# T3 only gives TiVo 4 out of 5



## Major dude (Oct 28, 2002)

Here we go again with TiVo being mismarketed in the UK once more.
This time it is the price point that is the problem and the lack of availability as even the T3 test team claim they did not have the TiVo long enough on test to fully appreciate it.

How long will it take for TiVo to be fully appreciated in the UK for what it is?
Maybe the 500gb TiVo will do it as the right product at the right price at the right time.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Not sure I wouldn't give it only 4/5 at the moment! It's still a pass 

While it is certainly better that anything on the mass-market right now, it's still not perfect. Just check-out the "bugs" sticky for a start


----------



## jonphil (Aug 7, 2002)

Not read the review but seems off to mark something down based on availability and not having long enough to test it?

I'm finding a lot of 'gadget' review sites are getting to be quite baised on reviews now, Gadget show is one of the worst as surprise surprise Apple products mostly always win any crazy tests they do.


----------



## scgf (Oct 24, 2000)

I'd be more inclined to give it 3/5 - complicated user interface, poor upscaling and expensive! Now somewhat anachronistic, TiVo should have come a long way in 10 years - it hasn't. Apart from two tuners and HD (shared by several PVRs nowadays) the software offers little more than it did with the series 1 model.


----------



## scgf (Oct 24, 2000)

jonphil said:


> surprise surprise Apple products mostly always win any crazy tests they do.


Apple has the UI sorted - that's often why they win these tests. The UI is so important - TiVo just doesn't do it for me, the UI is confusing and complicated.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

Call it iTiVo and people would be queueing up for it.

Prefix anything with an i and its a kids must buy.


----------



## scgf (Oct 24, 2000)

OzSat said:


> Call it iTiVo and people would be queueing up for it.
> 
> Prefix anything with an i and its a kids must buy.


So, if the TiVo was renamed iTiVo you reckon none of the TiVo evangelists would buy it? Wouldn't that suggest a degree of superficiality?

How odd!

IMO Apple have it right with the Human Interface - it is a big issue! Give an iPhone to a non-techie and they can use all the features within a short time. Give them a Sony Ericsson or a Nokia smart phone and they will either not use several features or be reaching for the manual. I have witnessed this with real people time and time again.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

scgf said:


> ... the software offers little more than it did with the series 1 model.


Which only goes to show how advanced the S1 really was 


scgf said:


> So, if the TiVo was renamed iTiVo you reckon none of the TiVo evangelists would buy it? Wouldn't that suggest a degree of superficiality?


No. He said nothing of the sort. Try reading it again.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

scgf said:


> So, if the TiVo was renamed iTiVo you reckon none of the TiVo evangelists would buy it? Wouldn't that suggest a degree of superficiality?


No - adding i to the beginning of the name seems to make people buy it because people buy things because its the new 'i' product. Doesn't matter if it works correctly or is of any use to them.

Look at my iphone they say - what does it do that you other phone doesn't and you needed - nothing but its an iphone.

Just like FiloFax years ago - everybody had one because - everybody had one.


----------



## Major dude (Oct 28, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Not sure I wouldn't give it only 4/5 at the moment! It's still a pass
> 
> While it is certainly better that anything on the mass-market right now, it's still not perfect. Just check-out the "bugs" sticky for a start


But they gave Sky HD 5/5, so although I agree VM TiVo is far from perfect it is still in a different class as compared with Sky HD.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

Article links:

TiVo mini-review:
http://www.t3.com/reviews-gallery.html?articleId=25039&pic=/images/Virgin_MediaTivo_610.jpg&id=2

Actually they like it, but complain about less HD channels available than sky
- arguably a feature of the service, not the box 

PVR Comparison
http://www.t3.com/reviews/tv/dvr/set-top-boxes-the-group-test

Pretty poor summary though, especially as they state rental prices for Virgin Media, but not at all for sky...


----------



## scgf (Oct 24, 2000)

OzSat said:


> No - adding i to the beginning of the name seems to make people buy it because people buy things because its the new 'i' product. Doesn't matter if it works correctly or is of any use to them.


So, according to your argument, Apple sold more iBooks than MacBooks? Patently not true!

So, you wouldn't like TiVo to succeed in the way Apple has? Why knock Apple? Haven't they overtaken Microsoft in terms of company value?


----------



## Halifax81 (Apr 22, 2011)

4 out of 5 is not that bad, I for sure would not rate 5 out of 5 just yet, yes its a massive step up from my old V+ box but until some of the suggestions in this forum are acted on it will in my opinion be 4 out of 5 for some time to come


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

scgf said:


> So, according to your argument, Apple sold more iBooks than MacBooks? Patently not true!
> 
> So, you wouldn't like TiVo to succeed in the way Apple has? Why knock Apple? Haven't they overtaken Microsoft in terms of company value?




You seem to have made up lot of comments I never made I have never knocked Apple.

My point is many people (many non-techies) buy things based on names and not what the product is or does - although it may still be good.

I see no difference in picture quality of SD channels between V+ and TiVo - yet both are not as good as my Sky box. Perhaps the problem here is not with the product but the source? TiVo had 3HD tuners.

The price is comparable to that of SkyHD (although TiVO is not yours) - yet it will be replaced free of charge if it goes wrong at anytime during its lifetime - something Sky will not offer as I have found before.

And reviews my mags and websites are often not to be taken seriously - as the publisher often have good relationships with companies which they must never criticise. I've been in media a long time and have been told that my comments can not be used even though they are true - as our advertisers will not like them.

I've been there - "Product A" is being lent to use for a week to review while its in trials - its rival "Product B" is here and we can keep it (they let us keep all they review items). Now which is the best - even though they are very similar?

Rather then making up comments and attributing them at me why not say what TiVo could now have - which is doesn't which would be allowed in the UK market!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Major dude said:


> But they gave Sky HD 5/5


Oh. Okay. Didn't know about that 



> ...so although I agree VM TiVo is far from perfect it is still in a different class as compared with Sky HD.


Indeed.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

To give SkyHD 5/5 - I guess you would have to be given the box for free, along with a free lifetime sub to all channels - and be biased.

I don't think I've seen a HD PVR that could have 5/5 yet - but perhaps TiVo and/or SkyHD could do it when the software is right.

TiVo has got a lot of things planned - I think the current SkyHD unit is now at the end of its development.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Well, for all the shortcomings of the Sky interface, Sky is significantly cheaper and comes with more channels. The interface isn't the only factor for a reviewers to take into account.

And 4/5 is a good score.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

Sky is cheaper to start with - but in 2 years time when you have to buy another box due to faulta it isn't quite so cheap.

The number of channels is the 'biggy' - especially for HD sports fans.


----------



## Buzby (Feb 21, 2011)

Heck, what a magazine reviewer thinks of it is immaterial. It is a subjective test, pulling up the prejudices of the writer, and possibly modified by whether they got to keep the kit if they said 'nice things' about it. The branding of the magazine or publisher carries no additional kudos, so whether it is Wired, Gadget Show, Which? Or whatever, it is only the reviewer's Mother that would/should take it as gospel.

The rest of us need to treat it with the contempt it deserves, unless it matches our own experiences.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Very cynical. Reviewers don't get to keep the hardware, and they have a big advantage over you or I in that they have actually used all the options in anger. They go to great lengths to avoid subjectivity or bias.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> Very cynical. Reviewers don't get to keep the hardware, and they have a big advantage over you or I in that they have actually used all the options in anger. They go to great lengths to avoid subjectivity or bias.


I would say "Most reviewers don't get to keep the hardware, and they have a big advantage over you or I in that they may have actually used all the options in anger. Most go to great lengths to avoid subjectivity or bias  but some editors may have changed the final review.

It wouldn't suprise me if some truthful reviews are not even published so that advertisers are not offended. I also bet that other reviewers are no longer provided advance products as a truthful review has upset the manufacturer.

There are factually good reviews and bad reviews - but the reader will often not know that.


----------



## jonphil (Aug 7, 2002)

scgf said:


> Apple has the UI sorted - that's often why they win these tests. The UI is so important - TiVo just doesn't do it for me, the UI is confusing and complicated.


Just to clarify at no point was I comparing Tivo UI to Apple.  please don't misqoute me


----------



## Buzby (Feb 21, 2011)

TCM2007 said:


> Very cynical. Reviewers don't get to keep the hardware, and they have a big advantage over you or I in that they have actually used all the options in anger. They go to great lengths to avoid subjectivity or bias.


What an incredible naivete! You know this, how? Having been involved in a good number of consumer magazines, whether the goods went back usually was left to the PR company who arranged the loan in the first place. Sometimes there were only limited review items, other times, there were many - and reviewers were welcome to keep and use as they were seen to be 'opinion formers' and because of this, if they retained (or wanted to retain it) then it was seen as a positive acceptance.

Add to this, many magazines use external (freelance) writers and any consistency across the publication was suspect, as these (usually) guys, locked away in their garrets were working in isolation.

Indeed, I'm aware of one publication that didn't pay its freelancers, letting them keep the kit in payment. So for every one you subjectively tell me acts withour bias, I can show you another who wants the kit and will say anything to keep the kit and please the client (the PR compant, not the reader).

The safest bet is to read everything, and form your own conclusions. Not slavishly believe what a spurious reviewer says.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Buzby said:


> What an incredible naivete! You know this, how?


Probably because it's his job.


----------



## louis wu (Dec 12, 2010)

Buzby said:


> What an incredible naivete! You know this, how? Having been involved in a good number of consumer magazines, whether the goods went back usually was left to the PR company who arranged the loan in the first place. Sometimes there were only limited review items, other times, there were many - and reviewers were welcome to keep and use as they were seen to be 'opinion formers' and because of this, if they retained (or wanted to retain it) then it was seen as a positive acceptance.
> 
> Add to this, many magazines use external (freelance) writers and any consistency across the publication was suspect, as these (usually) guys, locked away in their garrets were working in isolation.
> 
> ...


Good points. Add to that the fact that magazines are never going to upset the biggest advertisers who are paying their wages.


----------



## Tony Hoyle (Apr 1, 2002)

I did a little gaming reviewing in my youth and how that worked was you got the game for free, but if you wrote a too negative review that was the last game you got from that publisher.. so you had to learn to be critical but still give at least 8/10 at the end. Didn't keep it up long.. it's hard to do that with some of the stinkers I got sent (my favourite was one that required a reboot to restart the game after you died..)

Reviewers are inevitably biased as well, and on some sites you see tremendous bias in favour of particular platforms. Some of that is fed by PR companies paid to fuel the bias by spreading rumours for/against particular platforms (and sometimes just going straight in with a bunch of sock puppets and whipping up a storm).

In a way TGS are the better of the shows because their 'tests' are often such total bollox that you'd be nuts to take them seriously.. they're a bit of fun, and what a surprise apple won again, but it doesn't mean anything. I'm more worried about reviews which claim to be serious and are more subtly biased.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Buzby said:


> What an incredible naivete! You know this, how?


Beacause I've been editing and publishing technology magazines for more than 20 years.



> Indeed, I'm aware of one publication that didn't pay its freelancers, letting them keep the kit in payment. So for every one you subjectively tell me acts withour bias, I can show you another who wants the kit and will say anything to keep the kit and please the client (the PR compant, not the reader).


No professional organisation would do that.

It's true that for some low value items the PR companies don't ask for stuff back as it's not worth their while. We have a large lockable room full of it. But for the vast majority of high value items like TVs there is only one unit in the country, which is passed between the reviewing teams of the various publications.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

louis wu said:


> Good points. Add to that the fact that magazines are never going to upset the biggest advertisers who are paying their wages.


I can assure you that we frequently upset advertisers.

And I only wish they did pay the wages - in fact the large majority of our income is from copy sales, so the truly stupid thing to do would be to P off readers with innacurate reviews. Readers DO pay our wages!


----------



## Major dude (Oct 28, 2002)

Did the S1 similarly fail to excite the tech press?
Was it slammed at the time on price as I only bought mine when they were sold off at below the £100 mark?


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

Was it even reviewed by any tech press?

Look at this less than positive report from 2001, just six months after launch:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1268739.stm


> PVRs are like normal video recorders only much better.
> [...]
> The consensus is it's an amazing bit of kit. The problem, perhaps, is that it almost does too much. After all, it just took six paragraphs to begin explaining what Tivo does and there's much more besides.


Seems sky took note of the "does too much" part, and produced a lobotomized PVR in sky+ ... it records and that's it.


----------



## Major dude (Oct 28, 2002)

Gosh it really was a damp squib.
Such a shame and is it going to be the same this time?


----------

