# Tivo HD w/o subscription -- good for anything?



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Now that the Tivo Premiere is coming out, I'll probably end up upgrading my Tivo HD units to the new Premiere. Not necessarily for the video-on-demand/internet features, but more so to get the newer (and hopefully faster) UI. 

So, that leaves a couple of Tivo HD boxes to do something with. If Tivo was really nice, they would let us use the HD boxes in a play-only configuration to either stream media off the Premieres. That'd let me stick this thing in a spare bedroom for occasional viewing of pre-recorded programs.

I doubt Tivo would be that nice to us though. At least they haven't been in the past. 

So that begs the question, what is this HD box going to be good for? I assume it won't record or transfer to or from the unit without a subscription. This means it pretty much turns itself into a brick in short order. Although I've been a loyal customer ever since the original Phillips model, this does leave me a bit irked a the money I've shelled out for THDs. 

That leaves either donating them to relatives or trying to sell 'em on ebay. Have I missed anything? Any other uses for a non-subsciptioned HD? With the premiere coming out in April, I suspect a lot of other people are going to be making the same decisions.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It would be pretty pointless to require subscription as part of your pricing model, only to "be nice" and not require subscription. TiVo is a business, not a charity, and even if it were a charity, its subscribers are generally not charity-cases. So I'm not sure I see the point you're making vis a vis trying to cast TiVo in a negative light.

With regard to what the TiVo HD is good for, if you choose to replace it with a newer model, yes, giving it to a family member or friend is a nice thing to do.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Keep in mind that even with cable companies DVR's in effect your paying a subscription fee as well. It's built into the DVR fee that you would otherwise see on your Cable Bill.

If Cable Companies sold their DVR's (Like they do in Canada). Your DVR is a "Brick" if you don't have cable service. (In Canada anyways).

So Yeah... Just sell them on eBay. Recoup some of the money you have spent on them. They usually sell very quickly and for a decent price as well. Consider the price you get form eBAy (After all the fees etc..) and the original price you paid as the actual cost of the unit.


Ever thought about XM/Sirius Satalite Radio for your car? It's the same thing. Without a paid subscription the hardware is useless. Most ALL new cars now are starting to even come with XM &/or Sirius STANDARD in your new car. You paid for that Satalite radio hardware even if your not using it! (Even those that include a so called free year of service, you still paid for that service in a higher price for the car)

TGC

----------

Be a Carnivour!


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

bicker said:


> It would be pretty pointless to require subscription as part of your pricing model, only to "be nice" and not require subscription.


There is something to be said for allowing MRV only on unsubbed units. I certainly see the business justification for requiring a sub for *any* use, but if it's MRV only you're getting pretty little from Tivo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

DrewTivo said:


> There is something to be said for allowing MRV only on unsubbed units. I certainly see the business justification for requiring a sub for *any* use, but if it's MRV only you're getting pretty little from Tivo.


and TiVo gets even less from you - where is the business motivation for TiVo. If it made this happen I would bet they would have a sudden drop of at least 1% of subs.


----------



## bmgoodman (Dec 20, 2000)

Again, I'll post here my suggestion for Tivo, Inc. related to all these old Tivo units: offer a cheap sub that just covers the cost of guide data and connecting to their servers. No software upgrades, no support. Let's say $5/mo for argument's sake. Then there might be thousands of old Tivo units coming out of the woodwork to be used again. Sure, Tivo *might* lose some sales, but wouldn't they look like a much bigger "gorilla" if their subscription numbers actually GREW for a change? Imagine how some of those folks would eventually "outgrow" the old Tivo and decide to get a shiny new one? (Sure, I recognize some folks would then grumble about how they're paying $14-$5 per month for support and software upgrades they don't need....) Now, if I were Tivo, I suppose I'd only offer this deal on Series 1 and Series 2 boxes.


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

I would like Tivo to offer a MRV only subscription. Right now I have a Series 2 I'm paying for that can't get live TV. I have FIOS and they are all digital. So it just sits there, no signal whatsoever, so the kids can transfer their shows from the HD. It would be nice for Tivo to throw me a bone. 

Of course, as a business model it makes no sense. Because of the situation, I'll probably just end up buying a Premiere and move the HD to replace this Series 2. Probably exactly what Tivo wants.


----------



## dforemsky (Aug 6, 2003)

stiffi said:


> I would like Tivo to offer a MRV only subscription. Right now I have a Series 2 I'm paying for that can't get live TV. I have FIOS and they are all digital. So it just sits there, no signal whatsoever, so the kids can transfer their shows from the HD. It would be nice for Tivo to throw me a bone.


Not to derail this thread, but why not pay the $5.99 a month for an SD box from FiOS? It works just fine with the S2. (you may not even need the IR blaster. I think I remember seeing that the serial cable actually worked. I'm using the IR blaster with mine and it works just fine) The kids would be able to record their shows right on to the S2.


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

dforemsky said:


> Not to derail this thread, but why not pay the $5.99 a month for an SD box from FiOS? It works just fine with the S2. (you may not even need the IR blaster. I think I remember seeing that the serial cable actually worked. I'm using the IR blaster with mine and it works just fine) The kids would be able to record their shows right on to the S2.


Just seems like a waste to me. With one Tivo already, I only pay 9.00 a month, but it's used sparingly,so I don't want to pay another $6.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

DrewTivo said:


> There is something to be said for allowing MRV only on unsubbed units. I certainly see the business justification for requiring a sub for *any* use, but if it's MRV only you're getting pretty little from Tivo.


Little? With MRV, I'd basically get 95% of what I'd get with a full subscription, since all I'd lose is the ability to record on two of four tuners -- and the amount of hours per year that I have three things to record is well less than 5%. So with that "less than 5%" and the added inconvenience of having to MRV instead of just recording on the box that I want to watch the program on, the difference in value I would personal derive between full functionality and only being able to do MRV is so small, that there really isn't much justification for having a price other than full price.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

After updating to the TiVo HD, I thought my Series 2 was going to be a brick but then I realized that it can still buffer and pause live TV. I use my old Series 2 without a subscription as a third tuner when my TiVo HD is recording two shows and I want to watch some live TV. I have a projector that doesn't have a tuner so this came in very handy.


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

If MRV was useful on a TW system, I'd think about getting a second box and paying to sub it. As it is, with TW setting copy protection on everything and MRV not letting you do what other multi-box DVRs do, there's no point in me getting a second box.

Back to the OP...can you even do tivo-to-go or transfer stuff from PC to tivo without a subscription? I don't think you can.

I dropped the sub on my old 1st-gen Sony TiVo and just use it to tune live TV for a TV that has a broken tuner.


----------



## dbenrosen (Sep 20, 2003)

stiffi said:


> Just seems like a waste to me. With one Tivo already, I only pay 9.00 a month, but it's used sparingly,so I don't want to pay another $6.


You can get the smaller box from Fios for $3.99/mo instead of a full STB. I have one hooked up to my Series 1 TiVo.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bicker said:


> It would be pretty pointless to require subscription as part of your pricing model, only to "be nice" and not require subscription. TiVo is a business, not a charity, and even if it were a charity, its subscribers are generally not charity-cases. So I'm not sure I see the point you're making vis a vis trying to cast TiVo in a negative light.


As far as "being nice", by being nice to me, they encourage me to buy future products from them. By turning my old Tivos into bricks, they discourage upgrading since the customer perceives waste. I already have a S1 and two S2 Tivos floating around unused. Now I'll be bringing that number up to five if I add two more S3s to the pile. Granted, I'm the type of person who'll probably upgrade anyway, but not every customer is.

The original S1 did not brick itself upon terminating subscription. It could continue to be used in a sort of 'dumb VCR' mode to record without guide data. While I understand Tivo's perceived reasons for changing the business model, I'll continue to disagree with it. Requiring a minimum subscription period to subsidize the cost of the units would be understandable, but preventing a perfectly good Tivo from being used by the customer, while incurring no ongoing cost to Tivo itself (no subscription data or upgrades to an MRV-only unit), seems unnecessarily customer-hostile.

Anyhow, that's really beside the point. My goal was to see if the policy has changed with the addition of the new premieres, and it appears that it has not.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

hmmmm So you drop your subscription and the TiVo is bricked? DUH!

Lets see... You got an XM/Sirius radio? Did one come with your new car? Umm drop the subscription and you have a brick. Some cases a brick on wheels.

What about if you buy Dish or DirectTV equipment? Drop the subscription there, again you have a brick.

hmmmm What other things that if you drop the subscription you gain a brick... Oh I know... Cell phones! While some phone can be used on different carriers networks. Not all can. Cell phones are still bricks and unless you SUBSCRIBE to service.


Just the way things are... TiVo earns it's money from subscriptions. Not from the sale of units.

TGC


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> As far as "being nice", by being nice to me, they encourage me to buy future products from them.


However, the question that you're ignoring is critical: Which is worth more? The cost of "being nice" to you now, or the profit on the products that you may or may not buy from them in the future. It's not a black-and-white question: For some people the answer will be one answer, and for other people it will be the other answer, but what should matter to them is the aggregate answer -- the average of the benefits in the future versus the costs in the present, taken across the entire customer-base.

If you think that the answer simply "must" be the answer that supports what would benefit you personally, then you're blinding yourself to the reality of the marketplace.

There is another thing you're ignoring: Even if the answer to the question was clearly that the future profit would be greater than the present cost, business has to worry about more than just profit: They have to worry about cash flow. You can't spend money that you don't have. You could borrow (in various ways, not just loans) against future possibilities, true, but then you have to factor in the cost of borrowing, and that could very readily eat up all of the possible future benefit.

As a consumer, it sure is fun to take pot-shots at businesses, in glorious ignorance of these realities that I've outlined. However, it isn't enlightening. It actually just fosters within you, and those who inadvertently make the same logical gaffs as you, a foundation for recurring disappointment and dissatisfaction, because you never gain an appreciation for what is reasonable to expect.



smbaker said:


> Granted, I'm the type of person who'll probably upgrade anyway, but not every customer is.


You've outlined yet-another reason why your logic doesn't hold water, beyond those that I mentioned: Effectively, what you're saying here is that "being nice" to you in the manner you were implying would have no potential benefit, because that future profit was already a foregone conclusion. That is rare, true, but it is yet-another factor eating away at the value of what you want and are trying to claim that they should do, despite your lack of evidentiary foundation for what you're claiming.



smbaker said:


> The original S1 did not brick itself upon terminating subscription.


And *THAT* turned out to be a *big mistake* on TiVo's part, which we can see that they remedied with the S2. You may not like the fact that that was an mistake -- you may even try to deny it. However, again, that's just falling back on what's fun for consumers, to take pot-shots at businesses, in glorious ignorance of these realities that I've outlined.


----------



## dbtom (Feb 14, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Lets see... You got an XM/Sirius radio? Did one come with your new car? Umm drop the subscription and you have a brick. Some cases a brick on wheels.
> 
> What about if you buy Dish or DirectTV equipment? Drop the subscription there, again you have a brick.
> 
> TGC


My unsubdued portable satellite radio still works as a portable MP3 player. My old Dish sat box still works as on OTA tuner. I still use my old Verizon phone infrequently as a prepaid phone for visiting friends and family. It is not automatic that all functions of a device based on subscriptions disables ALL functions when the functions cost the company 0 or even generate revenue for the company.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dbtom said:


> My unsubdued portable satellite radio still works as a portable MP3 player. My old Dish sat box still works as on OTA tuner. I still use my old Verizon phone infrequently as a prepaid phone for visiting friends and family. It is not automatic that all functions of a device based on subscriptions disables ALL functions when the functions cost the company 0 or even generate revenue for the company.


There is no law about what functions will or will not work and any product without a sub, each co does as they see fit, the TiVo can still be used as a tuner (OTA or cable just like your old Dish) and trick play will still work. You can still view recorded stuff that is already on the TiVo, you don't decide what can or can not work when you remove a sub from TiVo or any other sub type equipment.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ... Lets see... You got an XM/Sirius radio?
> ... What about if you buy Dish or DirectTV equipment?
> ... Oh I know... Cell phones!


We're comparing apples to oranges here. XM/Sirius/Dish/DTV all pay content creators and distributors (TV Networks) for programming. If I was to continue receiving programming without paying them for it, they would incur a recurring net loss for the duration while I received that programming. Similarly, it consumes resources of the cellphone company for me to use a cellphone.

It costs Tivo nothing for me to be able to transfer a program from one unsubscribed box to another.

If you want a more reasonably analogy, let's say I buy a Toshiba computer and it comes with a introductory subscription to ... I dunno ... netflix. Toshiba could quite legally create a licensing agreement that allowed them to render the network interface and cd-rom inoperative on that computer should I chose to stop paying for netflix. Would the customer base accept this? No. They'd wouldn't buy the product.

As many point out, there's no law (that I'm aware of) that says a device has to continue to function without a subscription. However, there's no law that says I have to buy any product or service either (well, at least not until health care legislation passes).



bicket said:


> As a consumer, it sure is fun to take pot-shots at businesses, in glorious ignorance of these realities that I've outlined. However, it isn't enlightening. It actually just fosters within you, and those who inadvertently make the same logical gaffs as you, a foundation for recurring disappointment and dissatisfaction, because you never gain an appreciation for what is reasonable to expect.


I'm not just a consumer, I'm a shareholder as well. I believe in the company and the products. I've owned Tivos since the very first S1 phillips model. I thought it was a visionary device at the time it was introduced. I just don't believe in their particular marketing philosophy regarding bricking the S3 (or bricking the S2 for that matter). I didn't agree with the philosophy of charging an extra fee for HMO either back when they tried that.

I think Tivo is facing a bit of a crisis in the near future. They're going to be squeezed from the bottom by subscriptionless devices that offer similar media capabilities and squeezed from the side by subscription-only devices from the cable companies. The niche for up-front-pricey hardware that bricks without a subscription may be dwindling as it suffers the combined faults of both marketing schemes.


----------



## h0mi (Dec 29, 2007)

Would a sub-less Tivo HD be able to access the assorted VOD services... youtube, netflix, Amazon, etc.?


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

h0mi said:


> Would a sub-less Tivo HD be able to access the assorted VOD services... youtube, netflix, Amazon, etc.?


No.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

if you had a big stack of paper you didn't want to move, or if you needed a door held open - they'd be great for that


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

smbaker said:


> Now that the Tivo Premiere is coming out, I'll probably end up upgrading my Tivo HD units to the new Premiere. Not necessarily for the video-on-demand/internet features, but more so to get the newer (and hopefully faster) UI.


Take a look before you leap. While the premier has a faster processor, the new interface is based on Flash. When did you see anything in Flash appear to be fast. The new interface won't run on a TiVo HD so you may not find it to be all that snappy on the new box.



> So, that leaves a couple of Tivo HD boxes to do something with. If Tivo was really nice, they would let us use the HD boxes in a play-only configuration to either stream media off the Premieres. That'd let me stick this thing in a spare bedroom for occasional viewing of pre-recorded programs.
> 
> I doubt Tivo would be that nice to us though. At least they haven't been in the past.


If you're like me and OTA is not an option, consider that for $99 more than the price of a lifetimed Premie, you can buy a 3 tuner Moxi and a Moxi Mate for that second room. This involves no subscription fees, and you can add another Moxi Mate down the road for a third room whenever you wish. You can also hang an additional 6 terabytes of storage on it using any standard eSata drive. Again no subscription fees, and no addition cableCard or additional outlet fees either.

If MRV is really what you're after, and you want to avoid additional fees for other rooms that you just want to watch recorded shows in, this may be an alternative worth looking into. Another thing to consider is that there is a ton of discussion here from folks whose cable system's are setting CCI no-copy flags on many channels which prevent TiVo's MRV implementation from working. This does not affect Moxi's streaming implementation.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

solutionsetc said:


> Take a look before you leap. While the premier has a faster processor, the new interface is based on Flash. When did you see anything in Flash appear to be fast. The new interface won't run on a TiVo HD so you may not find it to be all that snappy on the new box.
> 
> If you're like me and OTA is not an option, consider that for $99 more than the price of a lifetimed Premie, you can buy a 3 tuner Moxi and a Moxi Mate for that second room. This involves no subscription fees, and you can add another Moxi Mate down the road for a third room whenever you wish. You can also hang an additional 6 terabytes of storage on it using any standard eSata drive. Again no subscription fees, and no addition cableCard or additional outlet fees either.
> 
> If MRV is really what you're after, and you want to avoid additional fees for other rooms that you just want to watch recorded shows in, this may be an alternative worth looking into. Another thing to consider is that there is a ton of discussion here from folks whose cable system's are setting CCI no-copy flags on many channels which prevent TiVo's MRV implementation from working. This does not affect Moxi's streaming implementation.


Moxi has downsides too, like mates can't be connected to a tuner, they can only stream pre-recorded things or run a "semi-live" feed of a tuner on the main box if your stream can handle it (and the tuner isn't being used to record on the main box). They're basically a dummy stream box. Plus they do not have a native wireless device option. Among other things. In Chicago, the only things not available for transfer are the premium movie channels.

Also, RE: your "Flash" comment - this isn't a flash plugin on a website. It's not the same thing, and should be much snappier than any flash you are used to on sites.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

b_scott said:


> Moxi has downsides too, like mates can only stream pre-recorded things or run a "semi-live" feed of a tuner on the main box if your stream can handle it (and the tuner isn't being used to record on the main box).


Agreed. But I thought I would point out the alternative to the OP as it seems to address his inquiry better than the other responses here.



> In Chicago, the only things not available for transfer are the premium movie channels.


Don't know that the OP is in Chicago. But plenty of other systems have set this flag on many channels, and there is no guarantee more won't going forward. I actually expect to see more of this rather than less.



> Also, RE: your "Flash" comment - this isn't a flash plugin on a website. It's not the same thing, and should be much snappier than any flash you are used to on sites.


I am actually quite familiar with most flavors of Flash, and I would consider every incarnation of the runtime to be a pig. We'll see when the new box ships, and again further down the road as TiVo delivers up more content for it (whether that be widgets or ads or what-have-you). I was simply pointing out to the OP that if a snappier interface is his main reason for upgrading, he should have a look for himself and not just assume.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

stiffi said:


> I would like Tivo to offer a MRV only subscription. Right now I have a Series 2 I'm paying for that can't get live TV. I have FIOS and they are all digital. So it just sits there, no signal whatsoever, so the kids can transfer their shows from the HD. It would be nice for Tivo to throw me a bone.
> 
> Of course, as a business model it makes no sense. Because of the situation, I'll probably just end up buying a Premiere and move the HD to replace this Series 2. Probably exactly what Tivo wants.


IF you bought a Moxi then you can get Moxi mates to do exactly what you want nad have an extra tuner to boot


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

solutionsetc said:


> Agreed. But I thought I would point out the alternative to the OP as it seems to address his inquiry better than the other responses here.


Now you've gone and done it!

I didn't think I'd ever give up my tivos, but this is something I'll have to seriously consider. I particularly like this bit:



moxiwebsite said:


> Moxi borrowed its usage-fee policy from your coffee maker and video camera (and common sense): You own the darn thing, so once you've paid for it you can use it without paying Moxi another dime for DVR service fees.


Of course, the test is whether the device performs as well as a Tivo, and how well the UI is designed. I'm also a bit skeptical of a company that offers guide data with no service fees whatsoever; subscription fees for guide data are a way to ensure some longevity of the product.

They don't seem to have nearly the market recognition that Tivo does. Granted I don't follow these things as closely as I used to, but I can't say that I was aware this company was a serious competitor.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

smbaker said:


> Of course, the test is whether the device performs as well as a Tivo, and how well the UI is designed. I'm also a bit skeptical of a company that offers guide data with no service fees whatsoever; subscription fees for guide data are a way to ensure some longevity of the product.
> 
> They don't seem to have nearly the market recognition that Tivo does. Granted I don't follow these things as closely as I used to, but I can't say that I was aware this company was a serious competitor.


Exactly... Those guides have to be payed for some way, & without subscription fees how is one going to keep supporting the cost of employees putting that information in to make a guide as well. I don't see it lasting very long.

I keep thinking about... you pay for what you get. You want somthing good, it ain't going to be free. Then again really very very little in this world is actually free. Somewhere, someone is paying more because of it!

TGC


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

smbaker said:


> They don't seem to have nearly the market recognition that Tivo does. Granted I don't follow these things as closely as I used to, but I can't say that I was aware this company was a serious competitor.


They have been around for some time with primarily provider offerings. It has only been the last year or so they have ventured into the standalone DVR market. They are now owned by Arris, a company with significant resources.

They have accomplished quite a bit in a short time, and I have been impressed with their rather aggressive development (something I am bummed to say seems sorely lacking with TiVo over the last couple of years).

While a forum of this type doesn't really exist for moxi users, there is a very active thread in AVSForums on it. As OTA is not an option for me, I have been thinking about moxi quite a bit. The only downside I see for me so far is no TTGO. I have occasionally used it to extract a clip from a show for a variety of reasons, so I might miss that.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Exactly... Those guides have to be payed for some way


Not "exactly". TiVo has lifetime subs so I not sure I see the difference. It is simply a different accounting method. I am not privy to what deal Moxi has established to supply the data, nor what their per user costs average out to for the expected service life of the unit. Arris obviously felt their was wiggle room in the numbers Digeo was using as they felt they could actually lower pricing, and that seems to makes sense from a company with deeper pockets and more leverage.

Bottom line is you either believe in the company and its products or you don't. Over the last year, Moxi is impressing me more than TiVo. This is a consumer electronics purchase and not a substantial investment I need to be concerned about a decade or two down the road. It will be obsolete well before that regardless of whether Arris/Moxi is still around.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

smbaker said:


> Now you've gone and done it!
> 
> I didn't think I'd ever give up my tivos, but this is something I'll have to seriously consider. I particularly like this bit:
> 
> ...


I'd just like to point out that the cost of the Moxi is comparible to a Tivo with a lifetime subscription.
When you get a Tivo with a lifetime subscription, you can also say:


> You own the darn thing, so once you've paid for it you can use it without paying Moxi TiVo another dime for DVR service fees.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> I'm also a bit skeptical of a company that offers guide data with no service fees whatsoever; subscription fees for guide data are a way to ensure some longevity of the product.
> 
> They don't seem to have nearly the market recognition that Tivo does. Granted I don't follow these things as closely as I used to, but I can't say that I was aware this company was a serious competitor.


of course they are a serious contender - they charge no monthly fees, wont take it even if you offered, and the guide data is free on the internet anyway. 
Plus they offer 3 tunes instead of 2


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

steve614 said:


> I'd just like to point out that the cost of the Moxi is comparible to a Tivo with a lifetime subscription.


Granted, but if you want other units solely for MRV (which seems to be the topic of discussion in this thread), you end up with multiple lifetime subscriptions. So three room TiVo with no subscription fees = $1894. Moxi is about half that, supports more storage, no ads, and no issues with MRV with regard to CCI bytes set by cable providers. It really does seem to be a better MRV solution.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Since the CCI flag isn't an issue where I live, Moxi's greatest advantage in my eyes is its DLNA certification. I would love to be able to stream all my HD home movies natively to my TiVos.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Exactly... Those guides have to be payed for some way, & without subscription fees how is one going to keep supporting the cost of employees putting that information in to make a guide as well. I don't see it lasting very long.
> 
> I keep thinking about... you pay for what you get. You want somthing good, it ain't going to be free. Then again really very very little in this world is actually free. Somewhere, someone is paying more because of it!
> 
> TGC


The point you're missing is that *guide data is cheap.* Someone can chime in with actual numbers, but ballpark it's less than $0.50 per month per box.

Most of your TiVo monthly fee is paying for lawyers and for Tom Rogers to fly around the country, glad handing and making deals. He's an old media executive. That's what he does.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> The point you're missing is that *guide data is cheap.* Someone can chime in with actual numbers, but ballpark it's less than $0.50 per month per box.
> 
> Most of your TiVo monthly fee is paying for lawyers and for Tom Rogers to fly around the country, glad handing and making deals. He's an old media executive. That's what he does.


Moxi is not suing anyone


----------



## fatlard (Jun 30, 2003)

Moxi has been pretty responsive to their customer....see their response post in AVS

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18332671#post18332671


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

fatlard said:


> Moxi has been pretty responsive to their customer


This is one of the things that feels good about moxi. They seem lean and hungry like ReplayTV and TiVo were in the old days.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> It costs Tivo nothing for me to be able to transfer a program from one unsubscribed box to another.


You seem to be unfamiliar with opportunity costs.



smbaker said:


> I'm not just a consumer, I'm a shareholder as well.


However, not the only one.



smbaker said:


> I just don't believe in their particular marketing philosophy regarding bricking the S3 (or bricking the S2 for that matter).


Based on what? If it is a religious issue for you (i.e., not based on objective evidence showing definitively that there is more money to be made following a different path), then let's just admit that and move on. It is not appropriate for a public company to operate in accordance with religious principles, unless that is revealed to shareholders as part of the stated company mission/vision.



smbaker said:


> I think Tivo is facing a bit of a crisis in the near future. They're going to be squeezed from the bottom by subscriptionless devices that offer similar media capabilities and squeezed from the side by subscription-only devices from the cable companies. The niche for up-front-pricey hardware that bricks without a subscription may be dwindling as it suffers the combined faults of both marketing schemes.


I have said many times that there may be no profitable business case to be made for stand-alone HD DVRs in the US.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

solutionsetc said:


> This is one of the things that feels good about moxi. They seem lean and hungry like ReplayTV and TiVo were in the old days.


Back before they realized that they can't keep losing money forever. As long as there is venture capital to burn through, things are great, I suppose. The question is how many times will foolish investors throw money at this?


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

bicker said:


> The question is how many times will foolish investors throw money at this?


Valid question. I guess it depends on who wins in the next few years; cable/sat companies, or the FCC. If the FCC _is_ capable of achieving their goals, we'll have a new and thriving market for these devices. Cable cards were a reasonable first step, but the technology is a little long in the tooth now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If it comes down to a competition, the FCC can't win, because it doesn't have money to build service provision infrastructure. So either the FCC finds a way to make it more profitable for service providers to foster stand-alone DVRs (i.e., pave the path to a win-win; a win for the FCC and a win for service providers), or nothing good will happen.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Back before they realized that they can't keep losing money forever. As long as there is venture capital to burn through, things are great, I suppose. The question is how many times will foolish investors throw money at this?


How do we know Moxi is losing money or has a high burn rate?



bicker said:


> If it comes down to a competition, the FCC can't win, because it doesn't have money to build service provision infrastructure. So either the FCC finds a way to make it more profitable for service providers to foster stand-alone DVRs (i.e., pave the path to a win-win; a win for the FCC and a win for service providers), or nothing good will happen.


FCC just needs Congress to go along and write the laws and budget that gives the FCC the mandate to carry out its broadband proposal. Once that is done then Moxi and TiVo have an environment more conducive to standalones. Sony can buy Moxi and crush small companies.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bicker said:


> Based on what? If it is a religious issue for you (i.e., not based on objective evidence showing definitively that there is more money to be made following a different path), then let's just admit that and move on.


I can give you two arguments, one based on economics and one based on philosophy. Let's start with the economic one as it's the more objective of the two.

If I have two companies, both producing a device with identical features at a comparable price. One charges a monthly fee for the privilege of using that device and one does not. I'd rather buy the latter than the former. Everyone would. We can compare the Tivo to the Moxi. The Moxi is the better deal, given that the device is still usable without service fees. There's some argument to be made about price points (Tivo + Lifetime vs Moxi), but there's also an argument about hardware that appears to be in Moxi's favor (until the premiere, Moxi offering a significant hardware advantage), and then there's the MRV cost argument that someone made here (3 Tivo + 3 Lifetime vs 1 Moxi + 2 Mates).

Now, the philosophical argument. I'm willing to pay a fee for services that I receive. I'll pay for guide data. I'll pay for software updates. I'll pay for television programs to be sent to my house. I'll pay for electricity. I'll pay for water. Why on Earth should I pay for the privilege of being able to use an item that I already purchased? I don't have to pay Chrysler a monthly service fee to drive my jeep. I don't have to pay Oral-B a monthly service fee to use my toothbrush. Why should I pay Tivo a monthly service fee to use the hardware that I already own? What makes Tivo special? The answer would be that it says in the license agreement that I have to. Well my toothbrush could come with that same license agreement. I wouldn't buy that toothbrush.

Your rationale seems to be that there's 'more money to be made' by bricking the devices without a subscription. That's absolutely true, *in the absence of competition*. Based on the recommendations in this forum post, I'm already going to be looking at Tivo's competitors rather than _automatically_ upgrading to Premiers as I had originally intended.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

smbaker said:


> I can give you two arguments, one based on economics and one based on philosophy. Let's start with the economic one as it's the more objective of the two.
> 
> If I have two companies, both producing a device with identical features at a comparable price. One charges a monthly fee for the privilege of using that device and one does not. I'd rather buy the latter than the former. Everyone would. We can compare the Tivo to the Moxi. You can compare them but they are not devices with identical feautures The Moxi is the better deal, given that the device is still usable without service fees. You next line pretty much voids that statement There's some argument to be made about price points (Tivo + Lifetime vs Moxi), but there's also an argument about hardware that appears to be in Moxi's favor (until the premiere, Moxi offering a significant hardware advantage Really? a Moxi works significant better than a Series 3 or TV HD? Plus your talking about about buying a TiVo premiere ), and then there's the MRV cost argument that someone made here (3 Tivo + 3 Lifetime vs 1 Moxi + 2 Mates). Ok so for someone only interest in recording digital cable, who only wants 3 tuners and where multi room viewing is of the utmost importance and who doesn't already own a Series 3 or Tivo HD, Moxi offers a lower price point.
> 
> ...


 My comments are above in Red

Thanks,


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> My comments are above in Red
> 
> Thanks,


Inline comments. Oh my eyes! my poor eyes! they're burning.



> You can compare them but they are not devices with identical feautures


Granted, no product is truly identical to another. The price points are going to change over time as one competitor reacts to another. Reading Moxi's website, it seems clear that the Moxi is (was?) being marketed as a competitor to the S3/THD. If we make that comparison, the Moxi is (was?) a better deal. The additional base money you were paying could be justified to get better hardware, and on top of that you have no monthly fees.



> We have yet to see if Moxi can make enough money selling boxes without subscriptions to do any better financially than TiVo has.


Boxes are only going to get cheaper over time. Personally, I think all of these companies are in trouble in the long run. I see $99 HD media players everywhere that have much hardware commonality with these DVR units. Granted a media player isn't a DVR, but these media players offer incredible bang for the buck.

Getting back to my original point (I'm not a Moxi salesman; I didn't even know the product existed until this thread started rolling), I just don't see monthly "use fees" being a viable business model moving forward into the future. It may have been a fine model when Tivo had to setup modem banks and provide the infrastructure for distributing all this data. That's all being leveraged off the Internet now.

To pay a monthly fee, the consumer needs to get something in return. If what others are saying in this thread is true and guide data is only worth $0.50/month, then charging $12.95 for that $0.50 service is not going to be sustainable. Consumers will switch to a device that offers a similar feature set without the monthly use fee.

Moving forward, I'm done with monthly fees. I'm going to do the math on two Premieres with lifetime service and two Moxis with lifetime service.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

fatlard said:


> Moxi has been pretty responsive to their customer....see their response post in AVS
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18332671#post18332671


Manufacturer support in public 3rd party forums is usually somewhat "hit and miss". The comment you linked to seemed quite detailed. However, I personally wouldn't characterize a lifetime count of 4 posts by TheMoxiGuy as "pretty responsive".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> How do we know Moxi is losing money or has a high burn rate?


We don't know how they're doing now, but we have a good feeling for how Digeo felt about Moxi...



ZeoTiVo said:


> FCC just needs Congress to go along and write the laws *and budget *that gives the FCC the mandate to carry out its broadband proposal.


See my numerous statements about how Americans generally have no will to put their money where their mouths are. Welcome to the pipe dream.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> I can give you two arguments, one based on economics and one based on philosophy. Let's start with the economic one as it's the more objective of the two.
> 
> If I have two companies, both producing a device with identical features at a comparable price. One charges a monthly fee for the privilege of using that device and one does not. I'd rather buy the latter than the former. Everyone would. We can compare the Tivo to the Moxi.


No we can't because you said, "identical features at a comparable price". The Moxi is good, but it is not a TiVo, not even close. So your economic argument fails, utterly, at that point. You predicate a lot of mumbo jumbo on that premise which simply is not true.



smbaker said:


> Now, the philosophical argument.


Why would you bother even typing it in. It only applies to you; it would only be relevant if you owned the company, yourself.



smbaker said:


> Your rationale seems to be that there's 'more money to be made' by bricking the devices without a subscription.


I didn't say that: TiVo (effectively) did (through their actions). And you've presented nothing that would indicate that you have any better information than they do. It is their business to know. It is your intention, apparently, to try to make people think that what benefits you personally is in some way holy. It isn't. You're just engaging in a little mental masturbation, but rather than satisfaction, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.


----------



## fatlard (Jun 30, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Manufacturer support in public 3rd party forums is usually somewhat "hit and miss". The comment you linked to seemed quite detailed. However, I personally wouldn't characterize a lifetime count of 4 posts by TheMoxiGuy as "pretty responsive".


Yes, it was the fourth response but each response was just as detail as the one I linked.



bicker said:


> No we can't because you said, "identical features at a comparable price". The Moxi is good, but it is not a TiVo, not even close.


That is your opinion.

In my opinion. The Moxi 3 Tuners, Live Streaming, online scheduling, easy external storage upgrade is much better than Tivo.

Tivo is fine for some people, but not even close to what Moxi can offer.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bicker said:


> Why would you bother even typing it in. It only applies to you; it would only be relevant if you owned the company, yourself.


So any philosophical argument is relevant only to the person who created it? I'm a consumer. Other consumers may think the same way. Successful companies build and market the products the consumer desires, not the products the person who 'owned the company' desires. Whether I'm a representative sample of American consumers is something you may debate, but to claim that only the philosophy of the person who 'owned the company' is relevant seems a bit naive.



bicker said:


> It is your intention, apparently, to try to make people think that what benefits you personally is in some way holy. It isn't. You're just engaging in a little mental masturbation, but rather than satisfaction, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.


Ah yes, the personal attacks. The last refuge of someone who has lost an argument. I presented two arguments. Rather than debate either of them on their merits, you persist in attacking me, as far as I can tell simply because I disagree with you. Is it not sufficient that we can agree to disagree? That you can go ahead purchasing devices that brick themselves without a subscription and I can choose not to? I don't care what other people buy. If you look back to the start of this thread, I wanted to know what *I* should do with *MY* old tivos upon buying a premiere. This whole exercise had led me to reconsider the decision to buy the premieres in the first place. It's been a worthwhile exercise.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

fatlard said:


> In my opinion. The Moxi 3 Tuners, Live Streaming, online scheduling, easy external storage upgrade is much better than Tivo.
> 
> Tivo is fine for some people, but not even close to what Moxi can offer.


Moxi appears to have some advantages over TiVo and TiVo appears to have some advantages over Moxi. Which one is "better" depends on what someone needs/wants the DVR to do. If you only want your DVR to record digital cable, want 2 or 3 tuners, consider multi room viewing an extremely important option and do not currently own a TiVo or are willing to dump the ones you have then perhaps the Moxi has an advantage over TiVo. In most other cases the Moxi does not have a clear advantage and in some cases doesn't even work at all.

A rational discussion comparing various DVR in a thread designed to do that is certainly acceptable but to continue to pimp another brand DVR by spamming every thread you can find gets old quick. I say buy what you want and get on with it, if it isn't a Tivo no problem go find a forum designed to discuss whatever you buy.

Thanks,


----------



## pmiranda (Feb 12, 2003)

If Moxi could download to a PC so I could watch shows on plane trips, I'd seriously have to consider it. As it is, even with CCI byte crippling everything but the local networks on TW, TiVo is still better for what I do, which is mostly watch TV in one room and on the road.
Moxi has a big leg up on TiVo in MRV and Hulu support. Not so much on other points. I have no idea what their UI is like, but it's got to be better than a cableco DVR or it wouldn't sell.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

fatlard said:


> In my opinion. The Moxi 3 Tuners, Live Streaming, online scheduling, easy external storage upgrade is much better than Tivo.
> 
> Tivo is fine for some people, but not even close to what Moxi can offer.


Moxi has Hulu via DLNA as well


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

here's the thing - Hulu on a 50" sucks. Why do you need Hulu when the main point of your Tivo is to record those shows in HD? You still have ads on Hulu. I don't see the point.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> So any philosophical argument is relevant only to the person who created it?


And others who choose to subscribe to it. Yes. Otherwise, I could legitimately say you're an evil person because you don't comply with my religious beliefs, for example.



smbaker said:


> I'm a consumer. Other consumers may think the same way.


And here's where your logic failed: You are philosophizing about how a business should behave, not how consumers should behave. Your philosophical argument may hold some water if what you were doing within it was outlining expectations on consumers.



smbaker said:


> Successful companies build and market the products the consumer desires


No: Successful companies build and market the products the consumer is willing to pay enough for to provide a substantial profit.



smbaker said:


> Whether I'm a representative sample of American consumers is something you may debate


Nah, because it is not relevant, since, again, you are philosophizing about how a business should behave, not how consumers should behave. You can run your company that way, sure, but that's the extent of applicability of your philosophy about running business.

Going back to the religion example, expecting a supplier to comply with your philosophy is like putting forward a philosophical argument from a Christian perspective about how Jews should conduct themselves. It's ridiculous.



smbaker said:


> but to claim that only the philosophy of the person who 'owned the company' is relevant seems a bit naive.


How many companies do you know of that are owned by one person? Regardless, yes, when it comes to philosophical arguments about how someone should conduct their own business, their philosophy is what matters, not yours. All that matters, with regard to your side of things, is your behavior -- your stimulus/response aspects.

Now, again, if you put forward a philosophical argument that outlined how consumers should behave, that could be interesting. For example, as a consumer, I won't purchase services if I feel that it is not a good value for my money. That's a sound philosophical argument that can reasonably be expected to be considered with merit. Note, though, how it placed expectations on you as a consumer, not on those who supply you.



smbaker said:


> Ah yes, the personal attacks. The last refuge of someone who has lost an argument.


What are you talking about? There were no personal attacks there. You're seeing things. I explained very fairly and reasonably why I disagree with what you were saying. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't make it a personal attack. And moreover, I was very sincere with the last thing I said, that what you're doing is setting yourself (and anyone you sway to your perspective) up for disappointment. Effectively, by making the logical errors you're making you are making things worse for yourself.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Some cable systems let DVR customers stream content to non-DVR STBs. Moxi sells an extender.

Assume tivo sees the need to sell a MRV client box. I suspect changing the software to eliminate phone calls may be about all that's needed. Without guide data the unit has limited ability to record. Tivo could also disable the ability for manual recordings.

I wonder what price point make sense for tivo and for customers. Assume the unit has already been activated for at least a year. Would a one time charge of $50 work? $100?

Makes sense if this produces extra revenue for tivo. Makes less sense if these customers would otherwise pay for full subscriptions.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> I wonder what price point make sense for tivo and for customers. Assume the unit has already been activated for at least a year. Would a one time charge of $50 work? $100?


No. The box isn't paid off at just one year. Maybe at three years, so yeah, after three years, I suppose a charge of $50 per year, just for MRV, no program guide data/manual programming only, would be fair.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

bicker said:


> No. The box isn't paid off at just one year. Maybe at three years, so yeah, after three years


Sorry, but I can no longer buy into the _myth_ that is so widespread here that the box requires $300 in subscription fees to pay for itself. I have looked inside my TiVo HD, and while I do not have the luxury of an iSuppli breakdown on components, I would be surprised if this box was not build-able for a hundred bucks. But given a certain amount of latitude here, it seems clear that direct sales at 300 bucks involves profit on the hardware _before_ subscription fees.

And even if they gave 33% to their resellers, I am reasonably confident that would still cover their costs (and then some).

50 bucks for the Broadcom chipset, 20 for the drive, 10 for the can, and another 10 for the cheesy power supply that's 90 bucks. Of course you can factor in the reported $60Mil/year on R&D, but considering what has returned in product innovation from that investment over the last few years, I am guessing that is mostly a case of waste and mis-management.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

solutionsetc said:


> Sorry, but I can no longer buy into the _myth_ that is so widespread here that the box requires $300 in subscription fees to pay for itself. I have looked inside my TiVo HD, and while I do not have the luxury of an iSuppli breakdown on components, I would be surprised if this box was not build-able for a hundred bucks. But given a certain amount of latitude here, it seems clear that direct sales at 300 bucks involves profit on the hardware _before_ subscription fees.


You have no idea what you're talking about here.

TiVo has directly said they do not make a profit on the hardware.

The audited accounting figures that TiVo releases show the cost of hardware revenues is about 30% more than the revenue due to hardware. That doesn't figure in R&D at all which is entirely separate. You can read the financial figures yourself

Both of these statements would get TiVo into major, major trouble if they weren't true.

This is a custom motherboard with at least one custom chip (I think - it's been a while since I verified the chip, and it's not a major one) manufactured in very low quantities by an outside subcontractor - quantities are not high enough for TiVo to have their factory.

Note that there's been reports here that Comcast etc pay about $400 a piece for each of their HD DVRs - those are from major manufacturers in much larger quantities than TiVo makes.

If it's an inexpensive as you claim, then obviously cablecard ready HTPCs are just about as cheap (perhaps a little bit more for more processing power). Where are they?

Lots of evidence against you, and you have no facts to support you, except your quite uninformed guess of what some of the components cost.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

CrispyCritter said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about here.


Here you go again. Wasn't it you proclaiming TiVo made no profit on a $60 802.11 "G" wireless adaptor in an earlier thread? based on something you thought they "told" you.

You go ahead and keep on listening to what they "tell" you. Go ahead and open your TiVo HD up and tell me that it costs more than $300 to make. Show me the numbers (as opposed to what you've been told) and I'll recant my assessment.

There is no evidence against me short of business accounting practices. $400 is what Comcast charges you if you steel the box. You think they aren't making major profit on this. Hell, they charge $200 if you lose one of their cable modem/TA adaptors a sixty dollar item at _*retail*_ at best (which Vonage and AT&T give away - and don't want back)!

Your naivety is astonishing!


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

solutionsetc said:


> Here you go again. Wasn't it you proclaiming TiVo made no profit on a $60 802.11 "G" wireless adaptor in an earlier thread? based on something you thought they "told" you.
> 
> You go ahead and keep on listening to what they "tell" you. Go ahead and open your TiVo HD up and tell me that it costs more than $300 to make. Show me the numbers (as opposed to what you've been told) and I'll recant my assessment.
> 
> ...


Does it matter what TiVo makes (or has a loss) on the hardware ? You purchase a item because you want it at the price that it is being offered and you agree with the terms of that purchase, TiVo has said that their box need a sub to work period, what difference would it make if it cost them only $10 to make it, look at Windows 7, what do you think it cost MS to produce that DVD product, not more than $10 for any version and you can only use it once on one computer.
A Co. can do what they want (as long as the item is legal) as long as they are up front about what you are getting and limitations that are going to be imposed.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

solutionsetc said:


> Here you go again. Wasn't it you proclaiming TiVo made no profit on a $60 802.11 "G" wireless adaptor in an earlier thread? based on something you thought they "told" you.
> 
> You go ahead and keep on listening to what they "tell" you. Go ahead and open your TiVo HD up and tell me that it costs more than $300 to make. Show me the numbers (as opposed to what you've been told) and I'll recant my assessment.
> 
> ...


Your knowledge of the real business world is astonishing. Things cost money in the real world, and it's surprising how much they cost. The $400 is what the cable companies are charged (as stated by ex-employees).

You also don't read very carefully. I never claimed that TiVo didn't make money on the wireless adapter at $60; they obviously sell it to Amazon for much less than $60 - how much money do they make off of that sale? But the overhead on a TiVo store sale is very substantial - obviously substantial enough so that TiVo feels they can support their customers best by selling adapters to Amazon at much lower prices. If TiVo were only interested in making money off the adapters, and they make bunches of money selling the adapters in the TiVo store, then why do they sell to Amazon in the first place?

I claimed the TiVo store as a whole does not make money, and that any profit on the adapter is not a factor in whether they include wireless in the S4. I stand by that claim and supported it.

And once again, you ignored the arguments you didn't have any answer to - if the parts are as cheap as you say, then cablecard HTPCs should be just about the price of a TiVo. Where are they at that price? Why are people all excited about just a cablecard tuner card at a substantially higher price than the entire TiVo? (I agree it is more capable than that in a TiVo, but it's just one card...)

Side note, I wonder what a TiVo would do without such non-essential things like a CPU or a custom motherboard or tuners or cablecard interface? (Non-essential or essentially free since they don't seem to exist in your pricing scheme, even though each in real life costs more than some things you do mention.) Where's all the costs of selling things direct instead of through retail channels? That's much greater than the individual costs you mention. Even the costs of their free shipping is about as much as the individual items you mention.

TiVo has no incentive (and lots of legal consequences) of misleading folks with their accounting numbers. By now, you've had a chance to read the audited TiVo figures (if not in my link, then in the Edgar filings of past years). What numbers do you claim TiVo is lying about?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

solutionsetc said:


> Sorry, but I can no longer buy into the _myth_ that is so widespread here that the box requires $300 in subscription fees to pay for itself.


If you knew how to read financial disclosures, and were inclined to seek them out and do so, then you wouldn't need to "buy into" anything, and you'd realize that it is no myth, but rather is reality.



solutionsetc said:


> I have looked inside my TiVo HD, and while I do not have the luxury of an iSuppli breakdown on components, I would be surprised if this box was not build-able for a hundred bucks.


If you were to do a mass-spec analysis of Lipitor or Zyprexa, you'd find that you could synthesize the drug for pennies on the dollar, as compared to what it actually cost Pfizer or Eli Lilly to develop, test, fabricate, assure, package, market, distribute, and defend themselves against lawsuits, with regard to each drug.

You don't get to ignore the vast majority of cost, in a defense of your outrageous assertion that the costs are a myth. If you're trying to claim someone is not telling you the whole truth, you can't legitimately prosecute that perspective by not acknowledging the whole truth yourself.



solutionsetc said:


> But given a certain amount of latitude here, it seems clear that direct sales at 300 bucks involves profit on the hardware _before_ subscription fees.


Prove it with real hard data, including all the costs of running a business, rather than just those costs you choose to include in your calculations. Otherwise, accept that your assertions along these lines are without merit.



solutionsetc said:


> And even if they gave 33% to their resellers, I am reasonably confident that would still cover their costs (and then some).


I didn't even include profit margin in the listing of costs, earlier in this message. Thanks for reminding me.



solutionsetc said:


> Of course you can factor in the reported $60Mil/year on R&D, but considering what has returned in product innovation from that investment over the last few years, I am guessing that is mostly a case of waste and mis-management.


Holy heck, how arrogant can you get? Let's see you start your own DVR manufacturer, and do better. 

My point is critical: If you choose to blind yourself by a general disparagement of anyone or anything that doesn't please you, then you're going to be continually surprised by the reality you encounter. Good people doing a good job still encounter failure. Indeed, success is a combination of good works and luck -- without luck, good works will almost always lead to failure. Blaming people for not having luck is ridiculous, but you're going even further: Without any hard evidence, you are assuming failure means incompetence. Your perspective in this regard is (literally) indefensible.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lessd said:


> You purchase a item because you want it at the price that it is being offered and you agree with the terms of that purchase, TiVo has said that their box need a sub to work period, what difference would it make if it cost them only $10 to make it


Yes, very good point. A lot of consumers, especially these days (gosh I sound old), seem to believe that they are entitled to whatever they want, how they want it, without regard to what they implicitly agreed to as part of the commercial transaction. They insist on holding their suppliers' feet to the fire with regard to their own expectations on the supplier, regardless of whether those expectations are reasonable interpretations of what was actually offered by the suppliers and agreed-to as part of the sale. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge any obligations placed on them, regardless of how explicitly those obligations were outlined in the terms and conditions of the sale. They'll do whatever they want (i.e., make copies of DVDs, for example) with impunity and without even the slightest feeling of guilt, but if a supplier doesn't go twenty miles above and beyond what they actually promised to do, these consumers will viciously rip-into the suppliers, online and around the water cooler. We've evidently become a nation of raving, self-entitled cry-babies.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

CrispyCritter said:


> Your knowledge of the real business world is astonishing.


Well, I supposed I deserved that. My comment about naivety was uncalled for.



> Things cost money in the real world, and it's surprising how much they cost. The $400 is what the cable companies are charged (as stated by ex-employees).


If that is indeed the case, the Motorola box (which is built like a tank compared to the TiVo), is being sold for a profit by Motorola for $400. Open up a Moto 34 or 64 series and compare it side by side with what is in the TiVo and tell me the moto box doesn't cost more to manufacture.

As for comparing a TiVo to a desktop computer using CC tuners, you can compare a sub-compact to a truck if you want to, but I don't see the point.



bicker said:


> If you knew how to read financial disclosures


I read them. I see no breakdown of hardware costs. Simply cost of hardware revenues. Perfectly legitimate and expected accounting practices to lump other things related to cost of sales in there.

I simply maintain it does not take TiVo three years of service revenue to pay for a box. Maybe in the old days, but not now. And while you can leverage all sorts of company overhead in with hardware costs, that is more about the health of a company's management. if, in fact, TiVo has to earn $700 to make a profit on a TiVo HD, they shouldn't have to, and too many expenditures other than COGS are out of control.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bicker said:


> Nah, because it is not relevant, since, again, you are philosophizing about how a business should behave, not how consumers should behave.


Until someone passes a law that requires me to pay for products and services (Sunday!), *the way that every for-profit business behaves is dictated to by the consumer*.

I can sell toothbrushes that require a $12.95 monthly service contract. I would either 1) not sell very many toothbrushes, or 2) experience a great deal of _toothbrush piracy_ as people continued to use my toothbrush without paying me the monthly fee. Maybe I could require them to plug their toohbrush into the internet daily and rig a mechanism to cause the bristles to fall out if they do not pay. This would significantly increase my cost to produce my toothbrush (perhaps justifying the $12.95 toothbrush usage fee!). It sounds counterproductive.



> What are you talking about? There were no personal attacks there. You're seeing things. I explained very fairly and reasonably why I disagree with what you were saying.


Counting from just the last couple messages, I've twice been accused of perpetuating a 'holy war' against Tivo, once accused of 'mental masturbation', and now twice told 'how disappointed I'm going to be'. These aren't debates on the message, they're attacks against the messenger, his psychology, and his motivations.

As to whether or not I'm setting myself up for 'disappointment', I'm contemplating a DVR not entering into a 30 year marriage. The level of disappointment regardless of the choice will be negligible.

As far as Tivo is concerned, I like the company. I've liked the company since the beginning. I think the product was fantastic and was a game changer to the way people watch television. However, I also think the company is painting itself into an evolutionary corner, a dead end, with this marketing strategy. It may have been fine when there was no competition or when there was a large infrastructure required to support the DVRs. None of that is true anymore.

Tivo needs to adapt, and needs to do it quickly.

Perhaps you and I simply have a great difference in philosophy. I see businesses producing and marketing the products that consumers want (for a profit, duh). Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position appears to be that the business should market the product that it wants, ignore the consumer, and enforce it's will using legal and technological means. hmmm ... That's worked great for the audio CD industry and the DVD industry.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

smbaker said:


> I can sell toothbrushes that require a $12.95 monthly service contract. I would either 1) not sell very many toothbrushes, or 2) experience a great deal of _toothbrush piracy_ as people continued to use my toothbrush without paying me the monthly fee. Maybe I could require them to plug their toohbrush into the internet daily and rig a mechanism to cause the bristles to fall out if they do not pay. This would significantly increase my cost to produce my toothbrush (perhaps justifying the $12.95 toothbrush usage fee!). It sounds counterproductive.


If your upfront with you customers on your toothbrush business idea go for it as it would legal, but I would not spend much money setting it up this business.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lessd said:


> If your upfront with you customers on your toothbrush business idea go for it as it would legal, but I would not spend much money setting it up this business.


I think my toothbrush is going to be a resounding success. It's going to cost $300 and come with built in wifi and a service that keeps track of how often you brush your teeth and will send you tweets if you forget. It'll only cost $12.95/mo * for this service. (* If you should cancel your tooth monitoring service, then the bristles fall out of the brush. Lifetime toothbrush service available for $399, and can be transfered to other toothbrushes for only $199)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

smbaker said:


> I think my toothbrush is going to be a resounding success. It's going to cost $300 and come with built in wifi and a service that keeps track of how often you brush your teeth and will send you tweets if you forget. It'll only cost $12.95/mo * for this service. (* If you should cancel your tooth monitoring service, then the bristles fall out of the brush. Lifetime toothbrush service available for $399, and can be transfered to other toothbrushes for only $199)


Let me know when i can order !!


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

lessd said:


> Let me know when i can order !!


Second half of 2010 at best, probably means 2011. And probably not hackable. A non-starter.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Until someone passes a law that requires me to pay for products and services (Sunday!), the way that every for-profit business behaves is dictated to by the consumer.


Wrong. Not "dictated". Rather, business tracks how consumers behave, and then structure strategies to best exploit that behavior. Your belief that you have some dictatorial power is the root of your misunderstanding.



smbaker said:


> I can sell toothbrushes that require a $12.95 monthly service contract.


That's non-sequitur. We're not talking about toothbrushes.



smbaker said:


> Counting from just the last couple messages, I've twice been accused of perpetuating a 'holy war' against Tivo, once accused of 'mental masturbation', and now twice told 'how disappointed I'm going to be'. These aren't debates on the message, they're attacks against the messenger, his psychology, and his motivations.


No they're not. You're reading phrases out of context. If you read the phrases in context, you'll understand the context that they're cased within.

Stop looking to be insulted; please try to read and actually understand the messages you're replying to. Thanks.



smbaker said:


> As to whether or not I'm setting myself up for 'disappointment', I'm contemplating a DVR not entering into a 30 year marriage. The level of disappointment regardless of the choice will be negligible.


The duration doesn't matter. What constructive purpose does it serve to deliberately or inadvertently misunderstand reality leading to chronic, recurring dissatisfaction and disappointment?



smbaker said:


> Tivo needs to adapt, and needs to do it quickly.


As I've said many times, there may not be any profitable business case for a stand-alone HD DVR. There may be no viable adaptation for TiVo, that would satisfy your expectations.



smbaker said:


> Perhaps you and I simply have a great difference in philosophy. I see businesses producing and marketing the products that consumers want (for a profit, duh). Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position appears to be that the business should market the product that it wants, ignore the consumer, and enforce it's will using legal and technological means.


You surely are either not reading or not understanding what I'm writing. There is nothing in what I've written that says anything of the sort. Indeed, what you're doing here is a pretty nasty corruption.

I've said what the reality is several times in this thread, and reiterated it earlier in this message: Mass-market suppliers watch consumer behaviors and structure their offerings to best exploit those consumer behaviors for the benefit of their owners. Your refusal to accept this reality is, at this point, the entirety of what we're talking about.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Wil said:


> Second half of 2010 at best, probably means 2011. And probably not hackable. A non-starter.


The toothbrush will be completely non-hackable. A cryptographically secure checksum will be computed from each individual bristle, verified during every second of teehbrushing by a kernel running in the toothbrush head, which is in turn protected by a secure hash burned into an un-readable prom contained in the toothbrush handle. If at any time the cryptographic hashes do not match, all of the bristles will fall out. If the prom is tampered with, all of the bristles will fall out. If the device malfunctions and the bristles fall out outside of the warranty, then you can transfer your service to another toothbrush for only $199.

I am now seeking venture capital. You could be among the first to invest in the future of toothbrushery.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bicker said:


> Wrong. Not "dictated". Rather, business tracks how consumers behave, and then structure strategies to best exploit that behavior. Your belief that you have some dictatorial power is the root of your misunderstanding.


I do have a dictatorial power, the absolute and final power to say "No". The consumer can say "No, I will not buy your product" and that authority is absolute. Business cannot force consumers to purchase products. Business is subservient to consumers.



> That's non-sequitur. We're not talking about toothbrushes.


Who is 'we' ? Have a mouse in your pocket? You can talk about what you want, but I most certainly am hosting an avid discussion of toothbrushes.



> What constructive purpose does it serve to deliberately or inadvertently misunderstand reality leading to chronic, recurring dissatisfaction and disappointment?


Apparantly you and I can't simply agree to disagree. If I should happen to disagree with your point of view, I am not only misunderstanding reality, but also subjecting myself to recurring dissatisfaction and disappointment ... over ... the ... purchase ... of ... a ... dvr. I'm sorry if this bursts your dictatorial bubble, but each consumer is still free to choose whether or not he wants to buy a product. He can decide this for a number of different reasons. Mine is based on two reasons (click back 3 messages or so to see them explained in detail): 1) I want the most value for my money, and 2) I don't believe in paying monthly service fees for something that I own.



> Your refusal to accept this reality is, at this point, the entirety of what we're talking about.


That, and toothbrushes....

Corporations can do whatever 'mass market studies' they wan't. That doesn't make them correct. They can make mistakes and they often do.

This argument is starting to become tedious. I'll continue if you want, but I'm merely repeating the same thing that I've said for the last three messages. I'll cede you the point that you're free to buy whatever DVR you wan't, including one with monthly service fees. I'm going to do the very same thing and buy whatever DVR I want. It might be a Tivo or it might not, but it will not include a monthly service fee. I'm fully willing to risk the consequences of reality becoming unwoven and dogs and cats living together and mass hysteria if I have somehow used unapproved DVR reasoning in making my purchase. I don't think it will come to that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> I do have a dictatorial power, the absolute and final power to say "No".


That's called "veto power"; it is not dictatorial power.



smbaker said:


> The consumer can say "No, I will not buy your product" and that authority is absolute. Business cannot force consumers to purchase products.


The same logic applies in the *other *direction: Business can say, "No, I will not make that product offering at the price consumers demand it at," and that authority is absolute. Consumers cannot force businesses to make specific product offerings at specific prices.



smbaker said:


> Business is subservient to consumers.


Incorrect: It is an equal balance.



smbaker said:


> Who is 'we' ?


Considering that you are replying to my message, "we" is you and me. The word "we" applies to at least two people. One (you); two (me). Two people. We.



smbaker said:


> Have a mouse in your pocket? You can talk about what you want, but I most certainly am hosting an avid discussion of toothbrushes.


You can spew whatever silliness you want, but that's you, that's not "we". We are talking about what we are talking about -- what both of us decide to talk with each other about, not whatever irrelevancies and distractions you decide to dump into the discussion.



smbaker said:


> > What constructive purpose does it serve to deliberately or inadvertently misunderstand reality leading to chronic, recurring dissatisfaction and disappointment?
> 
> 
> Apparantly you and I can't simply agree to disagree. If I should happen to disagree with your point of view, I am not only misunderstanding reality, but also subjecting myself to recurring dissatisfaction and disappointment ...


Ignore the "misunderstand reality" aspect for a minute, and reread the sentence you're replying to. Do you find yourself dissatisfied or disappointed with what product and service providers offer you? Don't answer. I don't really care. Just think about it. If you find yourself continually *****ing about what companies do, then accept that the problem is within you, with regard to your ability or (more likely) willingness to operate in accordance with reasonable expectations.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

I feel like this is a Dem/Repub argument here.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

solutionsetc said:


> if, in fact, TiVo has to earn $700 to make a profit on a TiVo HD, they shouldn't have to, and too many expenditures other than COGS are out of control.





smbaker said:


> I'll cede you the point that you're free to buy whatever DVR you wan't, including one with monthly service fees. I'm going to do the very same thing and buy whatever DVR I want. It might be a Tivo or it might not, but it will not include a monthly service fee.


Moxi is worth every penny and there are no monthly fees


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Moxi is worth every penny and there are no monthly fees


there are no monthly fees with lifetime + Tivo either, and that price is equivalent to Moxi. Tivo just gives you a choice to dump their box after a year and not eat the entire cost.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

fatlard said:


> Yes, it was the fourth response but each response was just as detail as the one I linked.
> 
> That is your opinion.
> 
> ...



Will the Moxi allow me to transfer terabytes of recordings to a PC for burning to a BD or storage on a hard drive?

If not then that statement makes no sense.

it's seems just the opposite. Moxi doesn't seem to come close to what TiVo offers me.

Plus TiVo doesn't force people into one payment option. People can choose between a higher upfront cost with lifetime or a lower upfront cost with a monthly fee.
Moxi gives you no choices. It's lifetime service or nothing.

Another reason Moxi doesn't come close to what TiVo offers.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Moxi is worth every penny and there are no monthly fees


TiVo has the same thing but gives you a choice. Moxi gives you no payment choices. They are not felxible like TiVo is.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> TiVo has the same thing but gives you a choice. Moxi gives you no payment choices. They are not felxible like TiVo is.


Flexibility of DLNA support lets you play HulU on the Moxi


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Flexibility of DLNA support lets you play HulU on the Moxi


Again I state, why do you need Hulu? It's crap quality compared to Cable feed, and the whole point of a Moxi is to record shows from Cable in HD.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Hulu is a last resort service for me. If I really want to watch it and there is no other choice, I watch it on HULU. Fortunately that rarely happens.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Flexibility of DLNA support lets you play HulU on the Moxi


And how does this relate to Tivo HD w/o subscription?

Although you are already on my ignore list, I have the misfortune is still seeing your posts when quoted. It's a shame with the recent influx of Moxi fans that this TiVo Community Forum doesn't feel so much like a friendly community anymore. It's as if obnoxious neighbors have moved in, and now their dogs have gotten into the trash, littering the sidewalks and yards.

It's great you're now a fan of Moxi, but please remain on topic, and leave your comments such as those above in the appropriate Moxi forum.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Please don't feed the fake Moxi troll.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Hulu is a last resort service for me. If I really want to watch it and there is no other choice, I watch it on HULU. Fortunately that rarely happens.


eztv >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hulu


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

b_scott said:


> eztv >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hulu


Exactly! With a fast internet connection, BitTorrent allows you to download an HD version of a show in minutes. The quality blows Hulu away, and you don't even have to deal with commercials. It may not technically be legal, but that's a whole different discussion.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

b_scott said:


> I feel like this is a Dem/Repub argument here.


Which one am I?


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

I'm not sure..... lol


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bicker said:


> If you find yourself continually *****ing about what companies do, then accept that the problem is within you, with regard to your ability or (more likely) willingness to operate in accordance with reasonable expectations.


Again, we seem to be focusing on me, as a person, making personal inferences for which you have no data, rather than on the actual arguments at hand. Every one of your messages seems to take this same approach. It's tedious and boring. There's nothing new here.

I'm moving on.... and I'm going to buy whichever DVR I want, for whatever reasons I choose. Short of an act of Congress, there's nothing you can do to force me to buy the product of your choosing. We are still (mostly) free.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I truly hope you make a good choice, and don't carry into it unfounded expectations that will eventually lead to your disappointment. Best wishes.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> It's as if obnoxious neighbors have moved in, and now their dogs have gotten into the trash, littering the sidewalks and* [pooping in other peoples]* yards.


Fixed your post so I could agree with it. 



slowbiscuit said:


> Please don't feed the fake Moxi troll.


----------



## richklein (Feb 9, 2001)

stiffi said:


> I would like Tivo to offer a MRV only subscription. Right now I have a Series 2 I'm paying for that can't get live TV. I have FIOS and they are all digital. So it just sits there, no signal whatsoever, so the kids can transfer their shows from the HD. It would be nice for Tivo to throw me a bone.
> 
> Of course, as a business model it makes no sense. Because of the situation, I'll probably just end up buying a Premiere and move the HD to replace this Series 2. Probably exactly what Tivo wants.


I didnt realize you couldnt use a series 2 with Fios. I am considering switching to them but I have 3 series 2's. I guess I either need to get a newer premiere or dont go to fios?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> I truly hope you make a good choice, and don't carry into it unfounded expectations that will eventually lead to your disappointment. Best wishes.


The disappointed people are people who bought tivo expecting (generally unfounded) would be adding features they want/expect.

QAM mapping. Offer streaming as a workaround CCI flags. Hulu.

It seems to me selecting a DVR that already offers what you're looking for is a way to minimize disappointment. Alternatively going with a provider DVR with no upfront cost and no commitment is another way to minimize the impact of disappointment.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

steve614 said:


> Fixed your post so I could agree with it.


Thanks! :up:


----------

