# DirecTV buys REPLAY



## sluciani (Apr 21, 2003)

In case you missed.

Japan's D&M Sells ReplayTV business to DirecTV.
http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071213/tbs-d-m-directv-7318940.html

/steve


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

There's two other threads on this (at least) - one in Coffee House and one in the DirecTV TiVo section.


----------



## rminsk (Jun 4, 2002)

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=377825
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=377855


----------



## milominderbinder (Dec 18, 2006)

There were two ways to get to town and DIRECTV just bought one of them. 

This answers the question, "Will DIRECTV get back together with TiVo?"

- Craig


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

It doesn't answer it, but it sure puts another nail in the coffin.

This can only be good. An influx of smart programmers and existing unique features means better PVRs in the future. I don't see it as a loss to anyone, as Replay, not being in the HD arena, had become sadly irrelevant.

This is the one and only indication counter to the general impression that DTV is so arrogant as to think they have the only PVR solution or that it isn't flawed. This means that they probably recognize the flaws, and expect that this will help.


----------



## milominderbinder (Dec 18, 2006)

stevel said:


> There's two other threads on this (at least) - one in Coffee House and one in the DirecTV TiVo section.


This is the forum that is most relevant. HD is the battlefield for DIRECTV and TiVo.

- Craig


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> This is the one and only indication counter to the general impression that DTV is so arrogant as to think they have the only PVR solution or that it isn't flawed. This means that they probably recognize the flaws, and expect that this will help.


Right. Because the open CE program they are running is not a recognition of any issues. New testing code practically every week for about a year means they arroganly think they have the whole thing solved.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Right. Because the open CE program they are running is not a recognition of any issues. New testing code practically every week for about a year means they arroganly think they have the whole thing solved.


Well, I'm not sure what you call their (lack of) trial program, but I consider that part of their arrogant attitude!!


----------



## bpratt (Nov 20, 2004)

These statements:

DirecTV director of public relations Robert Mercer said the acquisition of Replay TV's assets "will enable us to explore new services as well as the potential of Replay's [Internet Protocol] technology."

DirecTV considers ReplayTV's portfolio of patents and pending applications "to be a significant portfolio in the area of DVRs and advanced DVR features," according to Mercer. He added that DirecTV has not made any decisions concerning the integration of ReplayTV technology with its existing platform.

From this article:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6512578.html

lead me to believe D* only intends to use some of the Replay patents to upgrade the HR20/HR21 DVRs.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

bpratt said:


> These statements:
> 
> DirecTV director of public relations Robert Mercer said the acquisition of Replay TV's assets "will enable us to explore new services as well as the potential of Replay's [Internet Protocol] technology."
> 
> ...


Uhh, yeah. What did you expect them to do with Replay, resurrect the Replay PVR platform as a standalone to compete with their own product? Stand their PVR next to a newly reborn Replay so that we could point out how their box doesn't measure up? I hope you didn't expect them to buy Replay just to sink money into Replay's internet strategy.

Maybe it wasn't obvious, but those statements only confirm exactly what I would expect them to do...integrate the features of Replay into future DTV PVRs and inject some sorely-needed programming brainpower into the ranks of their engineers. If they can also actually field-upgrade the HR2x with some blood from Replay, that's an unexpected but really great bonus. If they concentrate solely on the HR2x it will still make its way into future gens of PVRs. What more would anyone want? Everybody wins, I think.


----------



## gio1269 (Jul 27, 2006)

RS4 said:


> Well, I'm not sure what you call their (lack of) trial program, but I consider that part of their arrogant attitude!!


Get OVER this trial thing!! Almost ANY product/service you buy does NOT come with a trial. My Original Tivo did not have one, not did the HR10!

But if yo buy a TiVo then you don't need a trial if you never used it right?

God... you are pathetic!


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

gio1269 said:


> Get OVER this trial thing!! Almost ANY product/service you buy does NOT come with a trial. My Original Tivo did not have one, not did the HR10!
> 
> But if yo buy a TiVo then you don't need a trial if you never used it right?
> 
> God... you are pathetic!


Do you ever answer any post without reverting to name calling? You and some of the other folks in the HR20 army seem to be very talented at belittling people - but at least we know what you're an expert in.

The fact is that almost all cable companies will allow trial periods and don't see the need to charge me up to $780 to bring the box into my home for a few days. Even Tivo gives a 30-day trial, so my point is perfectly valid.

DirecTV is very arrogant as demonstrated by their practices and policies!!! You folks just can't admit that they have become a second-rate company.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

gio1269 said:


> Get OVER this trial thing!! Almost ANY product/service you buy does NOT come with a trial. My Original Tivo did not have one, not did the HR10!
> 
> But if yo buy a TiVo then you don't need a trial if you never used it right?
> 
> God... you are pathetic!


You know, I didn't even think he was talking about a trial period for the user. I thought he was talking about a testing period prior to general release.

One day he is arguing that the lack of a customer trial period means DirecTV knows the system is no good now he is arguing that the same thing means they are arrogant.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> You know, I didn't even think he was talking about a trial period for the user. I thought he was talking about a testing period prior to general release.
> 
> One day he is arguing that the lack of a customer trial period means DirecTV knows the system is no good now he is arguing that the same thing means they are arrogant.


Why are the 2 mutually exclusive? DirecTV is in the drivers seat at the moment - people will flock to them because of they offer more HD. So, what do they do? No trial period for the dvr and increase the penalties for leaving. If their dvr is as good as all you say, why would they feel the need to do either thing - why not allow me to try it at home for 30 days with my current equipment, and then upgrade me with new sat dish if I like the box? Answer - the box is a second-rate competitor to Tivo, and their growing arrogance.

A lot of you say that DirecTV forced out Tivo for the bottom line. I think it was because of arrogance and power - the need to control their customers. Why else would you potentially offend a a group of clients that has a turnover rate that is 1/3 (or less) then your general turnover rate?

If DirecTV were strictly thinking about the bottom line, they would have formed a different relationship with Tivo - one that would allow for some kind revenue sharing. For example, they could have developed their own box and licensed Tivo the mpeg4 technology so that Tivo could sell their own subscriptions to those of us who wanted to stay with Tivo and get an mpeg4 dvr. That way, DirecTV keeps everbody happy and continues to grow the bottom line.

Instead, we find DirecTV developing a bigger screw to use on their clients' backsides. That is plain and simple arrogance!!


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

RS4 said:


> A lot of you say that DirecTV forced out Tivo for the bottom line. I think it was because of arrogance and power - the need to control their customers. Why else would you potentially offend a a group of clients that has a turnover rate that is 1/3 (or less) then your general turnover rate?


There is no evidence that the Tivo software was the cause of the lower churn. Any DVR customer has a lower churn rate than a non-dvr customer. Doesn't matter if it's a Tivo.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

RS4 said:


> ...A lot of you say that DirecTV forced out Tivo for the bottom line. I think it was because of arrogance and power - the need to control their customers. Why else would you potentially offend a a group of clients that has a turnover rate that is 1/3 (or less) then your general turnover rate?
> 
> If DirecTV were strictly thinking about the bottom line, they would have formed a different relationship with Tivo - one that would allow for some kind revenue sharing...


Nuh-uh. I think it was pretty obviously greed. When they needed Tivo, the partnership meant something to both parties, and also benefitted customers. Now they feel they don't need Tivo, and they are being proven right on that count.

Unless you were a fly on the wall in that boardroom, how do you know Tivo wasn't the one who wanted a divorce? For all we know DTV, being in the driver's seat because they now had PVR options, offered a deal that was naturally less than the current one Tivo was taking for granted, and Tivo foolishly or due to pride, turned that down because it was a cut in pay and was an admission that Tivo had let other companies' technology catch up with them (or at least gave the DBS vendors and customers the illusion that they were not the kings anymore). Pride cometh before a fall, and spite can never be taken to the bank and cashed. If you can't put that behind you and be a shrewd businessman, even if you have a superior product, it will suffer. I think that's what happened to Tivo. Their Beta just got VHS-ed.

But let's all lower the attack volume on RS4, and please be a little more civil.


----------



## gio1269 (Jul 27, 2006)

> RS4 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you ever answer any post without reverting to name calling?
> ...


----------



## DonDon (Jan 14, 2007)

My 2 sense.

After living with an Hr20 for over a month now, all I can say is, "What a piece of crap."

If it works, the picture is great, and some of the features are useful, BUT...

It has missed recordings for no apparent reason.

The response to the remote just quits working sometimes.

The RF mode on the remote is so slow as to be unusable. I had to switch back to IR mode.

The menu system is confusing and completely counter intuitive. My wife figured out the TIVO interface in about 5 minutes. She refuses to use the HR20. My Tivo boxes are just easier to use. Do Dtv's engineers have wives? Take yer crap home and have them try it out before you foist this junk on us.

And of course the BOZO installer who came out to hook up the HR20 claimed, "Oh, you will never have an outage because of weather after I hook things up because I will align the dish perfectly." Look, I know better, but most people don't. I had to go out and remove the 6 inches of snow off of my dish this morning before I could watch football. And even then, 2 of the games I tried to watch lost their feed to DTV. I had to switch to the OTA input to continue to watch the games.

Look, the ONLY reason I moved to DTV 5 years ago was the TIVO DVRs. I am test driving an HR20 for the next 2 years, but I will be forced to move to Comcrap or WOW if things do not improve. Hopefully, the Replay acquisition will help. I guess only time will tell.

Don


----------



## STL (Feb 10, 2005)

bpratt said:


> ...lead me to believe D* only intends to use some of the Replay patents to upgrade the HR20/HR21 DVRs.


I think the primary reason they bought ReplayTV was to obtain their patents in hopes to protect their HR20/HR21 DVRs from litigation. I realize that D* and TiVo currently have a no-litigation agreement, but that will run out eventually. To a lesser extent, I think this shows D* believes that TiVo has some strong patents (based on how the litigation against E* is going).


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

STL said:


> I think the primary reason they bought ReplayTV was to obtain their patents in hopes to protect their HR20/HR21 DVRs from litigation.


any hr20\21 manufactured before their deal with Tivo runs out in a few years would be covered forever. it would only be future dvr designs that they might need the patents to cover.


----------



## Scott D (Jun 17, 2001)

DonDon said:


> My 2 sense.
> 
> After living with an Hr20 for over a month now, all I can say is, "What a piece of crap."
> 
> ...


Let's not forget about some basic DVR functions too. Some of them suck too. Of those I am thinking of, absolutely no planning went into this thing. The only planning that went into this thing that I can think of is the VOD. It seems to me that this was DirecTV's ultimate goal. The Murdoch machine!!!

Want to know more? PM me and I will send you my test results you can try out for yourself.


----------

