiVo-to-Go, the support of third-party software that allows you play any video stored on your PC on your TiVo, enhanced conflict resolution, overlap protection, etc.
*4) I feel that Dish Network is infringing on several patents held by TiVo. A jury, an appeals court, and the U.S. patent office all agree with this view. I read that TiVo gave Echostar a prototype satellite receiver DVR in the late 1990s. It's my opinion that Echostar unlawfully copied that technology and used it in their own receiver without paying the TiVo, the owners of that intellectual property.*
5) DirecTV just brought online a new satellite and have more HD channels and options than Dish Network. If I were going to go back to satellite, I'd chose DirecTV again.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

fallingwater said:


> Where did I gloss over that TiVo won the lawsuit.
> Information about the particulars of the missing prototype DVR incident is skimpy at best. Do you know of anything more substantive (such as trial transcripts) than this quote from Carlton Bale's blog?
> http://www.carltonbale.com/2007/11/switching-to-tivo-hd-and-leaving-directv/#comment-3725


you seemed ready to retry the whole thing in this thread (and maybe I perceived that incorrectly) and I was being preemptive about it and pounding on the fact that the trial is done and DISH found to willfully infringe.

The missing prototype was mentioned in the trial as a piece of circumstantial evidence, specifically to the willful part. I am not going to go digging for it though, since it has no bearing on future happenings in the contempt part of the the whole court mess anyhow.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you seemed ready to retry the whole thing in this thread (and maybe I perceived that incorrectly)


OK.

Learning that E* pulled out of a proposed deal with TiVo and didn't return TiVo's prototype DVR is what enabled me to make sense of TiVo's lawsuit. Until you supplied that info it just didn't add up. Google wasn't helpful without a starting point.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

fallingwater said:


> OK.
> 
> Learning that E* pulled out of a proposed deal with TiVo and didn't return TiVo's prototype DVR is what enabled me to make sense of TiVo's lawsuit. Until you supplied that info it just didn't add up. Google wasn't helpful without a starting point.


Not exactly true. TiVo offered Dish unsolicited prototype to evaluate their DVR. After evaluation Dish decided to go with Microsoft, mostly because TiVo was a start-up with nothing more than clumsy SA prototype and Microsoft - well it was Microsoft. The prototype was lost like many other unsolicited prototypes that start-ups send to big companies. Emotional part of the story probably affected 12 technically illiterate people who decided on infringement, but by now after so many years and appeals the infringement has been established by courts and it makes no difference if Dish really infringed or just had lousy attorneys.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

samo said:


> and it makes no difference if Dish really infringed or just had lousy attorneys.


And of course, those two options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> Not exactly true. TiVo offered Dish unsolicited prototype to evaluate their DVR. After evaluation Dish decided to go with Microsoft, mostly because TiVo was a start-up with nothing more than clumsy SA prototype and Microsoft - well it was Microsoft. The prototype was lost like many other unsolicited prototypes that start-ups send to big companies. Emotional part of the story probably affected 12 technically illiterate people who decided on infringement, but by now after so many years and appeals the infringement has been established by courts and it makes no difference if Dish really infringed or just had lousy attorneys.


you can try and spin this for your bias toward DISH samo, but it is just not the innocent case as you propose above. I do believe there was evidence as well about how the specific DVR models from DISH did indeed have designs that INFRINGED on TiVo. Also there were multiple meetings between TiVo and DISH in which the deal was discussed - maybe TiVo was doing a hard sell but hardly unsolicited.

PS - the "lousy" attorneys have artfully stalled and delayed the verdict at every turn. they have a reputation as very skilled in down and dirty in many courtrooms and the reputation spills over to DISH management as well.

Your Poor, Poor DISH was treated so unfairly and just had poor legal counsel spin in the post had me LOL.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

samo said:


> ...TiVo offered Dish unsolicited prototype to evaluate their DVR. After evaluation Dish decided to go with Microsoft, mostly because TiVo was a start-up with nothing more than clumsy SA prototype and Microsoft - well it was Microsoft. The prototype was lost like many other unsolicited prototypes that start-ups send to big companies. Emotional part of the story probably affected 12 technically illiterate people who decided on infringement, but by now after so many years and appeals the infringement has been established by courts and it makes no difference if Dish really infringed or just had lousy attorneys.


So you're saying that TiVo pitched the prototype DVR to E* before E* and MS entered into the Dishplayer deal. Too bad E* lost track of it! Emotions often trump technicalities, this time to the tune of over $100,000,000!

And with perfect 20-20 hindsight, it's equally unfortunate that E* chose to partner with MS. Dishplayer was a disaster which MS ultimately resurrected as UltimateTV, the MS solo product DVR for DirecTV which was much more reliable.

---

OT, but E*'s DVR fee shenanigans convinced me never to pay for DVR service on a monthly basis. My Dishplayer remained pause-n'-play until Dish offered a flat fee promo that began, I think, for three years but morphed into Lifetime Service.

The best thing about Dishplayer/UTV was MS's EPG's, as good as Starsight's and better than ReplayTV's, which IMHO is still the best generally available.

E* is probably TiVo's main competitor these days. If E* pays royalties to TiVo but still competes with it, that's got to be a good thing for everybody!


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...the reputation spills over to DISH management as well.


Charlie Ergen's a gamblin' man!
http://www.luckyblackjack.com/charlie-ergen.html


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

DAccardi said:


> So if I see that correctly without the lawsuit there in the negative. Hmmmmmmm interesting. So they really aren't making money from their product yet. Sad. I hope they do.


I bet if you look back historically, they haven't made money even including royalties and judgements from lawsuits.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

berkshires said:


> I bet if you look back historically, they haven't made money even including royalties and judgements from lawsuits.


Well they did make money from this lawsuit. Funny how this forum works, noone wanted to admit that TiVo is not really making money yet from the TiVo itself but they will keep telling you what they got in a lawsuit.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Well they did make money from this lawsuit. Funny how this forum works, noone wanted to admit that TiVo is not really making money yet from the TiVo itself but they will keep telling you what they got in a lawsuit.


umm - it is common knowledge on the board that TiVo business model is to make the money from the subscription and from business deals. There is nothing there that "has to be admitted" 
Everyone also agrees that TiVo is in a tough market and number of DVR units sold is pretty well tied to the cost of the DVR hardware itself.
You are not breaking new ground with this analysis.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> You are not breaking new ground with this analysis.


I don't even understand what his/her point is.

Lets see...
A * No one wanted to admit that TiVo is not really making money yet from the TiVo itself
B * but they will keep telling you what they got in a lawsuit.

What does A have to do with B?


----------



## regdor (Jun 22, 2006)

Just popped in to read this from the UK. Good debate!
Difficult to understand as much of the tech stuff is different.
Many of us wish we had a newer Tivo as we are stuck with series ones from about 2000. However Tivo have a loyal following and we still debate why none of the other devices come close to matching our Tivos after all these years.
We have to contend with the all powerful Murdoch SkyTV(satellite)! They are pretty litigious and had a big fight with our (only) cable co.
From what you are saying it seems we will never see a new UK tivo.
Shame, some folks love them like a family pet.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ah30k said:


> I don't even understand what his/her point is.
> 
> Lets see...
> A * No one wanted to admit that TiVo is not really making money yet from the TiVo itself
> ...


There is no point, there was question, that took forever to be answered. I kept getting "they won a lawsuit". I wanted to know if they are making money from TiVo. they are not. I know now. Get it? Got it? good.

owned.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Hmmm, any thoughts on that? I thought TiVo was going on the path to success.





DAccardi said:


> There is no point, there was question, that took forever to be answered. I kept getting "they won a lawsuit". I wanted to know if they are making money from TiVo. they are not. I know now. Get it? Got it? good.
> 
> owned.


geez, sorry if we were responding to your actual question when you started the thread with some also shoddy analysis by some guy who can not even get why Apple would not want to produce a DVR when they already sell the same shows for profit.

But fine, you can own your own reality of what happened in the thread.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> geez, sorry if we were responding to your actual question when you started the thread with some also shoddy analysis by some guy who can not even get why Apple would not want to produce a DVR when they already sell the same shows for profit.
> 
> But fine, you can own your own reality of what happened in the thread.


 If you werent so biased and blatantly so you would have quoted the post that asks that question. Your deemed useless, dont ever respond to any of my threads. Thanks. Your input equates to 0.



DAccardi said:


> Wasnt that cashflow almost all from the lawsuit they won?
> 
> EDIT: what would their bank account look like minus the lawsuit money?


Answer: In the negative, no cashflow, BROKE.

Zeo's informative answer:


ZeoTiVo said:


> what would their bank account look like if DISH had made a deal instead of willfully infringing?


Like I said earlier, I dont care about what if and imagine that.

Enjoy your fantasy world. I like to live in one that pertains to facts.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Your deemed useless, dont ever respond to any of my threads.


the last desperate gambit of someone who has no other reply. Do you really think that is an appropriate way to be part of a forum community?

PS - the fact is that DISH was found to have willfully infringed and TiVo collected the damages from that act, the money might instead have flowed in over time from a deal with DISH just like Tivo did in fact do with DirectTV and is in fact starting back up again.
The fact is that TiVo does have that money in its bank account and can spend it however TiVo sees fit.
In fact TiVo has never seen the hardware business as a money maker and their execs have said as much in various investor calls.
Deals with companies like DISH that can include the hardware costs as part of their service is where the profit lies for TiVo. Thus the lawsuit is incredibly germane to any discussion of TiVo inc. being a failure or not.
in fact looking at TiVo as a stand alone DVR hardware only company is looking at the company from 5 or more years ago and missing very important parts of where the new CEO is taking TiVo.

That is not bias above - that is how things are for TiVo as a company.

declaring with certainty that TiVio will succeed or fail - that is where opinion finally shows up and one likely formed on bias.


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

No just telling you that long winded responses from you equate to 0.

P.S. - Seriously.

And also, your rambling, still, TiVo is not making money from their business. Thats all I wanted to know. Not what last weeks investor meeting talked about. Not the visionary dreams of a CEO. The only money they have made, was in a lawsuit. Thats all I wanted to know, not business ideas or any other of your ramblings. Bias is when someone spins awhole bunch of long winded responses to a very simple question, have they made money outside the lawsuit. And you keep replying with everything but. Your clearly biased towards TiVo and do not want to shine any sort of negative light on them. And what makes it even more clear is your responses have been in the tone as if I'm against tivo for posting this. So that is why I ask you to not have any input on my threads cuz they really don't help, or better, answer the question.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> No just telling you that long winded responses from you equate to 0.


you are the one looking a fool with resorting to personal attacks and flame bait.


> P.S. - Seriously.


----------



## SteveHC1 (Dec 12, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> geez, sorry if we were responding to your actual question when you started the thread with some also shoddy analysis by some guy who can not even get why Apple would not want to produce a DVR when they already sell the same shows for profit.
> 
> But fine, you can own your own reality of what happened in the thread.


- Hey Zeo- Aside from "what happened in the thread" (LOL!!!):

I might have - probably have, in fact - misunderstood your point about the TiVo/Apple thing, but I think you may be missing an important point in this regard (if there even IS an "important point," given it's all moot anyway LOL!!!) -

AppleTV has NOT been a successful product, at least by Apple standards. Steve J's original goal was to make his Mac line the "multimedia hub-of-the-home." AppleTV was to be as successful with video as iPod was to audio. Didn't happen. Apple, being the unbelievably cash-rich cow that it has always been, has had TREMENDOUS success with buying up smaller companies, acquiring their product(s), reworking them to fit into the Apple products, improving their functionality, etc. Mostly with software, but to some extent with hardware components as well. Apple probably WOULD have been better off if it had simply acquired TiVo instead of trying to develop its own product from scratch. TiVo software could have EASILY been integrated with the MacOS... heck, TiVo even licenses some stuff from Apple! Anyway, the TiVo hardware, with slightly modified code, could've become AppleTV which would've connected with iTunes... well, you get the point. Apple likes to control not just the content and software, but the hardware as well... helps insure quality, coherent user experience, etc. That's why Jobs and Pixar were such a good fit with Disney - same philosophy. IF Apple had acquired TiVo, they probably would've truly cornered the market and had a slam-dunk success.

But it's all moot. They didn't, and it ain't gonna happen. Maybe it's for the better, cause they would've ditched the subscription, jacked up the price of the hardware, charged for all iTunes video downloads, and blocked access to Netflix, Amazon, etc.!!! ;-)


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> you are the one looking a fool with resorting to personal attacks and flame bait.


Again, input that that has nothing to do with the question. Thanks.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Again, input that that has nothing to do with the question. Thanks.


so I should be overly concerned about your personal attacks and fire up a flame war? Sorry that is not worth my time.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

SteveHC1 said:


> - Hey Zeo- Aside from "what happened in the thread" (LOL!!!):
> 
> I might have - probably have, in fact - misunderstood your point about the TiVo/Apple thing, but I think you may be missing an important point in this regard (if there even IS an "important point," given it's all moot anyway LOL!!!) -


certainly Apple could have bought TiVo, and Apple investors might have seen that as a slick move to add a DVR to Apple TV quickly while eliminating some competition. I see your point.

I was coming from the angle of Apple has figured out how to sell TV episodes and movies and the iPod with its portability and features is, I think, a large part of why Apple is able to sell video. Add in Iphone and its offshoots and Apple just has a crazy good portable platform. Only thing is - you have to buy into Apple as the vendor.
I think that hurt the Apple TV platform, since people are looking more for an all in one living room box that can deliver from multiple sources - or else they don't care and just get a cable DVR and use DVDs.
Apple has the cash to let this Apple TV be a bust anyhow. They are just playing for the long term when recording things will just seem kind of strange.

Apple is not looking for hardware it can not sell at a profit and has a very different business model from TiVo - that is bottom line why I think Apple has shied away from a DVR type device


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so I should be overly concerned about your personal attacks and fire up a flame war? Sorry that is not worth my time.


Not at all, thats your perception, I would just like your input towards me to be constructive, not just a bunch of nonsense and spin on TiVo and answering my questions with imagines and what ifs, visionary dreams, investor concall meetings, etc..... Berkshire, thanks for the PM you sent, good to know we agree on some things.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> I would just like your input towards me to be constructive, not just a bunch of nonsense and spin on TiVo and answering my questions with imagines and what ifs, visionary dreams, investor concall meetings, etc..... Berkshire, thanks for the PM you sent, good to know we agree on some things.


I do not post to your specifications. I am not the one throwing around the nonsense of personal insults that are nothing more than flame bait. 
Add in veiled references that refer to some private PM and you are basically being some little Lord Fauntleroy that thinks this forum is solely for your use and if posters somehow impact on your delusions then they must be eliminated or at the least told to stop posting.

If you somehow think any of this helps the forum or gives you the repsect of others than I feel pity for you.

PS - maybe you could be constructive and point out how looking at only the hardware actually is a valid analysis of Tivo inc *and prove me wrong*


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

Zeo, Its ok. Just let it go. Its over and done with, I got my information relating to what Tivo has in the bank minus a lawsuit. Thanks for all your posts on everything but what they have minus the lawsuit. Happy Valentines Day!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Zeo, Its ok. Just let it go.


notice I am Ok with your horrible posting manners. Just really gutless of you to personally insult someone and then go - "its OK, just let it go."

My constructive input to you would be to act like a real person and apologize for your tactless posting and breaking of rules on personal insults.

OH and maybe you could also stop telling other people how and when to post.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

And you could stop being so much of a Tivo fanboy too, not that it's likely to happen.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> And you could stop being so much of a Tivo fanboy too, not that it's likely to happen.


yeah how biased to speak of *all the aspects that makes up TiVo inc.* in a thread on if TiVo is a leader in failure. Why did I not bow down to the great starter of the thread and post exactly as his instructions explicitly stated.

I always get a laugh out of how the people throwing "fanboy" around are the ones either backing up a totally biased agenda or promoting their own bias.

look back at the history - 
the OP was too lazy to get his own answer 
I was addressing the fact that his anlysis of just looking at sale of hardware was flawed.
Then I was the one flamed for not answering his specific question, when I never said I was posting to do that.
The OP never once tried in any way to prove what I said wrong, but stooped down to personal attacks.

perhaps you in your infinitely fair wisdom will show where something I posted here was indeed wrong or if not wrong how something that is correct is bias?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Had nothing to do with this thread and everything to do with the overall content of what you post on these forums. You should work there, because you apparently never see a decision made that you don't like. 

When the company can do no wrong and you defend or justify everything they do, you're a fanboy, pure and simple. It's blind loyalty.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Considering starting a Poll on whether this Thread was a failure.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> Had nothing to do with this thread and everything to do with the overall content of what you post on these forums. You should work there, because you apparently never see a decision made that you don't like.
> 
> When the company can do no wrong and you defend or justify everything they do, you're a fanboy, pure and simple. It's blind loyalty.


and my perception is you always post on negative aspects of the company, are you a hateboy?

the answer of course is neither of us are the labels being thrown around - I have the maturity to not try and label posters and instead deal with the content of the posts versus trying to tar and feather people.
Still waiting for anyone to reply to the actual content and facts of my posts here and show how I am wrong or how stating those facts is somehow trying to spin things for TiVo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

berkshires said:


> Considering starting a Poll on whether this Thread was a failure.


as soon as DAccardi started going negative and telling me how to post - it became a failure.


----------



## SteveHC1 (Dec 12, 2008)

C'mon now, folks -we're talking about a fri***n TV GADGET and the company that makes it, not the meaning of the universe or whether or not God exists!!! Heck, we're not even arguing Mac vs. PC here!!! It just isn't supposed to be that serious of an issue!

Whether or not TiVo succeeds in the long run - and I believe they will, because they are NOT stupid and realize the potential of the gadget WELL BEYOND cable tv land - there are other manufacturers GRADUALLY getting into the market. DVRs are here to stay, and if TiVo plays its cards right they'll continue to offer more than the competition does. Sure I begrudge their lack of clear QAM support :down: but they've got SO much else going on. And if the CABLE companies have half a brain, once the transition to digital is final and COMPLETE that may no longer be an issue anyway.

OK, time to get hyped up on some coffee and get p-o'd at somebody...


----------



## DAccardi (Oct 26, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> as soon as DAccardi started going negative and telling me how to post - it became a failure.


Oh *Zeo*, we feel for you. Its ok, TiVo will succeed, I know it pains you to say that they are not making money yet outside of the lawsuit, but hey, I look forward to more 'CEO visionary dream" recaps from you in the future. We truly feel for you kiddo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

SteveHC1 said:


> Whether or not TiVo succeeds in the long run - and I believe they will, because they are NOT stupid and realize the potential of the gadget WELL BEYOND cable tv land -


yep - long term success at TiVo would mean they move beyond the DVR part and become that holy grail aggregating all kinds of content. HuLu recently shutting off acces to Boxee does not forbode well though - content providers are all looking to play in their silos versus turning out for the one box in the living room concept.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DAccardi said:


> Oh *Zeo*, we feel for you.


that's the laugh of this whole thing, I am not distraught over this at all. I was merely calling the posts like I see them. You can keep trying to attach an emotional context to this but it would seem to be on your part and not mine. It is not my thread that failed.


----------



## mixedday1 (Feb 19, 2009)

fallingwater said:


> Dishnetwork's first HDD product was Dishplayer, a joint project of E* and MS which was seriously handicapped by having two motherboards, one developed by each partner, which didn't communicate well with each other. Dishplayer was originally indroduced as a pause-and-play satellite STB only. After a few months E* offered DVR functionality for an extra monthly fee. Digitally hip DVR users routinely called the Dishplayer a POS. UltimateTV, 'er, was ultimately developed by MS as a solo project for DirecTV based in large part on its half of the DP. UTV didn't suffer from DP's all too frequent hiccups.
> 
> All this took place right around the time that TiVo and ReplayTV introduced their first DVRs, which unlike Dish's utilized A/D converters instead of receiving an all digital satellite signal. I find it hard to relate your account of TiVo's lawsuit as it relates to those times. My take on your synopsis is that it's incomplete and assumes facts not in evidence.
> 
> ...


If I recall correctly wasn't The Dishplayer really considered a Microsoft product (including the DVR functionality, webTV)? I remembered on dbsforums.com reading that when customers had "bugs", Dish had to rely on Microsoft to fix these bugs. The technology and IP , entire DVR functionality was more Microsoft, and it ultimately led to a poor relation between Microsoft and Dish.

Charlie realized, hey we'll not use a 3rd party and sell our own DVRs.

They ceased selling DishPlayer then a year later or so, Dish rolled out the 501 which was a fee-free very basic DVR, where the Dishplayer had a rich interface, this one was like Dish's models. Somewhat as if they went back in time with the interface and all. I think it was the intro of this model and the DVR capabilities, that TiVo found infringing not the MS Dishplayer.


----------



## mixedday1 (Feb 19, 2009)

riffjim4069 said:


> Perhaps you should actually try using the Award Winning/Best in Show 622, 722 and future 922 before making such a biased statement. Don't get me wrong, I really like my Tivo HD...but if EchoStar makes a digital cable ready version of the 922 that I can use with FiOS TV, the Tivo HD is getting tossed in the bedroom. The EchoStar VIP series HD DVRs have clearly better hardware and arguably better software. I should know, I still have three 622 HD DVR still sitting in a spare bedroom closet. It's too bad EchoStar is such an unethical company (Tivo, VOOM, etc.) with a such a terrible HD-Lite product.
> 
> Anyway, just a few facts about EchoStar's "nothing more than a DVR" units.


Just wondering, what are the exceptional features of the 922? [I haven't used one]


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

mixedday1 said:


> I think it was the intro of this model and the DVR capabilities, that TiVo found infringing not the MS Dishplayer.


Indeed. The judgement even allowed for a certain number of DVRs to be excluded to adjust for the Microsoft stuff that first came out


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

berkshires said:


> If apple advertised TiVos the way they advertise iTouch/Phone... think of the possibilities.


I have to agree with that. And I wasn't aware that somehow TV and movies were no longer popular :laugh:


----------



## SteveHC1 (Dec 12, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yep - long term success at TiVo would mean they move beyond the DVR part and become that holy grail aggregating all kinds of content. HuLu recently shutting off acces to Boxee does not forbode well though - content providers are all looking to play in their silos versus turning out for the one box in the living room concept.


- That's too bad, because I'm sure that most consumers will NOT go for the idea of having multiple set-top boxes in their living rooms.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

mixedday1 said:


> Just wondering, what are the exceptional features of the 922? [I haven't used one]


It is basically 722 with sling-box built it. 722 is the best DVR on a market today. With sling-box it will be even better.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The missing prototype was mentioned in the trial as a piece of circumstantial evidence, specifically to the willful part. I am not going to go digging for it though, since it has no bearing on future happenings in the contempt part of the the whole court mess anyhow.


Judge Folsom in his denial of treble damages:


> As Plaintiff admits, this is not a copying case. 6/28/06 Hr. Tr. at
> 9:7-8; see also Dkt. No. 739 at 7. Defendants worked to develop their own DVR device for a number of years even before Plaintiffs company had been formed. Id. at 6.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Indeed. The judgement even allowed for a certain number of DVRs to be excluded to adjust for the Microsoft stuff that first came out


No. TiVo was awarded "lost profits" of $32.66 million in lost profits from lost sales/usage of its set-top boxes for the estimated 192,708 DVRs that TiVo would have sold if Dish had not infringed. Since TiVo was given the full amount for these hypothetical DVRs, that number of DVRs was not subject to royalties and not subject to the disable order.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Curtis said:


> No. TiVo was awarded "lost profits" of $32.66 million in lost profits from lost sales/usage of its set-top boxes for the estimated 192,708 DVRs that TiVo would have sold if Dish had not infringed. Since TiVo was given the full amount for these hypothetical DVRs, that number of DVRs was not subject to royalties and not subject to the disable order.


Always wondered who figured out TiVo would have MADE $32.66M on THOSE 192,708 DVRs even IF TiVo had been ABLE to sell them itself.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

berkshires said:


> Always wondered who figured out TiVo would have MADE $32.66M on THOSE 192,708 DVRs even IF TiVo had been ABLE to sell them itself.


It was Dr. Ugone of Analysis Group, Inc. (and the jury).


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Curtis said:


> It was Dr. Ugone of Analysis Group, Inc. (and the jury).


And how did they come up with this? What did DISH's side argue?

What era where these theoretical sales? Were they SA devices only or DTiVos also?


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

berkshires said:


> And how did they come up with this? What did DISH's side argue?
> 
> What era where these theoretical sales? Were they SA devices only or DTiVos also?


What difference does it make? Dish didn't appeal it. TiVo has the money.


----------



## berkshires (Feb 22, 2007)

Curtis said:


> What difference does it make? Dish didn't appeal it. TiVo has the money.


This thread is about success or failure, not the litigation. It happens there is an element of the litigation that expresses success for TiVo.

Curious as to the methodology of the calculation that TiVo would have made $$ on those few theoretical units when they didn't make money overall on the actual ones.

Too bad those folks weren't running TiVo all these years.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

Doesn't matter if they would have made money or not, they were ripped off. And they can't be doing THAT badly given they're still with us. I mean they're a little company, and this is a tough business (especially since it's hard for a lot of people to understand the product)...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

berkshires said:


> This thread is about success or failure, not the litigation. It happens there is an element of the litigation that expresses success for TiVo.
> 
> Curious as to the methodology of the calculation that TiVo would have made $$ on those few theoretical units when they didn't make money overall on the actual ones.
> 
> Too bad those folks weren't running TiVo all these years.


I think they just did a straight up cost of hardware versus revenue in the form of a sub. No idea if they mixed in lifetimes and MSD and so forth or not. I guess they figured the other costs, like R&D, were incurred by TiVo anyway.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Curtis said:


> Judge Folsom in his denial of treble damages:


right and those would have been the Microsoft DVRs they were working on. TiVo elected to not appeal the treble damages because that is indeed hard to prove in court and TiVo had no smoking gun for a judge to hang his hat on but the circumstantial evidence is pretty good. TiVo had better things to do with the court time and legal fees and that was to strengthen its IP portfolio and not so much to get DISH for every penny TiVo could.


----------



## Curtis (Dec 2, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> right and those would have been the Microsoft DVRs they were working on. TiVo elected to not appeal the treble damages because that is indeed hard to prove in court and TiVo had no smoking gun for a judge to hang his hat on but the circumstantial evidence is pretty good. TiVo had better things to do with the court time and legal fees and that was to strengthen its IP portfolio and not so much to get DISH for every penny TiVo could.


TiVo said that this is not a copying case.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

mixedday1 said:


> If I recall correctly wasn't The Dishplayer really considered a Microsoft product (including the DVR functionality, webTV)? I remembered on dbsforums.com reading that when customers had "bugs", Dish had to rely on Microsoft to fix these bugs. The technology and IP , entire DVR functionality was more Microsoft, and it ultimately led to a poor relation between Microsoft and Dish.
> 
> Charlie realized, hey we'll not use a 3rd party and sell our own DVRs.
> 
> They ceased selling DishPlayer then a year later or so, Dish rolled out the 501 which was a fee-free very basic DVR, where the Dishplayer had a rich interface, this one was like Dish's models. Somewhat as if they went back in time with the interface and all. I think it was the intro of this model and the DVR capabilities, that TiVo found infringing not the MS Dishplayer.


Yeah, the original Dishplayer was very MS, but had two motherboards, one from each mfr., which didn't communicate with each other well.

Don't know exactly what was infringed on but the Dish 501 was no TiVo. Still it worked OK for no fee and had an EPG with big fonts which was easy to read on a 25" CRT across the room.

---

For examples of MS GUI, check the Ultimate TV screen shots on DrStrange's resurrected site. The site requires manually navigating to *DirecTV/Tivo vs UltimateTV* and then scrolling down to the bottom of the index on the left. The screen shots take a relatively long time to load and not all do. Dishplayer had MS first effort at a DVR GUI and was less developed than these screen shots from the last version of UTV:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061115051206/http://www.pvrcompare.com/


----------



## argicida (Feb 17, 2009)

fallingwater said:


> Yeah, the original Dishplayer was very MS, but had two motherboards, one from each mfr., which didn't communicate with each other well.


Didn't MS have their own DVR back in the olden times? A "3rd" choice to Tivo and Replay?


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

Other than UltimateTV, I don't know.


----------

