# My thoughts on why I think TIVO is not more Successful



## scottfll954 (Jul 31, 2012)

1.. public is not away that it can be used with most cable companies
2.. Even though it is simple to hook up ..the general public has no clue
3.. Cable companies make it tuff to get a cable card.. you have to go down wait online and hopefully your "cable plan " will not change

its a up hill battle for TIVO which they are constantly fighting ..lets see if BOLT helps them win it


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

My opinion....

1) Price is too high for most people to justify when they can just rent one from their cable company for $20/ and if it breaks it will be replaced for free. Especially when they hide the price of the DVR into the bundle you're paying for anyway. 

2) Setting up a CableCARD is a huge PITA and even the cable company support people don't know much about them. So you have to be self educated on how they work and very patient when getting them setup.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The FCC refuses to follow the law and create a level playing field for third party set top boxes. Cable company executives have taken jobs with the FCC and vice versa. Tivo doesn't have the revenue to attract an FCC executive.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Activating TiVo with FIOS was relatively painless, but the one problem I had, would throw a lot of people for a loop. When I split my cable connection another time to feed my Roamio, it was suffering drop out on certain channels. My FIOS DVRs were not. I happened to have some other cable runs from back when I had DirectTv, and after switching to that, it cleaned up, but somebody not inclined to fix things themselves would be stuck having to pay someone (ex: Verizon) to clean it up.

So is it any wonder that people prefer a one stop solution? Let alone one which requires no money down?

And then we have the cord cutters who want to get rid of monthly fees or at least reduce them, not add more.

TiVo needs to be significantly faster, better, and less expensive. Are they there already with the Bolt? I don't think so, but we'll see.

As I've mentioned in other threads they also need to repair their reputation. The Roamio and Mini hit the point in maturity and price this Summer where I could justify buying it, but I was still on the edge until I was offered the loyalty discount.

TiVo has strengths and they should build on them and emphasize them. They should improve eSATA expansion so the external drive can be turned off, or swapped at will. They should make it easier for customers to upgrade the internal HD and not violate the warranty. They should at all times do everything in their power to help us preserve our recordings. If there's a way to permit a hard drive to be taken out of service from one DVR, and then moved to another, they should make it happen.

Lastly, nobody understands why they should have to spend $15/month for guide data. If they want to rent or lease the boxes, that's what they should do. Then hire a service organization to swap/repair them. But those should be add-on services for people who need them. Come in with an aggressive price for those who don't and they'll help make sure that those who do are aware of the product.

Alas, I'd be surprised if TiVo did any of this. They had their chance to redefine how they sell their products with Bolt, and they just re-entrenched in their old ways.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

People don't really care about quality., or not enough of them exist to sustain a retail DVR biz. 

They are ok with crappy compressed MP3 music on little speakers, they are ok with sub par big TV that they got for 199 on Black Friday. They are ok with what the cable co "gives them", among many other mediocrities I could enumerate. 

Only those "in the know" know the value that a TiVo provides. Yet this message needs more help to get out there besides the "loyals"'s word of mouth.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Cable companies already have the relationship with the customer and because of that and because they control the network, they have all the power and leverage.

Not that this is anything new. IT's been discussed 10x over on these boards.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

trip1eX said:


> Cable companies already have the relationship with the customer and because of that and because they control the network, they have all the power and leverage.
> 
> Not that this is anything new. IT's been discussed 10x over on these boards.


I hope that's enough for this thread to die a quick death.
.. [two periods for the OP]


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

J6P has never heard of TiVo and can not afford the price for TiVo. I actually just had a person at my house a week ago he never heard of TiVo. So this has prompted me to ask other people around me and most never heard of TiVo or they did hear of TiVo but did not know what they do.
The one point that all people brought up is it is to expensive and do not want the monthly fees.
Also all the people I have asked never heard of a CableCard so that is not even on their radar screen.
Most don't record anything and those that have a DVR feel that the two tuners is enough and none complained that the hard drive is to small. Those that have a cable DVR have drives sizes ranging form 160GB to 500GB.
This is another pitfall for TiVo is most people do not have any infrastructure in their homes and would need someone to put it in and hook it up. The cable and satellite companies do this for free but will not do this for TiVo.

Knowing these realities has convinced me that TiVo really has no chance of making it with the general population and those that participate on this forum are in a very insignificant minority and out of touch with reality. 
TiVo would have to actually sell their product for less than a hundred dollars and have no reoccurring service charges. Also would have to be very easy to hook up.


----------



## WatchinInTheNW (Sep 21, 2015)

Short time lurker / new TiVo Roamio owner here, thought I'd throw in my two cents on why I did not (previously) buy a TiVo and why ultimately I did.

It really came down to actually knowing they still existed. I'd heard of TiVo years and years ago when my boss got one and couldn't stop raving about it. At the time, I didn't do much TV watching, so wasn't really in the market for it and eventually, forgot about it.

Our household is unique in that we are OTA in one part of the house and cable in another (old house, limited connections, great reception over OTA, etc.) Been trying to get off cable completely, but the only thing holding me back was DVR - I do mostly timeshifting and didn't want to lose that. Been searching for a couple years for an OTA DVR solution but never found one that met my needs, which I determined to be: 1. Have guide data. 2. Be able to schedule series recordings. 3. Be able to watch in more than one room in the house. 4. Be an established enough company to not have to worry about them going out of business in a few years and having no guide data. And bonus, be able to stream to my iPad. (note, it wasn't super in depth research, just some searches every now and again when I thought of it). Never once in my searches did TiVo come up. I never thought of them either, perhaps because I did not equate them with OTA since the only person I knew who had one used it with cable. So that's why I didn't buy TiVo in the past - I had wholly forgotten they existed.

Then, a few weeks ago, purely by happenstance, I ran across the TiVo $300 OTA Roamio option on Amazon. Maybe by a suggestion based on my previous searches, not sure - I don't even remember now how I stumbled across it, but I know it wasn't during a search for an OTA DVR. I did a quick purview, popped over to the TiVo page to compare pricing (and somehow missed the big red banner that said SALE) and quickly ordered from Amazon, since sometimes their prices can be low one day and high the next.

I started doing research in depth after my impulse Amazon buy, found out TiVo was exactly what I wanted, and then found this forum, did more research, ended up buying one of the refurb Roamio basics with lifetime for the $300, and then a Stream, and then a Mini, and now consider myself a definite Tivo fan.

But I only happened on it by accident. TiVo needs better brand / household recognition, in my opinion, to broaden their customer base and not rely on customers just stumbling upon them. Granted, I'm not "too techy" but still, if it had been on my radar, I would have become a customer years ago.

Anyway, that's my story on how I became a new TiVo customer, and a big thanks to this forum as it helped me to solve the few minor troubles I've had during activation. TiVo support was great as well, and nothing has made me regret my investment in the slightest (not even the Bolt, which would have put the whole she-bang outside of what I was willing to pay. Getting the Roamios with the lifetime was the clincher, really.) So howdy to everyone, and hope to hang around for a long time!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Why TiVo isn't more successful is really simple: They haven't found a way to sell more product at an acceptable profit margin. 

Anyone who thinks they know how to do that with some simple magical proclamation must have some real big ones and must think that all the people who are and have work at TiVo over the last 15+ years are real idiots.

It's real easy to list all the reason a person might not buy a TiVo (which we have done in many threads many times), it is another thing to fully develop, manufacture, & market a stand alone DVR profitably. Given no one else has done it and all that is left other than TiVo is some marginal OTA players I would suggest the winning formula has eluded everyone. 

Just because many of us happen to be fans of owning our own DVRs doesn't mean there is a profitable market for one. I am also a big fan of high quality Plasma TVs and would take one any day over a LCD, we all know what happened to them. Hopefully the same doesn't happen to stand alone DVRS.


----------



## Emacee (Dec 15, 2000)

Never under estimate the power of inertia in driving consumer behavior. Most of people choose the default option, most of the time and those are pretty good odds.

The cable box works OK. Tivo is marginally better. But there is no easy way to demonstrate the specific differences. So, Tivo gets technologically sophisticated early adopter types and antenna users. Maybe a few cable users who had some major problem with their cable box - major enough to make it worth their while to investigate Tivo and pay extra for it.

But Tivo's future is limited. We are already into the streaming era and that makes recording broadcasts obsolete.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Yeah, for all the reasons above and others that I've elaborated on in other threads, I don't see TiVo ever becoming any more successful in the retail cable dvr market than they are now. If anything, DVRs in general are becoming obsolete technology thanks to cable's on demand platforms plus various online streaming services. I think OTA DVRs could be a growth area for TiVo for a few years at least, if they advertise them, but I have to admit I'm not optimistic for the company's continued existence post-2020, given general trends plus the end of their patent gravy train. Hopefully I'm wrong though.


----------



## celtic pride (Nov 8, 2005)

I think they need to show commercials for tivo during primetime they also need to sell tivo at target ,kmart and other stores! Also to make things worse i was at my local best buy apple valley california and they only had 1 tivo bolt and 2 $49.00 tivo OTA roamios on display and they had moved them from the back where the tvs are located to the front of the store right next to the harmony remotes! near the big appliances isle! who the heck is going over there to look for a tivo? and the victorville store had 0 tivos in stock! both stores had removed them from where the roku and other streaming boxes were. ( but they still had the tivo minis by the streaming boxes and blu ray players.


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

Cost of entry is a huge barrier (people don't do the math, people don't even understand they are paying for their DVR within their bundle, etc), BUT I don't think that is the biggest concern. I wish there was, but there just isn't a mass market for a 3rd party DVR. Most people just need theirs to record a couple shows and they do it fine.

One thing I think TiVo could do going forward is turn the mini into a box that can act as a Mini, of course, but more market it as a Fire TV/Roku/Apple TV/Chromecast competitor. OnePass is a differentiation from them; the streaming box that presents your shows as a DVR would. Ape and improve on Roku Feed for movies and you've got a compelling platform. They'd need more apps of course though. Tons more.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> It's real easy to list all the reason a person might not buy a TiVo (which we have done in many threads many times), it is another thing to fully develop, manufacture, & market a stand alone DVR profitably.


You make it sound like rocket science. You add up the costs to build the device, you add enough to cover your overhead, and then set your profit margin according to supply & demand and/or market strategy.

When I buy a TV from Best Buy, do I pay a subscription fee to help cover the cost of their web site? No. That's all part of their overhead and bundled in to the price.

The subscription fee should be a tool to offer a lower price, and whether that's actually how it is used, it's not how it's perceived by the market - and that's a problem.


----------



## Anotherpyr (May 6, 2015)

TiVo was pretty much first and has always had the better interface. The problem has been the lockout by the monopolies that own the cable, fiber, or satellites not wanting to spend much on hardware. That is why their DVRs are usually inferior to TiVo. But they started packaging them into plans to get people hooked and are usually good enough.

TiVo has always had a high cost of entry. You typically have to buy the device and then pay a monthly, annual, or lifetime price for the service. In the past this meant you had to desire a TiVo more than what the local service provider offered and either be willing to pay more for TiVo, or go "all in" and get the lifetime service and use it long enough to come out ahead.

I'm not sure that the bolt has solved this. The price is cheaper if you're an annual or monthly subscriber since the first year is included in the price. But the all in isn't a great price. If you look at the base bolt being $150 for a year of service and $149 for the box ($299), then the lifetime service now costs $750 ($150 + $600). This means you'd have to use the bolt for 5 years before all in would be less than an annual subscription.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

I think Steve Jobs said it best:






And WatchinInTheNW's post makes a great point too. People simply don't know they exist. Or if they DO know they exist, their name is considered a relic of the past.

Just in the last few months, when I mentioned having a Tivo, the responses were "Wow they're still around?" and "How old are you?"

They don't advertise. I saw a Tim Tebow ad once, and I never once saw that ROTA commercial in the hospital delivery room other than during the Rogers interview on CNBC or whatever it was. Rogers goes to New York and avails himself for interviews on cable news outlets a couple times a year when he has something to announce, and that's it.

They have practically no awareness to speak of.

Price and VOD are also important deal breakers.

The downloadable cablecard replacement has the potential to be a big boon for competition in STBs if it's really as simple as downloading security software. One can only hope.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jonw747 said:


> You make it sound like rocket science. You add up the costs to build the device, you add enough to cover your overhead, and then set your profit margin according to supply & demand and/or market strategy.
> 
> When I buy a TV from Best Buy, do I pay a subscription fee to help cover the cost of their web site? No. That's all part of their overhead and bundled in to the price.
> 
> The subscription fee should be a tool to offer a lower price, and whether that's actually how it is used, it's not how it's perceived by the market - and that's a problem.


Maybe you should call TiVo's CEO up and explain that too him, apparently it never dawn on him or anyone else that's work there that it would be so simple to make & sell a profitable stand alone DVR. They have tried every type of price option possible from $0 down with monthly payments to one time payments with no reoccurring fees and everything in between. Pricing options isn't the problem, demand at a profitable price point is.

Up to now TiVo and no one else has been able to create enough demand for stand alone cable DVRs to command a price point that makes them profitable. Thats why no one else makes them, if there was demand and stand alone DRVs were profitable other companies would be selling them or would have bought TiVo.


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

TIVO needs to position itself as not just a better DVR but a Whole house media distribution center. They seem to be fully aware that business as usual will no longer work.
Today's market is fast becoming a world where streaming and video on demand is were the action is at. TIVO has to build a bridge the the future and marry all forms of media into one great box.
I know what I want is to have the freedom to pick and choose how I get my TV and other forms of media. I also am aware that there will always be some cost involved in getting that media but am tired of paying for cables one size fits all over priced bundles. TIVO can not control all of this, some help is needed from the FCC or other governing bodies to free up the cable monopolies. Net neutrality internet competition is also a big part of the equation because we need to have a cost effective pipe for delivery.
OTA will be around for a long time and may even be coming back in many parts of the country.

In a nutshell TIVO needs to build new relations with content providers and do it better than everyone else.


----------



## Bytez (Sep 11, 2004)

Price and I don't remember the last time I saw a Tivo commercial. They have to overhaul their marketing.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bytez said:


> Price and I don't remember the last time I saw a Tivo commercial. They have to overhaul their marketing.


I have never seen a Roku commercial, but they seem to do fine.

TV commercials aren't cheap, and if a TV commercial costs more than the amount of revenue you get from new customers in return, then it isn't worth it. TiVo has done TV commercials before, and I assume that they have found over the years that they aren't effective for them at producing more revenue than they spend on them.


----------



## Barnstormer (Sep 23, 2015)

I have to agree that the TiVo OTA is a hidden jewel. As more and more people discover that they can get many channels of free TV OTA, Roamio OTA has a huge opportunity to further the TiVo brand. 

I struggled with some rather klugy devices to record shows over the air. Often they did not record or the cheap tuners could not give a descent picture and sound. The TiVo has made it easy. I record my favorite shows or events when broadcast and watch at my leisure. The fact that I can incorporate my Netflix account in with the broadcast shows makes it all the more flexible and useful. 

IMHO, TiVo should be marketing to the cord cutters who get descent OTA reception. Cutting the monthly guide fee to something more reasonable would also help, say $10 max. Or offer yearly or multi year discounts. Or continue the $250 lifetime deal. 

Sure cable offers much more but at a huge cost. TiVo makes OTA TV competitive with cable at a fraction of the cost that more people can actually afford. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Barnstormer (Sep 23, 2015)

I also agree that the marketing is horrible. I stumbled upon the TiVo accidentally while searching for ways to get an inferior device to record a show after it had slipped into a slumber mode. Somebody asked if I wanted it to work like a TiVo and that started my search. Otherwise I would still be struggling with a vastly inferior product. 

A simple ad saying something like "TiVo makes cutting the cable cord a lot easier and less painful" would be a good start. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

1. People do not know that there are different DVRs with different features. Most people think of a DVR as a channel guide and program recorder. In that sense, TiVo is just the most expensive of a lot of alternatives -- at least in the short run.
2. It's easy when the cable company owns everything. You get one bill. You call one guy when there is a problem.
3. TiVo is very overpriced. Bolt launch puts an exclamation point on this.
4. TiVo is like a used car salesman. Too much fine print and too many caveats.


----------



## dameatball (Feb 24, 2014)

shwru980r said:


> The FCC refuses to follow the law and create a level playing field for third party set top boxes. Cable company executives have taken jobs with the FCC and vice versa. Tivo doesn't have the revenue to attract an FCC executive.


This. Unfortunately TiVo doesn't have the incredibly deep pockets that the Time Warners, Concast, megacorps do to pay politicians. Cable companies have been able to essentially monopolize territories and make any segment of competing business very tough/impossible.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Cable offers "one stop shopping". One bill. One number to call for support. Access to all cable features including VoD, weather widgets etc. Lower initial outlay. Easier upgrade when it's time to upgrade your DVR. Cable system converts some channels to mp4. Cable gives you a new DVR. Tivo customers have to call, beg for a "deal" and still outlay hundreds of dollars.

Major advantage of tivo is ability to upgrade internal drive. That's of little interest to joe average. Access to VoD means cable customers don't have to record some shows we record. 

Tivo and minis may offer some cost savings vs cable. That requires an initial outlay $$$ and maybe be a harder sell.

JMO the commercial skip feature (Bolt) could be a game changer, I know an overstatement. That's a feature joe average would love. Given the contractual relationship cable companies have with programmers a feature cable companies might not be able to easily offer.


----------



## JimG19 (Jun 30, 2005)

OTA with all streaming apps for a one box solution is the future of television. Tivo needed to recognize this sooner and gear their advertising toward the younger crowd that consumes media in that manner. Think of it as a one box solution with Tivo and Roku built in. Instead Tivo spent too much time trying to be an alternative to cable dvr for the cable tv crowd.

Many people do not want several streaming boxes nor are they looking to continue to pay the high cost of cable television like prior generations, since there are other ways to get the same media.

I love tivo and have owned at least one for over 10 years. Their strength is in software development, not in developing devices that younger people (under 40) cannot do without. Most seniors that have cable due to the simplicity will keep their cable dvr option for the same reason.

Jim


----------



## Chuck_IV (Jan 1, 2002)

For me, I got Tivo because the Charter's DVRs are HORRIBLE. Coming from Directv, I was desperate for something that would give me reasonably similar functionality.

However, if the Charter DVR were similar to Directv's set up, I'd have never considered Tivo. The reason being that using a cable company DVR has several advantages with the main one being up front cost. There is none, while, if you have multiple TVs, Tivo can be upwards of $500 if you factor in minis. 

I think the up front costs are what is really holding people back. If you can get similar functionality for your cable company's DVR, why lay out the money for Tivo?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Anotherpyr said:


> TiVo was pretty much first and has always had the better interface. The problem has been the lockout by the monopolies that own the cable, fiber, or satellites not wanting to spend much on hardware. That is why their DVRs are usually inferior to TiVo.


I don't know exactly which DVR came first, but both Tivo and ReplayTV were both introduced in 1999. I believe Tivo was released in March and the ReplayTV followed in April of that year so they essentially came out at almost the same time. Both were revealed to the public at the CES in January of '99. ReplayTV and Microsoft's UltimateTV for DirecTV were actually superior DVRs to Tivo at the time, but legal issues killed the ReplayTV and Microsoft simply stopped supporting UltimateTV (sound familiar?). ReplayTV offered commercial skipping and network capabilities long before Tivo ever did. Unfortunately, the way they went about it ultimately got them embroiled in legal issues. They eventually sold off the company to Sonic Blue but never fully recovered and it died a slow death.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Up to now TiVo and no one else has been able to create enough demand for stand alone cable DVRs to command a price point that makes them profitable. Thats why no one else makes them, if there was demand and stand alone DRVs were profitable other companies would be selling them or would have bought TiVo.


If another company tried to enter the market, they'd likely get slammed with patent violations by TiVo.

The thing is I don't care why TiVo's pricing structure is wrong. I don't need to care. None of us need to care. It just is, and it's going to continue to limit their sales regardless of marketing.

The Bolt Aereo edition had better work out to something close to the $8/month that Aereo customers used to spend, or TiVo might as well have just thrown away the $1M they spent on that name and list.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Emacee said:


> The cable box works OK. Tivo is marginally better


I think the TiVo is far more than marginally better, at least compared to the cableco DVRs I've tried. Part of the reason nobody knows about TiVo is that TiVo doesn't advertise. I see Comcast ads for the X1 daily, but I don't recall ever seeing a TiVo television ad in the 15 years I've owned a TiVo.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

The cable or satellite DVRs are the "default" and they're GoodEnough (tm). Tivo is more expensive and more DIY.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

randian said:


> I think the TiVo is far more than marginally better, at least compared to the cableco DVRs I've tried. Part of the reason nobody knows about TiVo is that TiVo doesn't advertise. I see Comcast ads for the X1 daily, but I don't recall ever seeing a TiVo television ad in the 15 years I've owned a TiVo.


In the days of the Series 1 TiVo did have ads, they were, IMHO, stupid ads, TiVo biggest problem now that almost all the MSO offer some type of DVR setup, so it is the ease one can have using the cable co DVR setup, they will install the DVR, they will give you one place to call if you have a DVR problem, and offer free on-sight service, the last two things TiVo can't offer. If I save money using TiVo from using the Comcast X1 system is a mystery to me and I don't care as I know the TiVo works better for me, but I and many of the posters on this Forum can set/fix things up with the TiVo, many other people can't. I provide on-sight TiVo service for my kids TiVos and a few friends I had purchase TiVo, If I convince somebody to purchase a TiVo system I feel I am on the hook to get it all running, so I don't do that anymore, I now deal with about 8 homes using TiVo because of me, I can't take on anymore. In my cellar I have an old computer set up to upgrade/replace TiVos hard drives. For most people TiVo can't compete at any price, that why TiVo has a niche market. I was referring to the retail market, TiVo may find that the MSO market is the key to their future.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lessd said:


> I provide on-sight TiVo service for my kids TiVos and a few friends I had purchase TiVo, If I convince somebody to purchase a TiVo system I feel I am on the hook to get it all running, so I don't do that anymore, I now deal with about 8 homes using TiVo because of me, I can't take on anymore.


As much as I love my TiVos, this is exactly what is holding be back from pushing my friends and family members to getting TiVo. I will be the one having to set up their CableCard/Tuning Adapter/MoCA network, and if (more like when) something goes wrong, I will be the one they call and have to go over there and fix it. It's a rather daunting proposition to take on. A certain level of technical ability is needed to hook up a TiVo, and the average person either doesn't have it or doesn't want to have to put in the effort to figure it out. They just want something to work when they hit the "on" button. But this is one reason why the cord-cutting phenomenon is an opportunity for TiVo, if they can take advantage of it. Hooking up an antenna to a TiVo is much simpler than hooking it up to a cable company's network.


----------



## cybergrimes (Jun 15, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Hooking up an antenna to a TiVo is much simpler than hooking it up to a cable company's network.


You would think so right? My father in law (without asking me, a cord cutter since 2009) mounted an antenna to his cabin in rural Minnesota but pulled it down immediately when he couldn't tune any channels. He didn't know he needed a signal amplifier due to his distance from the towers. His brother in law ended up putting in satellite dish instead, one technically meant for his bedroom, because it just works. They weren't even wanting to use a DVR, just tune the news from Fargo. Probably for the best, like you I don't want to be the support staff...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> As much as I love my TiVos, this is exactly what is holding be back from pushing my friends and family members to getting TiVo. I will be the one having to set up their CableCard/Tuning Adapter/MoCA network, and if (more like when) something goes wrong, I will be the one they call and have to go over there and fix it. It's a rather daunting proposition to take on. A certain level of technical ability is needed to hook up a TiVo, and the average person either doesn't have it or doesn't want to have to put in the effort to figure it out. They just want something to work when they hit the "on" button. But this is one reason why the cord-cutting phenomenon is an opportunity for TiVo, if they can take advantage of it. Hooking up an antenna to a TiVo is much simpler than hooking it up to a cable company's network.


And TiVo could not pay enough commission to you or I to push TiVo to our friends/family as they are not making enough money now, never mind paying anybody to push and install their units, and I would never take any money from friends/family anyways, just refund any TiVo commission back to them.

IMHO this is the main unsolvable problem for TiVo in the retail market.
Now I have to call my daughter back to see what her TiVo problem is.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

lessd said:


> I provide on-sight TiVo service for my kids TiVos and a few friends I had purchase TiVo, If I convince somebody to purchase a TiVo system I feel I am on the hook to get it all running, so I don't do that anymore, I now deal with about 8 homes using TiVo because of me, I can't take on anymore.


Wow. I stay busy enough keeping all my toys humming and strumming. I may take a look in to a problem when visiting a friend/family, but that's the extent of it.

An answer for this is to go through a Custom Installer, but that's a high-end solution.

Or is it?

I looked at some of the names that came up in TiVo's CI search, and there wasn't even a link to a web site. I tried to find one myself for a few and couldn't. The first entry in the list was a guy working out of his house with a bunch of bad reviews.

If you want to get paid for what you do, it looks like you should sign up for the reseller program.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

They need a cheap low end dvr for people who don't watch much TV, but still want to time shift and skip commercials. A mini with 1 tuner and a small hard drive.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

jonw747 said:


> Wow. I stay busy enough keeping all my toys humming and strumming. I may take a look in to a problem when visiting a friend/family, but that's the extent of it.
> 
> An answer for this is to go through a Custom Installer, but that's a high-end solution.
> 
> ...


That just it!, I don't want to go into business to go into people homes having no idea what I would find, beside I am retired and at age 74 I not going to get involved whith people besides my family/friends.
Most people don't want to pay for in home service otherwise the Best Buy geek squad would be doing a lot more business, I think they could come into your home and connect up a TiVo, but I have seen their work, they connected up a friends new Best But HDTV to the cable box using component cables even though he had a HDMI cable, he never new the difference, until I reconnected using the HDMI cable.


----------



## dameatball (Feb 24, 2014)

jonw747 said:


> You make it sound like rocket science. You add up the costs to build the device, you add enough to cover your overhead, and then set your profit margin according to supply & demand and/or market strategy.
> 
> When I buy a TV from Best Buy, do I pay a subscription fee to help cover the cost of their web site? No. That's all part of their overhead and bundled in to the price.
> 
> The subscription fee should be a tool to offer a lower price, and whether that's actually how it is used, it's not how it's perceived by the market - and that's a problem.


We left off one big variable (I'm sure there are many others we don't know of)-but Im pretty sure TiVo pays the cable companies quite a bit for 1) the privilege of carrying a cable card that works for TiVo and 2) they directly take money out of the cable co's pocket as every TiVo connected means theres one less ****ty cable box rental they can gauge you on a monthly basis. The **** hardware rentals- cable boxes, the horrible modems and routers etc. are huge revenue sources for them and I'm pretty sure they don't happily give that away to be nice. I'd venture a guess TiVo pays through the nose.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

dameatball said:


> We left off one big variable (I'm sure there are many others we don't know of)-but Im pretty sure TiVo pays the cable companies quite a bit for 1) the privilege of carrying a cable card that works for TiVo and 2) they directly take money out of the cable co's pocket as every TiVo connected means theres one less ****ty cable box rental they can gauge you on a monthly basis. The **** hardware rentals- cable boxes, the horrible modems and routers etc. are huge revenue sources for them and I'm pretty sure they don't happily give that away to be nice. I'd venture a guess TiVo pays through the nose.


As far as I know the FCC shoved the the cable card requirement down the cable companies throat. They've been granted a monopoly in their market areas and in exchange they're expected to put up with some things they wouldn't otherwise waste their money on.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

FCC mandates cable companies carry CableCARDs. In fact until this year all cable company supplied boxes actually had a CableCARD inside them too. The STELAR act passed by congress a few months ago removed that requirement but they are still required to supply CableCARDs for third party DVRs.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Since TiVo is still apparently struggling with the hardware/service fee pricing model, maybe it's time to just punt on the pricing all together.

"Show us the line item on your cable bill for DVR box + DVR service, and that's what you'll pay us for the next 12 months."

Obviously there will be cases where this won't work (deep promo pricing, no DVR line item on the bill, etc), but I think it's an interesting strategy.


----------



## Rustwood (Sep 6, 2015)

mrizzo80 said:


> Since TiVo is still apparently struggling with the hardware/service fee pricing model, maybe it's time to just punt on the pricing all together.
> 
> "Show us the line item on your cable bill for DVR box + DVR service, and that's what you'll pay us for the next 12 months."
> 
> Obviously there will be cases where this won't work (deep promo pricing, no DVR line item on the bill, etc), but I think it's an interesting strategy.


Do you mean for the hardware and service? I don't think they could survive at that price point - certainly not just for one year. Maybe 2 though.

I think if there is ever a digital-only (no trip to the cable company) alternative to cable cards and Tivo continues to do a good job of integrating all streaming services and on-demand, then a box priced at $149 - plus a $150/yr service plan might just work - just like when you buy a cell phone (plus service). At $149 people would give them as gifts, but $300 probably scares off a lot of people who don't really think it through. They probably also need 4 tuners though to make the mini option a selling point.

While most people here are power users who want 6 tuners and a ton of storage, I don't think the average new Tivo user is going to need more than 4 tuners and 1 TB of storage. Many would be fine with just 500 GB (although the 1 TB shouldn't be more than +$50). If they provide low cost hardware, people can look past that and see that $12.50 a month is obviously less than they are paying their cableco for a DVR. If they can get a mini and eliminate an extra outlet fee, then the value proposition is even better.

I guess time will tell, if they promote it more and the cablecard hassle doesn't kill it first.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

I can easily see the base Bolt refurbs at Woot within 9 months for $149.99, first year service included.


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

Bytez said:


> Price and I don't remember the last time I saw a Tivo commercial. They have to overhaul their marketing.


Ironically if you have Tivo Bolt, you won't see any of their commercials anyway because of SkipMode.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Basically, people are too stupid/ignorant to get TiVo over the crap the cable company hands out. That's absolutely true.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Basically, people are too stupid/ignorant to get TiVo over the crap the cable company hands out. That's absolutely true.


Sad, but true. The average person really isn't all that smart or inquisitive.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Basically, people are too stupid/ignorant to get TiVo over the crap the cable company hands out. That's absolutely true.


So what if TiVo was the cable company? What if TiVo offered a streaming TV service akin to Sling TV or Playstation Vue that could integrate with their hardware so that it worked as easily as signing in to your Netflix account? (i.e. no CableCARDs or tech visits)

With a service like that not only could they make the experience easier for the user they could spread the pricing out so that it wouldn't seem so exorbitant. $15/mo is a bit high just for DVR service but if they could bundle in a couple dozen channels for $40/mo people might not mind so much.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

scottfll954 said:


> 1.. public is not away that it can be used with most cable companies


Don't know what this is even supposed to mean.



> 2.. Even though it is simple to hook up ..the general public has no clue


Tivo is not more successful because people are stupid.



> 3.. Cable companies make it tuff to get a cable card.. you have to go down wait online and hopefully your "cable plan " will not change


Oh, it's so hard to go to the business I need something from and get what I need. Never mind the fact that they'll gladly have a tech deliver and install a cablecard


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Sad, but true. The average person really isn't all that smart or inquisitive.


I think your underestimating people, I know many of smart people that just want a non hassle DVR, guess who they get it from, the cable co. Their not going to spend their time being inquisitive about DVRs when one can be gotten for free in many triple play cable packages, nothing TiVo can do about that, and they get on-sight service as long as they have the cable co DVR, and can upgrade anytime for free. The cable co, on these packages, does not break out the DVR cost except for the other option of a free cable card and a $2.50/month cr. (Comcast). TiVo customers are the more independent type that want the extra features and UI they can get with TiVo, compared with cable DVR. People like that are like 1 in a 1000 or more.

Now for OTA people, TiVo is the best and for most the only easy option.


----------



## dameatball (Feb 24, 2014)

jonw747 said:


> As far as I know the FCC shoved the the cable card requirement down the cable companies throat. They've been granted a monopoly in their market areas and in exchange they're expected to put up with some things they wouldn't otherwise waste their money on.


Fascinating. I didn't know that. I guess that was how they compensated for our corrupt government letting them monopolize territories. 
So these 3rd party boxes aren't required to pay the cable companies anything to service their product? Interesting stuff, was unaware.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dameatball said:


> Fascinating. I didn't know that. I guess that was how they compensated for our corrupt government letting them monopolize territories.
> So these 3rd party boxes aren't required to pay the cable companies anything to service their product? Interesting stuff, was unaware.


Except for the cable card the cable co. does not service any TiVo, that can be another problem when something does not work, fingers point in both directions many times, one tells the other to call the other, can be a pain for many people.


----------



## dameatball (Feb 24, 2014)

lessd said:


> Except for the cable card the cable co. does not service any TiVo, that can be another problem when something does not work, fingers point in both directions many times, one tells the other to call the other, can be a pain for many people.


Well sorta. I get your point and ran into that with time Warner a lot. I had cable card issues and they sent someone to my house who actually said 'I've never actually worked on a TiVo before'. But when my building was setup with fios- they have an online program you run through. Pop card in, you're up in 5 minutes. That might not exactly be servicing but they definitely invested some into getting it right. If you have issues, you get someone who knows TiVo cards on the phone. NYC is also slowly becoming one of the few places where theres competing business for your cable/internet money (in some areas). I'm not some big verizon fan but I miss Fios (we moved).


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dameatball said:


> Well sorta. I get your point and ran into that with time Warner a lot. I had cable card issues and they sent someone to my house who actually said 'I've never actually worked on a TiVo before'. But when my building was setup with fios- they have an online program you run through. Pop card in, you're up in 5 minutes. That might not exactly be servicing but they definitely invested some into getting it right. If you have issues, you get someone who knows TiVo cards on the phone. NYC is also slowly becoming one of the few places where theres competing business for your cable/internet money (in some areas). I'm not some big verizon fan but I miss Fios (we moved).


Because you and myself are on this Forum we can deal with the problems as they come up, but what about Joe Sixpack, that person may get real frustrated.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I sure haven't seen any suggestions I believe would make TiVo a big success and believe TiVo isn't making any big mistakes, the market for their products isn't big and there is nothing magic to change that. The TiVo products have been very good, the value is better than the competition even when the price is not the lowest, and customer support is the best among the competition. Still the market remains small, spending millions on advertising might increase market share slightly but not the bottom line. 

For me OTA and using a DVR is very important and I want something that works great, TiVo is the only option. For some small portion of the cable market, the same is true. Yes, I understand the Cable Card, Tuning Adapter situation is far from optimal but that isn't Tivo's doing and at this late date, I sure don't see anything happening to make that obstacle disappear but if it does, that will help some.

The situation isn't unlike Blu-ray, the hardware and software is very good, the price very low but the market is very small, that isn't going to change regardless.

The Bolt is apparently going to be priced higher and should be more profitable but the higher price guarantees the market will remain small. The bottom line will hopefully be better as a result but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

dameatball said:


> Fascinating. I didn't know that. I guess that was how they compensated for our corrupt government letting them monopolize territories.
> So these 3rd party boxes aren't required to pay the cable companies anything to service their product? Interesting stuff, was unaware.


They rent the cable cards, and that's what they service. They won't do anything to fix a TiVo that isn't working, they won't run a wire to a new box, etc.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Chris Gerhard said:


> I sure haven't seen any suggestions I believe would make TiVo a big success and believe TiVo isn't making any big mistakes, the market for their products isn't big and there is nothing magic to change that.


One problem for TiVo expanding in the low-end of the market is the gap between their Bolt solution to OTA and the Aereo solution for OTA.

$8/mon with no hardware, no antenna, nothing to install (but an App), nothing to service, nothing to support.

The closer they can get to that, the more of that market they can claim.

My idea for that is an All-In-One box that receives OTA via a built-in antenna and streams it via WiFi back to a cloud server. Alas, that won't help people who can't find a spot in their house with both solid OTA and WiFi reception or lack sufficient internet upload/speed.

And it still wouldn't sell well unless the hardware and service were very inexpensive.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> They need a cheap low end dvr for people who don't watch much TV, but still want to time shift and skip commercials. A mini with 1 tuner and a small hard drive.


?? They need to go back to the 20th century for that.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> That just it!, I don't want to go into business to go into people homes having no idea what I would find, beside I am retired and at age 74 I not going to get involved whith people besides my family/friends.
> Most people don't want to pay for in home service otherwise the Best Buy geek squad would be doing a lot more business, I think they could come into your home and connect up a TiVo, but I have seen their work, they connected up a friends new Best But HDTV to the cable box using component cables even though he had a HDMI cable, he never new the difference, until I reconnected using the HDMI cable.


At least they used component and not composite.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> At least they used component and not composite.


Component actually does a very good job on HDTV. When I originally got an HDTV, the cable company came and hooked up their HD box to my TV with component cables even though HDMI was an option. Eventually I got around to replacing the component with an HDMI cable, and I honestly could not tell a difference at all in picture quality, though it did reduce a lot of cabling clutter.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jonw747 said:


> One problem for TiVo expanding in the low-end of the market is the gap between their Bolt solution to OTA and the Aereo solution for OTA.
> 
> $8/mon with no hardware, no antenna, nothing to install (but an App), nothing to service, nothing to support.
> 
> ...


The market you are talking about is primarily serviced by Hulu via phone/tablet/cheap streaming stick app. There ZERO possibility that TiVo can provide an OTA DVR setup including on line storage for anything near $8/mo including hardware costs and if that is all someone wants to pay, TiVo shouldn't pay any attention too them at all.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> At least they used component and not composite.


Really shouldn't see a difference between component and HDMI in many cases. There are definitely far worse sins comitted by installers.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> So what if TiVo was the cable company? What if TiVo offered a streaming TV service akin to Sling TV or Playstation Vue that could integrate with their hardware so that it worked as easily as signing in to your Netflix account? (i.e. no CableCARDs or tech visits)


Then they wouldn't be a DVR anymore. They wouldn't be TiVo.



> With a service like that not only could they make the experience easier for the user they could spread the pricing out so that it wouldn't seem so exorbitant. $15/mo is a bit high just for DVR service but if they could bundle in a couple dozen channels for $40/mo people might not mind so much.


Putting humpty-dumpty back together with online streaming packages is a tiny niche. The programming costs are the limiting factor, and a different delivery method isn't going to fundamentally change that.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> The market you are talking about is primarily serviced by Hulu via phone/tablet/cheap streaming stick app. There ZERO possibility that TiVo can provide an OTA DVR setup including on line storage for anything near $8/mo including hardware costs and if that is all someone wants to pay, TiVo shouldn't pay any attention too them at all.


Yet, they bought that Aereo customer list and the brand, so if they're not going to try to find some way to leverage that market ... what are they doing?

Also Hulu (especially with the commercial free option) likely appeals to some of that market, I bet it doesn't to all; although it wouldn't surprise me if a large number of Aereo customers were lying about where they lived so they could receive out of market programming.

Now that's something TiVo definitely can't compete with.

I'm not sure there is a good solution, but I'm sure the Bolt at $300 + $150/yr isn't it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Then they wouldn't be a DVR anymore. They wouldn't be TiVo.


If they integrated the service into OnePass and the TiVo hardware then they would be.

The problem with TiVo is, and always has been, competing with cable companies that can reduce the price of the DVR hardware by bundling it into the cost of the video service. With something like this TiVo would essentially become an MSO where they could charge a single monthly fee for the hardware, DVR and TV service that was competitive with the TV packages offered by the local MSOs.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> The problem with TiVo is, and always has been, competing with cable companies that can reduce the price of the DVR hardware by bundling it into the cost of the video service.


I believe it would be more correct to say that they're hiding the price of the DVR not reducing it, much like subsidized cell phone contracts hid (and in many cases increased well above MSRP) the price of the included phone.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jonw747 said:


> Yet, they bought that Aereo customer list and the brand, so if they're not going to try to find some way to leverage that market ... what are they doing?
> 
> Also Hulu (especially with the commercial free option) likely appeals to some of that market, I bet it doesn't to all; although it wouldn't surprise me if a large number of Aereo customers were lying about where they lived so they could receive out of market programming.
> 
> ...


TiVo's most recent run at OTA was/is with the Roamio OTA, you can buy one of them today for $300 with lifetime - which is pretty cheap. Based on info Dave Zatz posted (including a test web site picture) there likely is a Bolt OTA still to come out. No idea why it wasn't release with the Bolt, maybe the figured they had covered the market with the Roamio OTA and demand would be low. But if/when it is released I would expect it to have slightly more aggressive pricing. Given the Roamio OTA seems to have pretty much stayed at least $100 less than the base Roamio perhaps a $100 less than the current Bolt?


----------



## JEisen (Aug 12, 2010)

My brother called to ask me about DVR stuff. He rents one from his provider, and he wanted to pay less. At the same time, I wanted to upgrade mine to a newer model (currently on a Premiere). I started to offer to sell him mine so I could upgrade, and went through the various costs so he could compare what he's paying now. I was confident it would work out in his favor, since the last time I did the comparison I ended up saving a significant amount of money on a monthly basis by owning my TiVo while getting a much better product.

Unfortunately, what came out of this was:
- His monthly cost was now lower than my TiVo subscription, even annually, and requires no up-front charge.
- His rental unit doesn't require an additional CableCard fee as mine does.
- He's still able to get on-demand VOD from the cable company, while I can't.
- There are some features he was interested in from TiVo, but not enough to convert.

At this point, my dedication to TiVo is based on having used them since Series2 when they were unambiguously the best and cost-effective. All the non-DVR features (like streaming) are handled far better by other devices connected to my TV. I'm not ready to switch away yet, but I'm finding it harder and harder to justify. And that makes me really sad.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> TiVo's most recent run at OTA was/is with the Roamio OTA, you can buy one of them today for $300 with lifetime - which is pretty cheap. Based on info Dave Zatz posted (including a test web site picture) there likely is a Bolt OTA still to come out. No idea why it wasn't release with the Bolt, maybe the figured they had covered the market with the Roamio OTA and demand would be low. But if/when it is released I would expect it to have slightly more aggressive pricing. Given the Roamio OTA seems to have pretty much stayed at least $100 less than the base Roamio perhaps a $100 less than the current Bolt?


Big problem with the Roamio OTA is the lack of stream, so, add that to it and the price is too high for most of the Aereo market.

Another problem is that new products should hit the market running. Some changes in feature & pricing can make a device like the OTA far more desirable but that does little to deal with "5/10" MEH ratings like the OTA got from Tom's Guide.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/tivo-roamio-ota,review-2589.html


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Component actually does a very good job on HDTV. When I originally got an HDTV, the cable company came and hooked up their HD box to my TV with component cables even though HDMI was an option. Eventually I got around to replacing the component with an HDMI cable, and I honestly could not tell a difference at all in picture quality, though it did reduce a lot of cabling clutter.


The problem with using component is that the content is converted from digital to analog And then is converted from analog to digital again. Which can create the potential for issues.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jonw747 said:


> Big problem with the Roamio OTA is the lack of stream, so, add that to it and the price is too high for most of the Aereo market.
> 
> Another problem is that new products should hit the market running. Some changes in feature & pricing can make a device like the OTA far more desirable but that does little to deal with "5/10" MEH ratings like the OTA got from Tom's Guide.
> 
> http://www.tomsguide.com/us/tivo-roamio-ota,review-2589.html


Interesting review, it is pretty clear the reviewer doesn't think OTA TV is worth enough to pay anything much to get it and certainly doesn't see why you would pay much for a DVR. Given I really dislike monthly payments I don't have much of a different opinion on the $49/$15/mo Roamio OTA deal than the reviewer does. But we differ significantly on what we believe OTA TV and a good DVR is worth.

When you are down to complaining about having to get an antenna and your final recommendation is to just get an antenna and a $8/mo Hulu subscription. It tells you the value being placed on linear/live TV in general. There is a long way between what people pay cable/sat companies for TV and saying it is basically only worth $8/mo and a cheap streaming device. If we get to a point where the masses believe that is all TV is worth the whole industry is in trouble not just TiVo.

I want an OTA DVR for exactly the same reasons people want a cable/sat one. If I had a cable/sat sub I wouldn't be watching any more TV than I do now. So from my point of view a DVR for OTA is just a valuable as a DVR for cable/sat. Honestly if people don't believe that and are just looking for some cheap way to watch TV that they don't think is worth anything then they will likely never be happy paying what a good DVR costs and really should just stick with a cheap streaming device.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> If they integrated the service into OnePass and the TiVo hardware then they would be.


The whole point of TiVo is that it's a DVR. As soon as you're trying to create some On Demand cloud service, you may as well just use a Roku or something. No need for a DVR when you're not DVRing anything.



aaronwt said:


> The problem with using component is that the content is converted from digital to analog And then is converted from analog to digital again. Which can create the potential for issues.


It can, but if the equipment on both ends is decent, it should be fine. The bigger issue is that it doesn't integrate well into an HT setup anymore, as you have to have a separate audio feed, and then separate sets of cables into the TV, since some stuff requires HDMI for HDCP.



atmuscarella said:


> I want an OTA DVR for exactly the same reasons people want a cable/sat one.


It's hard to review a device and factor in the content. Sure, there isn't a lot of content on OTA, but there is obviously a market of people who are light TV watchers, don't want to pay for cable, but still want the utility of a DVR. With other entertainment options, and other things taking up people's time, that's a perfectly legitimate market, even if the Roamio OTA's to do list is going to look relatively bare compared to that of a 6-tuner 3TB Roamio Pro that's got a fiber line feeding 200HD channels into the basement.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> The problem with using component is that the content is converted from digital to analog And then is converted from analog to digital again. Which can create the potential for issues.


In the end, it's converted again to analog. Eliminating extra conversions is a certainly a good thing, but that doesn't change the fact that Component Video is still a very high quality means to transport video - and is still superior in many ways to HDMI for video distribution.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Interesting review, it is pretty clear the reviewer doesn't think OTA TV is worth enough to pay anything much to get it and certainly doesn't see why you would pay much for a DVR.


I only skimmed the review. Maybe I should go back and read it? Really my point here is that when you introduce a new product you want as much positive feedback as possible. If you enter the market at the wrong price, with bugs, or lacking important features you're going to start racking up bad reviews and the market may never recover.

For instance, I've mentioned before that the initial problems with the Premiere left a bad impression of TiVo to many. It was supposed to be their magnum opus, but it was slow and problematic to get up and running.

Clearly things got a lot better with the product, but that doesn't change the market perception that at least for me lingered well in to the Roamio release. Because TiVo botched the Premiere release, I didn't even pay much attention to the Roamio release. I only came back and researched it when I found out the FIOS's whole home solution wasn't so hot for my system.

The initial reviews on the Bolt seem to be going well, but we'll have to see how things go with the reviews that weren't spoonfed by TiVo.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jonw747 said:


> I only skimmed the review. Maybe I should go back and read it? Really my point here is that when you introduce a new product you want as much positive feedback as possible. If you enter the market at the wrong price, with bugs, or lacking important features you're going to start racking up bad reviews and the market may never recover.
> 
> For instance, I've mentioned before that the initial problems with the Premiere left a bad impression of TiVo to many. It was supposed to be their magnum opus, but it was slow and problematic to get up and running.
> 
> ...


The problem I see with reviews like the one we are talking about is if they are completed by people that really want streaming solutions and not a DVR it is going to be pretty hard for them to give a TiVo a very good rating. That reviewer did mention and compare the TiVo to some other OTA DVR solutions but it didn't really seem like he had used them or for that matter any DVR.

I agree the Premiere was a disaster and that "One Box" marketing crap was insulting. The Premiere's hardware was ready summer/fall 2009 but the box didn't get here until March 2010 because of the HDUI. TiVo should have release the box in the fall of 2009 with only the SDUI and indicated it was an incremental update to the TiVo HD which was release in the spring of 2007. Then continued to work on the HDUI in secret until they released the Premiere 4 (which might still have been too early for the HDUI). Unfortunately for the Premiere line it didn't get very good until TiVo dumped flash and completely rewrote the UI, which didn't happen until after the Roamio was released (Roamios started with a Flash UI).

How well Bolt reviews go will depend on if the reviewer is comparing the Bolt and it's cost to unsubsidized cable DVRs or to streaming devices. It will also depend on the viewers opinion of DVRs in general. It certainly is possible with all the content available via streaming/on demand to not value a DVR as much as someone might have 6-7 years ago. With the bottom line being if a reviewer thinks the increased cost of a DVR over a cheap streaming device isn't really justified the review is going to reflect that.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Part of the problem is you can't really compare costs properly. The cost of cable DVRs is partially hidden in the plan, just like $700 phones don't really cost $200 when you sign up for a mobile phone plan. Of course that also means that if you aren't using the cableco DVR you're getting screwed because you're paying a subsidy for a device you aren't using, just like buying your own phone was a dud on older mobile phone plans. That hidden subsidy/profit model is disappearing in the mobile phone industry because there's actual competition there.

Even if TiVos cost more, and I'm not sure they really do, they are usually superior as DVRs compared to cableco models in my opinion even though the cable companies have so much more money to spend on making a superior product, so for me it's worth it to pay more a TiVo. I don't use things like on demand so if my TiVo can't use it that doesn't bother me.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> How well Bolt reviews go will depend on if the reviewer is comparing the Bolt and it's cost to unsubsidized cable DVRs or to streaming devices. It will also depend on the viewers opinion of DVRs in general. It certainly is possible with all the content available via streaming/on demand to not value a DVR as much as someone might have 6-7 years ago. With the bottom line being if a reviewer thinks the increased cost of a DVR over a cheap streaming device isn't really justified the review is going to reflect that.


It's the market perception. If the device seems targeted at "Cord Cutters" and it is with streaming features and OTA, then it will be evaluated for such, and cost, streaming support, and ease of setup/use are all huge features.

For instance, the WSJ review of the Bolt called it the "Royale With Cheese of DVRs" which I think was meant to be high-praise (the author must really like McDonald's hamburgers?); but he fairly pointed out that as a "Networked Entertainment System" that the Bolt's streaming offerings were skimpy.

It's tough to sell new customers (or reviewers) on features you don't yet have unless there's a firm plan for their introduction.

Maybe TiVo should have stuck to marketing the Bolt as a DVR with extras (like all DVRs have these days)?


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

randian said:


> Part of the problem is you can't really compare costs properly. The cost of cable DVRs is partially hidden in the plan, just like $700 phones don't really cost $200 when you sign up for a mobile phone plan. Of course that also means that if you aren't using the cableco DVR you're getting screwed because you're paying a subsidy for a device you aren't using, just like buying your own phone was a dud on older mobile phone plans. That hidden subsidy/profit model is disappearing in the mobile phone industry because there's actual competition there.
> 
> Even if TiVos cost more, and I'm not sure they really do, they are usually superior as DVRs compared to cableco models in my opinion even though the cable companies have so much more money to spend on making a superior product, so for me it's worth it to pay more a TiVo. I don't use things like on demand so if my TiVo can't use it that doesn't bother me.


You're not buying the cable company DVR though. If you don't want it anymore or it breaks, you just return it. Heck, when I signed up for FIOS they gave me a month to month contract; so I could have cancelled service at any point and just returned everything.

If TiVo has a problem, it's that they're not more upfront with their pricing and when people actually find out about the service plan cost, nobody understands why they should have to pay $150/year for guide data.

If TiVo treated their equipment sales more like a cable rental or even a lease, it would be easier for people to make that comparison. For instance, it was nice of them to include warranty coverage with their monthly service and the $50 swap fee would seem like a good deal to a TiVo customer; but more like a rip-off to a Cable customer.

Now personally, I prefer to buy equipment outright, and that's why I was attracted to TiVo as a solution and bought a Roamio Plus when they offered me the 10yr customer discount. Alas, TiVo has made the odd decision to make the option of paying everything up front less attractive with the Bolt.

So they're not really going right after the people who want to rent their DVR, and they're not really going after the people who want to own their DVR. New customers have to come to grips with TiVo's model and like I said, many see it as paying $150/yr for guide data.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

jonw747 said:


> New customers have to come to grips with TiVo's model and like I said, many see it as paying $150/yr for guide data.


That's rather irrational, do cable DVR customers honestly think guide data is free and they're only paying for the DVR?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Unfortunately for the Premiere line it didn't get very good until TiVo dumped flash and completely rewrote the UI, which didn't happen until after the Roamio was released (Roamios started with a Flash UI).


True Haxe is a night and day difference. I bought the Premiere before Haxe came out, and I was aware of the speed issues, but Haxe fixed pretty much everything, and now with DTA and the Minis, it does way more than it did when I bought it, so I'm pretty happy. I could see how the OG Premiere from 2009 left a bad taste in some people's mouths though.



randian said:


> That's rather irrational, do cable DVR customers honestly think guide data is free and they're only paying for the DVR?


It basically is. Even non-DVR boxes on cable have program guides.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Tivo's OTT apps are inferior to other streaming boxes and the selection is severely limited.
Tivo doesn't have a current model that will tune OTA and Cable signals at the same time.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

randian said:


> That's rather irrational, do cable DVR customers honestly think guide data is free and they're only paying for the DVR?


Can't say I've ever seen a line item for guide data on any STB or DVR I've ever owned or rented from a Cable or Satellite company.

There are plenty of web sites that provide free guide data including the cable providers, and there are free services which apparently access these sites and extract the guide data for easy downloading in to HTPCs.

TiVo could charge a nominal fee for their guide data (ex: $2/mon), or allow the customer to select their own guide (EPG) provider for free. They could make their other services optional as well. Then they could treat any money they need to recoup for hardware costs as either a lease or a lay-away.

People were buying Roamios for $50 and never activating them just for spare parts. Their model makes no sense. With a lease or a lay away, the customer would be under contract to make payments for the term of the lease/lay-away.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

jonw747 said:


> Can't say I've ever seen a line item for guide data on any STB or DVR I've ever owned or rented from a Cable or Satellite company.


Back when I had TWC's equipment, they used to have a separate line item charge for "The Guide". It was around $3/month/STB. They also charged separately for each remote.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Consumers are indeed dumbass morons if the lack of a guide line item matters. If I'm paying money I don't care whether the box is free and guide data is not or if the data is free and I'm paying just for the box. Total dollars is the only thing that matters, everything else is irrelevant accounting.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

1) Price - too much for Lifetime and monthly service 
2) Content - They need to offer content if they are going to charge so much
a) partner with Hulu (or someone else) and give free or very discounted service when you purchase Tivo service
b) figure out a way to provide their own channels for content
3) Marketing - hardly ever see any commercials for Tivo


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

randian said:


> Consumers are indeed dumbass morons if the lack of a guide line item matters. If I'm paying money I don't care whether the box is free and guide data is not or if the data is free and I'm paying just for the box. Total dollars is the only thing that matters, everything else is irrelevant accounting.


It's TiVo's job to make their product attractive to potential customers and it's a lot easier to compete with an entrenched competitor if you can claim: "We do more, for less, and our product is easier" and demonstrate that very quickly without having to present a "total cost of ownership breakdown".


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

randian said:


> That's rather irrational, do cable DVR customers honestly think guide data is free and they're only paying for the DVR?


No, but guide data certainly isn't $12 or $15 per month per box. It's essentially a lease fee.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

jonw747 said:


> It's TiVo's job to make their product attractive to potential customers and it's a lot easier to compete with an entrenched competitor if you can claim: "We do more, for less, and our product is easier" and demonstrate that very quickly without having to present a "total cost of ownership breakdown".


How do you demonstrate "does more for less" without educating consumers about TCO? "For less", after all, is nothing but a TCO analysis. The other alternative is to abandon "for less" and just say "our product is so much better we don't have to be cheaper" (even if it is).


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

BobCamp1 said:


> No, but guide data certainly isn't $12 or $15 per month per box. It's essentially a lease fee.


Exactly. Why would any economically rational consumer care what I call that lease fee? If in fact calling it "guide data" turns off consumers then change what you call it.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Tivo officially calls it a service fee. The problem is that many of the streaming services are provided by others, so Tivo gets that for free. The guide data is obtained through another company, so it's probably pretty cheap. Tivo does have to hire people to mark where the commercials begin and end, but that's a dozen $10/hr jobs spread across all the subscribers so that's in pennies per month. My smartphone mfr gives me OS updates for free even though I don't pay them a service fee. So why is Tivo's service fee so high? It should be called the "we didn't charge you enough upfront cost" fee.

Even though many consumers may not be economically rational, they don't like getting ripped off. I'm not sure what you call this potpourri fee, but calling is "service" is disingenuous and brings up a red flag for many people. 

Remember when the Minis had a service fee? There was such a backlash that Tivo stopped doing it.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

randian said:


> How do you demonstrate "does more for less" without educating consumers about TCO? "For less", after all, is nothing but a TCO analysis. The other alternative is to abandon "for less" and just say "our product is so much better we don't have to be cheaper" (even if it is).


TiVo would need to change their market approach if they wanted to truly compete head to head with the Cable and Satellite providers.

If they could stick a flier in front of a cable customer that illustrated these points they'd get sales:

Up front costs? We're less
Monthly costs? We're less
In home installation and repair? We're cheaper, faster, and better
On demand content? We have more.
Recording space? Tuners? Expansion? We're better.
4K? We've got it, they don't.


----------



## TazExprez (May 31, 2014)

jonw747 said:


> TiVo would need to change their market approach if they wanted to truly compete head to head with the Cable and Satellite providers.
> 
> If they could stick a flier in front of a cable customer that illustrated these points they'd get sales:
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you stated, except the first point about the upfront costs. How are the upfront costs cheaper than with cable? Cable charges an installation fee, but normally not in the $100.00s, at least not in my area. My TiVo setup cost over $1000.00 because I have three DVRs and six Mini boxes.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

BobCamp1 said:


> No, but guide data certainly isn't $12 or $15 per month per box. It's essentially a lease fee.


The guide data is about $1/month to $3/month. Most operators include this in the monthly equipment rental cost. The fee is mostly paid to Rovi if using TV Guide data.
The DVR service charge is around $5/month and is also included in the monthly equipment rental cost for DVRs. This is also paid to Rovi if using the I Guide, Passport Echo, and Total Guide (Comcast's X1 guide).

My cable system removed the guide data charge from the hardware and put it in with the basic programming fee.
They also removed the DVR service charge from the equipment and put it in the programming fee for the HD DVR packages.
This was done to make the equipment less costly to the consumer.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

TazExprez said:


> I agree with everything you stated, except the first point about the upfront costs. How are the upfront costs cheaper than with cable? Cable charges an installation fee, but normally not in the $100.00s, at least not in my area. My TiVo setup cost over $1000.00 because I have three DVRs and six Mini boxes.


My point is TiVo would need to change how they sell their product.

For instance, they could hire a nationwide service company to install, service, and rent out the DVRs to the end users. Your upfront costs would be replaced with rental fee. If something died, that service company would come out and swap it.

Ideally, they'd offer various tiers and let the customer decide what they really need, or else risk losing those of us who were attracted to TiVo in the first place because we're willing to do things ourselves and we wanted to eliminate monthly fees.

So, want to pay for it all upfront? They could do that. If they really despise Lifetime/All-In than they could charge a nominal fee based on services desired.

Want to lease the equipment with an option to own at the end of the term? They could do that as well.

Bought your gear and want to hire that service company to come out and repair your system? Sure. For a sufficient flat fee, why not?

Or not...

You see, I was just giving some examples of how they could approach the disparities between their offerings and cable's, but take Netflix for example? They didn't beat Blockbuster by building their own brick & mortar stores. No, they found a way to deliver DVDs and BDs in a way that their customers found even more convenient with less frustration by eliminating late fees. Then they topped that by providing streaming.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

jonw747 said:


> My point is TiVo would need to change how they sell their product.
> 
> For instance, they could hire a nationwide service company to install, service, and rent out the DVRs to the end users. Your upfront costs would be replaced with rental fee. If something died, that service company would come out and swap it.
> 
> ...


Your idea is great if there was no cost to it, your cable bill includes the on-sight service/install already, and your cable bill will not go down if you hire a TiVo install teem, so that would be an extra expense, because I use TiVo I get the first cable card free and $2.50 cr because I don't use Comcast equipment, so if I sold my Roamio and got a Comcast DVR my cable would go up $2.50, how can TiVo ever compete on price with that. If I already had the Comcast DVR and wanted to switch to the TiVo Bolt my Cable bill would go down by $2.5/month, I would put out $300, and after the first year I would have to pay about $12/month or about $10/month more than using the Comcast DVR. I have a TiVo because I want and understand TiVo, not to save some money.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

lessd said:


> Your idea is great if there was no cost to it, your cable bill includes the on-sight service/install already, and your cable bill will not go down if you hire a TiVo install teem, so that would be an extra expense, because I use TiVo I get the first cable card free and $2.50 cr because I don't use Comcast equipment, so if I sold my Roamio and got a Comcast DVR my cable would go up $2.50, how can TiVo ever compete on price with that. If I already had the Comcast DVR and wanted to switch to the TiVo Bolt my Cable bill would go down by $2.5/month, I would put out $300, and after the first year I would have to pay about $12/month or about $10/month more than using the Comcast DVR. I have a TiVo because I want and understand TiVo, not to save some money.


Maybe they can't? Or like I suggested, maybe they'd have to think out of the box to pull it off, but until/unless they step up with a comparable plan we need to stop pretending tivo is directly comparable to cable.

I just wonder how much it would have added to the cost of the bolt if they just shoved it in the roamio case with a 3.5 hd and added support for a 6 tuner cable card. Supporting multiple versions of a product is an added expense they didn't necessarily have to bear if they instead invested in developing a 6 tuner cable+Ota solution.


----------



## Chuck_IV (Jan 1, 2002)

jonw747 said:


> Supporting multiple versions of a product is an added expense they didn't necessarily have to bear if they instead invested in developing a 6 tuner cable+Ota solution.


This. I also feel like their desire to shrink this thing into an (IMO) ugly design probably added to the cost.

Shrinking the bolt forced them to go to a more expensive 2.5in drive and also probably increased the costs of cooling the thing, because of its condensed size.

It makes me wonder how they think over there sometimes.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

They could have squared the current Roamio Basic still using the 3.5 Drives, offered it in the Primary rainbow colours including the orange Donald Trump color and it would have made an incredible market impact on new potential customers..esp the younger generation.

Every time I look at the Bolt I want to get this out:


----------



## Sixmm (Oct 2, 2015)

Tivo just really needs to advertise better. They need to create a buzz.

They have three distinct advantages:

Minis provide a low lifetime cost for full home HD.
Season pass for streaming.
A DVR that can stream and record ota or cable

They absolutely need a better marketing push. They absolutely suck at how they are going to market. Local cable providers that use Tivo as their DVR do a much better job at marketing Tivo than Tivo does.

If they want to sell through best buy they should get the best buy associates to at least know what the heck a TIVO is. They just know where they are on the shelf, absolutly nothing more.


I listened to one of the TIVO bigwigs on MSMBC and the hosts of the show made it sound like the TIVO was in the same category as Apple TV. He couldn't shake that comparison. TIVO is NOT in that category, they can handle much more than an Apple or any other. They need to figure out how to make that distinction very clear.

One more thing, I just tried the comcast X1 DVR and that is a better DVR than the TIVO. That will be a tough one for Tivo to overcome by trying to be just another DVR. The lifetime cost is MUCH better for a Roamio with Mini's


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

Sixmm said:


> One more thing, I just tried the comcast X1 DVR and that is a better DVR than the TIVO.


I disagree. The X1 has a prettier interface than the TiVo, but it is not a better DVR. It responds slowly to remote input in my experience, and it takes many, many clicks to get the simplest thing done. it doesn't have wishlists. Just finding where season passes are located is a PITA. They're buried several layers deep in the menus. There are no remote shortcuts to get to things. So far as I can tell you can't page through the on-screen guide so guide navigation is excruciatingly slow. I haven't had experience with the reliability of the X1's season passes or the DVR itself but Comcast's DVRs haven't been all that reliable historically and have been crash prone. And the X1 has an insultingly small disk so you can't have a large set of season passes anyway as you'll just lose recordings and have to use Comcast's lousy on-demand service to catch up. If you wait too long the episode you missed will have been removed from on-demand, and you can't fastforward any on-demand episode which is really annoying.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Sixmm said:


> One more thing, I just tried the comcast X1 DVR and that is a better DVR than the TIVO. That will be a tough one for Tivo to overcome by trying to be just another DVR. The lifetime cost is MUCH better for a Roamio with Mini's


LOL. What are you smoking?

I have a TiVo Mini and a Comcast X1 on the same TV, and the X1 is a piece compared to the Mini (Premiere XL4 on the backend). Yes, it is way better than the pre-X1 Comcast boxes, but it still sucks. It's got a weird, click-heavy interface that looks like Web 2.0 cross with a DVR, it's unreliable because if the cloud goes, the DVR goes kaput until the cloud is fixed, it's only got 500GB of storage versus 2TB even for my relatively old TiVo, and the remote isn't as good as the TiVo remote, or even the old Comcast remote which was actually halfway decent.

X1 also puts DVR, On Demand, and Live TV at an equal footing, whereas TiVo is a DVR first, and everything else second.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

randian said:


> The X1 has a prettier interface than the TiVo, but it is not a better DVR.
> 
> - It responds slowly to remote input in my experience, and it takes many, many clicks to get the simplest thing done.
> - it doesn't have wishlists.
> ...


I posted something similar to this about the TiVo Roamio OTA. I was told the problem was that 1) I hadn't yet transitioned to the TiVo paradigm and 2) the problems I had was because I was not using the TiVo as it was intended to be used.

There's no accounting for taste


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> LOL. What are you smoking?
> 
> I have a TiVo Mini and a Comcast X1 on the same TV, and the X1 is a piece compared to the Mini (Premiere XL4 on the backend). Yes, it is way better than the pre-X1 Comcast boxes, but it still sucks. It's got a weird, click-heavy interface that looks like Web 2.0 cross with a DVR, it's unreliable because if the cloud goes, the DVR goes kaput until the cloud is fixed, it's only got 500GB of storage versus 2TB even for my relatively old TiVo, and the remote isn't as good as the TiVo remote, or even the old Comcast remote which was actually halfway decent.
> 
> X1 also puts DVR, On Demand, and Live TV at an equal footing, whereas TiVo is a DVR first, and everything else second.


LOL I think you are the one smoking something. I was just given an X1 by Comcast to try out and it's a great DVR. I pick up the remote and say AMC and it switches to AMC channel. Same with just about anything. Want to see what you've recorded? Say My Recordings. Want to see what you've scheduled? Just say scheduled Recordings. And on and on. Yes it will also page up or down in the guide. True if you use the buttons it takes a few clicks to get to things but why do that? It's never missed a recording for me and is very fast. I still also use my HTPC as it's ran perfectly for years but I'm now probably moving to the X1 for good soon and just use my HTPC for more web based stuff. Bottom line is the X1 is the one to beat. TiVo has a lot of catching up to do to beat the AVERAGE folks with an X1. Also, there is a eSATA port on the back that Comcast is going to enable for more storage. And... they are giving these things away!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> LOL I think you are the one smoking something. I was just given an X1 by Comcast to try out and it's a great DVR. I pick up the remote and say AMC and it switches to AMC channel. Same with just about anything. Want to see what you've recorded? Say My Recordings. Want to see what you've scheduled? Just say scheduled Recordings. And on and on. Yes it will also page up or down in the guide. True if you use the buttons it takes a few clicks to get to things but why do that? It's never missed a recording for me and is very fast. I still also use my HTPC as it's ran perfectly for years but I'm now probably moving to the X1 for good soon and just use my HTPC for more web based stuff. Bottom line is the X1 is the one to beat. TiVo has a lot of catching up to do to beat the AVERAGE folks with an X1. Also, there is a eSATA port on the back that Comcast is going to enable for more storage. And... they are giving these things away!


The X1 seems good especially compared to what they used to have. But I don't know anyone around here with an X1, or any cable DVR, that hasn't had issues with missed recordings that aren't two orders of magnitude worse that what I've seen from TiVo. IN fourteen years of using TiVos I can count on two hands the number of recordings I'd missed.

For storage, around here they have cloud storage enabled with the X1 to compliment the local storage. Although you can't tell which is local or which is in the cloud.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

For me the X1 has worked very well. If you get used to using the voice control you can literally get to any place on a menu just by saying the name. Name a channel, it changes. Watching a channel and want to record just say record and then pick "just this episode" or all new episodes". I am not saying TiVo is bad, I'm just saying that some cable DVRs are getting pretty darn good and the gap has closed in some cases. In my case, no upfront costs and no monthly fee (yes, I know it's wrapped up in the cost of the plans).


----------



## Sixmm (Oct 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> LOL. What are you smoking?
> 
> I have a TiVo Mini and a Comcast X1 on the same TV, and the X1 is a piece compared to the Mini (Premiere XL4 on the backend). Yes, it is way better than the pre-X1 Comcast boxes, but it still sucks. It's got a weird, click-heavy interface that looks like Web 2.0 cross with a DVR, it's unreliable because if the cloud goes, the DVR goes kaput until the cloud is fixed, it's only got 500GB of storage versus 2TB even for my relatively old TiVo, and the remote isn't as good as the TiVo remote, or even the old Comcast remote which was actually halfway decent.
> 
> X1 also puts DVR, On Demand, and Live TV at an equal footing, whereas TiVo is a DVR first, and everything else second.


Guess I am smoking the X1 just the way it is supposed to be smoked. 
-The last function is great where you get a choice of your last five channels. -The guide is awesome where you set it to sports and you get the major sports that are on and (c tivo button) not every pseudo sports event and show that you then have to try to find the one you want
-The Icon based interface is fantastic
-Voice control is done very well as mentioned

I like Tivo and have a Roamio and Premier with 3 Minis but I have to say, I like watching on the X1 the best by far.

Granted, the set top box associated with the X1 leaves you wanting more but the box itself is great. As for the storage, I don't need that much. I don't have any idea how you can watch enough tv to merit needing that much storage but that is my watching habits.

I intended to try the X1 and return it when my mini's came in. I have a TV open and using only OTA so I think I will keep the X1 on my primary TV and use the Tivo products on the rest. When my $10/month initial year is over with the X1 I plan to return it.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> For storage, around here they have cloud storage enabled with the X1 to compliment the local storage. Although you can't tell which is local or which is in the cloud.


How can you tell if cloud storage is available? Any problems with buffering or fastforwarding/rewinding on cloud-based recordings?

While we're talking Comcast, are we actually talking about an X1 or an X2? I know Comcast seems to call everything X1 in its marketing, but I've read press releases from a couple of years ago about an X2 next-gen model.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

randian said:


> How can you tell if cloud storage is available? Any problems with buffering or fastforwarding/rewinding on cloud-based recordings?
> 
> While we're talking Comcast, are we actually talking about an X1 or an X2? I know Comcast seems to call everything X1 in its marketing, but I've read press releases from a couple of years ago about an X2 next-gen model.


A coworker has had cloud storage with the X1 for awhile. At my parents I only know it was enabled recently because their X1 was almost full one day when I was there. Then a few days later they suddenly had all this extra space even though they still had basically the same stuff on there.

And a quick check of some of the shows and they still played back. So based on that and my coworker X1 conversations I figured they had finally implemented the cloud storage at my parents house too.

From what I've seen and what my co-worker has said there have been no playback issues.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> LOL I think you are the one smoking something. I was just given an X1 by Comcast to try out and it's a great DVR. I pick up the remote and say AMC and it switches to AMC channel. Same with just about anything.


The voice command stuff is stupid. It's faster to just use the remote to select what you want. It's just a stupid gimmick, while the core functionality of the DVR isn't that great.



> TiVo has a lot of catching up to do to beat the AVERAGE folks with an X1. Also, there is a eSATA port on the back that Comcast is going to enable for more storage. And... they are giving these things away!


Who knows when they will enable eSATA, or how it will work. Meanwhile, you can buy a 6TB TiVo today.

X1 has no advantages over TiVo, but has a lot of disadvantages. It's a mediocre piece of hardware and software that Comcast put together because they were too cheap to license the real thing from TiVo. If they had wanted the ultimate DVR, they would have rolled out actual TiVos, not re-invented the wheel into something merely mediocre.



aaronwt said:


> The X1 seems good especially compared to what they used to have.


Exactly. It's a massive improvement over the old iGuide boxes. But it's still a cheap knock-off of TiVo.



> For storage, around here they have cloud storage enabled with the X1 to compliment the local storage. Although you can't tell which is local or which is in the cloud.


How does cloud work? Are they "recording" directly in the cloud without using local tuners? And when they stream it back, what's the quality like? Are they using the same compression they do for linear channels, or something else to get more streams in? I've never been able to figure out how that system works.



Sixmm said:


> I like Tivo and have a Roamio and Premier with 3 Minis but I have to say, I like watching on the X1 the best by far.


Ooookay, I've used both, and there's no question that the X1 is a cheap knock-off of TiVo. The UI sucks compared to TiVo, and it's focused too much on Live TV, which good TiVo users only use for sports, in which case we already know what channel we're headed to. The voice control is a stupid gimmick to distract people from the fact that it's not as good of a DVR as TiVo, and to make something that looks cool in TV ads, but is useless in real life.



> I don't have any idea how you can watch enough tv to merit needing that much storage but that is my watching habits.


Normally 2TB or more isn't needed, but if you've got a backlog of shows during the Olympics or something, it comes in handy. Also, it's nice to be able to not worry about it for a while and then do a batch cleanout.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Bigg said:


> The voice command stuff is stupid. It's faster to just use the remote to select what you want. It's just a stupid gimmick, while the core functionality of the DVR isn't that great.


Maybe for you if you cant speak very well but I like it and it works perfectly. Say a channel and it changes to it. Speak a setting and there it is. Say horror movies and there is the list. Say a show's name and it will take you there and list upcoming and On Demand. No gimmick at all. As for the core functionality of the DVR.... works perfect for me. Records, plays back and schedules. Plenty of "core" for those of us who know what we are doing. You also couldnt get your HTPC working well so I'm thinking it's just an ability that you might not possess. It's OK though, no one is going to take your TiVo so your golden.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

scottfll954 said:


> 1.. public is not away that it can be used with most cable companies
> 2.. Even though it is simple to hook up ..the general public has no clue
> 3.. Cable companies make it tuff to get a cable card.. you have to go down wait online and hopefully your "cable plan " will not change
> 
> its a up hill battle for TIVO which they are constantly fighting ..lets see if BOLT helps them win it


You may be surprised at how many people don't know that TiVo _still_ exists. I would say that is TiVo's #1 problem. Then they can address the other challenges.


----------



## Sixmm (Oct 2, 2015)

Series3Sub said:


> You may be surprised at how many people don't know that TiVo _still_ exists. I would say that is TiVo's #1 problem. Then they can address the other challenges.


Exactly, I did some research when I wanted a DVR for over the air several years ago and was surprised that Tivo could do it. They have done a very poor job at creating a buzz, especially since Tivo started being a generic DVR word like Kleenex.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Sixmm said:


> Exactly, I did some research when I wanted a DVR for over the air several years ago and was surprised that Tivo could do it. They have done a very poor job at creating a buzz, especially since Tivo started being a generic DVR word like Kleenex.


If a product wants to create a buzz on the internet, they have to suck people in with a deal that can't be ignored.

Higher up front costs, monthly charges, possibly no VoD, and no in home service/repair?

Not so hot of a pitch.


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

I haven't read through this thread, but as long as TiVo charges a monthly fee and uses cable cards, they will never be a mainstream success. It's just not going to happen.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> Maybe for you if you cant speak very well but I like it and it works perfectly. Say a channel and it changes to it. Speak a setting and there it is. Say horror movies and there is the list. Say a show's name and it will take you there and list upcoming and On Demand. No gimmick at all. As for the core functionality of the DVR.... works perfect for me. Records, plays back and schedules. Plenty of "core" for those of us who know what we are doing. You also couldnt get your HTPC working well so I'm thinking it's just an ability that you might not possess. It's OK though, no one is going to take your TiVo so your golden.


LOL. I can speak just fine. There is just no point to talking to my remote when it already has buttons that work just fine, and are, in fact, faster than talking to it. So X1 is OK at being a basic DVR that's good enough for a lot of people. Great. TiVo is still a better DVR than X1, hands down. And X1 doesn't have anything on TiVo.

MCE is a disaster, and that has nothing to do with my computer skills. I used it for a while, but it was buggy as all hell, and ultimately too unreliable to use on a regular basis. I can use the X1 just fine, it's just frustrating how bad the UI is compared to TiVo. The UI is certainly better looking than the old Motorola DCX3400 boxes, although I would argue that I could button mash through the DCX a lot faster than the X1.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I've been waiting for Comcast in our area to start providing the voice remotes so my parents can get one. It would be perfect for my mom. She wouldn't touch VOD a few years ago but now she uses it every day. Her problem is that she has a terrible time searching for things. So being able to speak into the remote for what she wants would be perfect for her. A Coworker has the X1 voice remote and he says it works well for speech recognition. 

When I visit them it goes old setting things up from her. I do some of the searches and set them up so she can later play the VOD title.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> I've been waiting for Comcast in our area to start providing the voice remotes so my parents can get one. It would be perfect for my mom. She wouldn't touch VOD a few years ago but now she uses it every day. Her problem is that she has a terrible time searching for things. So being able to speak into the remote for what she wants would be perfect for her. A Coworker has the X1 voice remote and he says it works well for speech recognition.
> 
> When I visit them it goes old setting things up from her. I do some of the searches and set them up so she can later play the VOD title.


Some people just feel uncomfortable talking to machines, and/or get easily frustrated when it fails, rather than try to adapt to it.

IMO, voice control is good enough in the current state, and should be adopted quickly.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

jonw747 said:


> If a product wants to create a buzz on the internet, they have to suck people in with a deal that can't be ignored.
> 
> Higher up front costs, monthly charges, possibly no VoD, and no in home service/repair?
> 
> Not so hot of a pitch.


The bit that put me off for years was the misconception that tivos monthly fee is additive to the cable co fees. I thought I would be paying cablevision, paying for a cable card and paying TiVo. I completely missed that the box rental fees on my cablevision Bill would disappear.

It's a hard message to sell

1. The up front cost of the TiVo over say a 3 year life is $299/36 $8.30 a month.

2. The monthly $12.50 (free in year one - smart) is also substitutive for an item on your cable bill.

3. Your cable bill will drop by $15-30 a month offsetting those costs and saving you money.

Without understanding that math all you see are additional spend.

Bolt has got smart

A) affordable price point comparable to 12 months dvr rental. 
B) service / warranty included in that fee. 
C) start here and the emails and dedicated phone lines for cable card set up make activation much easier. Even compared to 3 years ago when o started a TiVo journey.

Also the concept of buying $100 boxes to hook to the tv for some content is normalcy for most. So the concept of a $300 box for all tv is not a stretch.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

As Stephen has commented, if you do the math (which the cable companies make difficult), TiVo is cheaper. I did the math 6 years ago when I replaced two Moto DVRs with two TiVo HDs. I saved $10+ month, and the two TiVos paid for themselves in 50 months.

I did the math again just last week when moving from the TiVo HDs to a Bolt and a Mini. Savings is $30+/month over X1 setup, not including the first year of TiVo service free. So the savings is actually $45/month for the first year, and then $30/mo. after that, with the Bolt/Mini combo paying for themselves in the first year.

This is what TiVo needs to make clear.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Stephen_Harman said:


> Also the concept of buying $100 boxes to hook to the tv for some content is normalcy for most. So the concept of a $300 box for all tv is not a stretch.
> 
> Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


I wish the Minis were at or under $100. They're too expensive for what they do. A Fire Stick with a voice-controlled remote is $50. With the regular remote it's $40. It has Wifi and is in a smaller form factor.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> I wish the Minis were at or under $100. They're too expensive for what they do. A Fire Stick with a voice-controlled remote is $50. With the regular remote it's $40. It has Wifi and is in a smaller form factor.


and can not stream MPEG2 content - which is the primary purpose of a Mini. We all wish everything was cheaper - but when it comes to TiVo I also wish for them to be profitable and to stay in business.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

BobCamp1 said:


> They're too expensive for what they do.


I dunno. While I miss the voice Android and Apple offers, having other TVs integrated with the DVR, with no additional fees (including additional outlet fees from cable providers) is pretty compelling. For the $120 I paid for it, it is a no brainer.

I also much prefer the interface for searching across all content providers and saving shows/wishlists/one passes. For me it trumps pretty much everything out there, and I have tried most of them.

I understand voice is expensive if you don't already have the infrastructure of a Google/Apple/Amazon, so maybe leverage Apple and Google's technology in the remote app by giving it a dedicated button for voice searches (next to the keyboard).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> I've been waiting for Comcast in our area to start providing the voice remotes so my parents can get one. It would be perfect for my mom. She wouldn't touch VOD a few years ago but now she uses it every day.


There is no need for voice. You can just search. In fact, one good thing that X1 has done, one of the few good things, is an intelligent T9-like typing ability that actually works halfway well. It's a clever little way to get around the annoyingness of the on-screen keyboard.



jonw747 said:


> Some people just feel uncomfortable talking to machines, and/or get easily frustrated when it fails, rather than try to adapt to it.


It's not like it's that big of a deal, but it screws up a lot, and it's cumbersome. I use Google Voice Search and Siri occasionally, but only if I can't type due to extreme glare, or I'm walking fast or something. Google's is better, but none of them are that great, and they're slow compared to just typing something.



BobCamp1 said:


> I wish the Minis were at or under $100. They're too expensive for what they do. A Fire Stick with a voice-controlled remote is $50. With the regular remote it's $40. It has Wifi and is in a smaller form factor.


Hey, I'm the sucker who bought three of them back when they were $250, and I'm quite happy with them at that price...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

solutionsetc said:


> As Stephen has commented, if you do the math (which the cable companies make difficult), TiVo is cheaper. I did the math 6 years ago when I replaced two Moto DVRs with two TiVo HDs. I saved $10+ month, and the two TiVos paid for themselves in 50 months.
> 
> I did the math again just last week when moving from the TiVo HDs to a Bolt and a Mini. Savings is $30+/month over X1 setup, not including the first year of TiVo service free. So the savings is actually $45/month for the first year, and then $30/mo. after that, with the Bolt/Mini combo paying for themselves in the first year.
> 
> This is what TiVo needs to make clear.


The savings are not so clear as you say, for me and my Triple play Comcast package I get a free DVR, if I don't take the "free Comcast DVR" I get a free cable card and save $2.50/month, so in my case any TiVo (Lifetime or monthly) would cost me more than the Comcast DVR, I still have TiVo because I like it better and I don't care about the TiVo extra cost.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> There is no need for voice. You can just search. In fact, one good thing that X1 has done, one of the few good things, is an intelligent T9-like typing ability that actually works halfway well. It's a clever little way to get around the annoyingness of the on-screen keyboard.
> 
> .............


It doesn't work with my mom,. She has a terrible time trying to type in her search parameters. What might take me a few seconds takes her a minute or two.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

Tivo's problem is most of America likes their payment plans and doesn't see the value in dropping 1k for a Roamio and life time service on a box that might go **** up 3 months out of warranty. When you look at the monthly fee for Tivo service it is almost as expensive as the cable co dvr box cost which has no out of pocket expense and if it breaks you get another. That isn't a terrible deal for most to go the cable co route.

There is a physiological barrier in buying third party gear, at high price or pay a third party a fee and hope it works. The risk factor is much higher using Tivo vs going to Comcrap, telling them their box sucks and being out 1/2 a month of service.

Throw in any of the customary cable card problems, losing sync, tuning adapters, bad cards, v52 on some channels etc and you just paid big money for a box you now have to troubleshoot and if you can't get it working you have to try and sell it. Now Tivos tend to hold value, life time units at least but the average Joe doesn't want to deal with it.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

lessd said:


> The savings are not so clear as you say, for me and my Triple play Comcast package I get a free DVR, if I don't take the "free Comcast DVR" I get a free cable card and save $2.50/month, so in my case any TiVo (Lifetime or monthly) would cost me more than the Comcast DVR, I still have TiVo because I like it better and I don't care about the TiVo extra cost.


Yes, but you're paying for voip service that you can easily replace with a much more versatile one for free.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Stephen_Harman said:


> Without understanding that math all you see are additional spend.


Yet the up front costs are too high for some people, and that payoff somewhere down the line isn't so attractive when they realize it doesn't include installation and service. People who bring their own equipment are pretty much on their own when it comes to problems.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

jonw747 said:


> Yet the up front costs are too high for some people, and that payoff somewhere down the line isn't so attractive when they realize it doesn't include installation and service. People who bring their own equipment are pretty much on their own when it comes to problems.


I don't quite understand the instal thing. I mean people can buy a DVD player and plug it in. The TiVo has one more cable.

The whole thing is a lease vs buy decision really. Everyone knows buying a car is cheaper in the long run but many lease as it feels cheaper.

With bolt at $300 though that is less than the cost of a phone upgrade and the payback is little over 12 months vs rental fees on the cable co and not buying other boxes. Roamio and bolt are compelling no need for roku for Netflix users boxes.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

solutionsetc said:


> Yes, but you're paying for voip service that you can easily replace with a much more versatile one for free.


I just don't want to spend the time and energy to try the so called free or less costly VOIP service, my Comcast phone is solid as a rock, runs my 2 line 10 extension ATT in home phone system without problems, maybe I could get a two line service that I am now getting from Comcast for less money with the same quality, but I don't know anybody that has gone that way, including my tech savvy kids. Without somebody in person that I can test out the service and help me get it installed, I will stay where I am. The same was true with TiVo but in reverse, as I was the one that got about 20 families into TiVo in the old days of Series 2 when connecting up the TiVo was easy, now all but 5 of those families have gone with the Comcast DVR, and I am happy as I do the service on only the five families that do have cable card TiVos. ( and 2 of them are my adult married kids)


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

solutionsetc said:


> Yes, but you're paying for voip service that you can easily replace with a much more versatile one for free.


Please elaborate. I have ooma, but the box wasn't free and I'm paying about $4/month in local taxes and fees.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

lessd said:


> I don't know anybody that has gone that way


I went that way due to Comcast's poor implementation of voip over the ATT CallVantage service I was using. No conditional call forwarding, no spam lists, no conditional voice mail, no SMS integration. It is as bare bones as a land line, and charges you a fortune for it compared to the competition, plus the ridiculous modem rental.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

snerd said:


> Please elaborate. I have ooma, but the box wasn't free and I'm paying about $4/month in local taxes and fees.


Currently, I am using a Google Voice number and a 30 dollar oBi box. Other than the box, everything is free, with all the features I mentioned above.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> It doesn't work with my mom,. She has a terrible time trying to type in her search parameters. What might take me a few seconds takes her a minute or two.


It's not that hard to figure out. I'm sure she'll learn. Then again, there are people like my dad who just refuse to use a DVR or VOD or anything, but you can't help people who refuse to use anything.



solutionsetc said:


> I went that way due to Comcast's poor implementation of voip over the ATT CallVantage service I was using. No conditional call forwarding, no spam lists, no conditional voice mail, no SMS integration. It is as bare bones as a land line, and charges you a fortune for it compared to the competition, plus the ridiculous modem rental.


My parents went with CDV due to it being able to handle their alarm system. I'm not a fan of it, but it is pretty reliable, and it does have SMS integration, an app with voicemail and such, so it is more than a bare bones landline. It can be a hard sell to use anything else when the Triple Play bundle ends up being cheaper than breaking everything out, even with cheap VOIP, since the Triple Play customers get stuff like "free" HBO, more sports channels, faster internet, their crappy X1 DVR, etc, etc.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

solutionsetc said:


> I went that way due to Comcast's poor implementation of voip over the ATT CallVantage service I was using. No conditional call forwarding, no spam lists, no conditional voice mail, no SMS integration. It is as bare bones as a land line, and charges you a fortune for it compared to the competition, plus the ridiculous modem rental.


I have my own Arris modem/Comcast phone so I don't pay anything for that, and when I said I don't know anybody with anything but a ATT (now I think it is Frontier) or Comcast landline phone system I was not talking about anybody on this sight.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

Bigg said:


> and it does have SMS integration


Hmmm... if you're saying an SMS sent to your Comcast number is received on the messaging app of your choice, and allows you to respond via SMS from that number (and not your phone's number), then that is new and I stand corrected.

But if it is the same old, use a Comcast app to do this, or you can't respond to SMS using your Comcast number because it is simple forwarding, that wouldn't fit my definition for integration.

While I am thankful for high speed internet where I live, I try and limit Comcast's equipment and applications everywhere I can because, well, simply put, it's all crap. Always has been crap; and probably always will be crap.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Nailed it!



lessd said:


> The savings are not so clear as you say, for me and my Triple play Comcast package I get a free DVR, if I don't take the "free Comcast DVR" I get a free cable card and save $2.50/month, so in my case any TiVo (Lifetime or monthly) would cost me more than the Comcast DVR, I still have TiVo because I like it better and I don't care about the TiVo extra cost.





jonw747 said:


> Yet the up front costs are too high for some people, and that payoff somewhere down the line isn't so attractive when they realize it doesn't include installation and service. People who bring their own equipment are pretty much on their own when it comes to problems.





lessd said:


> I just don't want to spend the time and energy to try the so called free or less costly VOIP service, my Comcast phone is solid as a rock, runs my 2 line 10 extension ATT in home phone system without problems, maybe I could get a two line service that I am now getting from Comcast for less money with the same quality, but I don't know anybody that has gone that way, including my tech savvy kids. Without somebody in person that I can test out the service and help me get it installed, I will stay where I am. The same was true with TiVo but in reverse, as I was the one that got about 20 families into TiVo in the old days of Series 2 when connecting up the TiVo was easy, now all but 5 of those families have gone with the Comcast DVR, and I am happy as I do the service on only the five families that do have cable card TiVos. ( and 2 of them are my adult married kids)


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Stephen_Harman said:


> I don't quite understand the instal thing. I mean people can buy a DVD player and plug it in. The TiVo has one more cable.
> 
> The whole thing is a lease vs buy decision really. Everyone knows buying a car is cheaper in the long run but many lease as it feels cheaper.
> 
> With bolt at $300 though that is less than the cost of a phone upgrade and the payback is little over 12 months vs rental fees on the cable co and not buying other boxes. Roamio and bolt are compelling no need for roku for Netflix users boxes.


Your inability to comprehend a problem doesn't make it not a problem. 

When I plugged my Roamio Plus in to the same cable that had been running my FIOS DVR without problem, I eventually noticed pixelation on certain channels.

What is somebody who can't troubleshoot that kind of problem themselves supposed to do? Verizon clearly was not at fault as their box worked fine. TiVo may have replaced the unit, but there was nothing wrong with the Roamio. It likely would have been a waste of time. They may have checked the signal strength and SNR and when realizing they were maxed out, they may have suggested I add attenuators, but that didn't help either.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I got a new cable card this week for my Bolt. I just got around to installing it Saturday and it wouldn't get the channel when connected to either Bolt. This should have worked without any issue but it didn't. SO now I need to call, see if it's setup in the system etc. A normal user would probably end up having a tech visit for this. Either way it's a pain though. And I'll be spending more time with it than then few minutes it should have taken. Your average consumer has no clue about any of these devices.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

solutionsetc said:


> Hmmm... if you're saying an SMS sent to your Comcast number is received on the messaging app of your choice, and allows you to respond via SMS from that number (and not your phone's number), then that is new and I stand corrected.


http://www.xfinity.com/free-text-messaging.html

Obviously you have to use their messaging app, otherwise the whole thing wouldn't work. That would be true of any VOIP provider, as if you forward, you can no longer respond from the number it was sent to. Comcast's stuff does suck, although it's just an iPhone/Android app, so it's not like their old security software where it would take over half of your computer with Comcast crap.



jonw747 said:


> Your inability to comprehend a problem doesn't make it not a problem.
> 
> When I plugged my Roamio Plus in to the same cable that had been running my FIOS DVR without problem, I eventually noticed pixelation on certain channels.
> 
> What is somebody who can't troubleshoot that kind of problem themselves supposed to do? Verizon clearly was not at fault as their box worked fine.


That actually is a Verizon problem. Whether they will be willing to step up and fix their own problems, or just play the blame game is another story though. Verizon or Comcast or whomever have to deliver a usable signal to the equipment, regardless of whether it's their stuff or somebody else's. And not all boxes are the same. It sounds like the Verizon box was able to tolerate a signal that was, in reality, too hot.

That being said, it's still a valid point, because the MSOs are either actively hostile towards TiVo, or just incompetent, so it makes it harder for the end user to get the MSO to step up and get their service working properly.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> That actually is a Verizon problem. Whether they will be willing to step up and fix their own problems, or just play the blame game is another story though. Verizon or Comcast or whomever have to deliver a usable signal to the equipment, regardless of whether it's their stuff or somebody else's. And not all boxes are the same. It sounds like the Verizon box was able to tolerate a signal that was, in reality, too hot.


Nah, the first thing I tried were attenuators like many suggest around here because FIOS has such a hot signal and that didn't help at all.

My FIOS DVR was a 2-tuner unit and the M-Card handles 6, so, we're talking different hardware, different behavior.

Of course Verizon would fix it if I asked them to, and they'll gladly charge me for labor and material as I don't bother to subscribe to the $10/mon wire maintenance plan.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

jonw747 said:


> Of course Verizon would fix it if I asked them to, and they'll gladly charge me for labor and material as I don't bother to subscribe to the $10/mon wire maintenance plan.


What is that? Saw it on my in-laws bill. Too much effort to ask what it was.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jonw747 said:


> Of course Verizon would fix it if I asked them to, and they'll gladly charge me for labor and material as I don't bother to subscribe to the $10/mon wire maintenance plan.


True, if it's inside wiring, that's your problem, and you should be able to fix it. If that's the case, the Verizon box was right on the edge with an extremely marginal signal, and the TiVo box was right over the edge. Some equipment is more sensitive than other equipment.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

TiVo should sell some sort of Bolt/Mini(s) package, and advertise it as the whole house streaming/dvr solution.

For 450 you can get a Bolt that records 160HD hours and a Mini to connect an additional TV, with the first year of service included.
Then take the avg dvr rental price per month x2 (or how ever the cable co's do it to share recordings) and illustrate the savings over 2 of years.

The problem is, there are many that are willing to pay more for a cable co DVR due to the fact that its one less bill to pay (save All-In which is a harder sell).


----------



## Sixmm (Oct 2, 2015)

andyw715 said:


> TiVo should sell some sort of Bolt/Mini(s) package, and advertise it as the whole house streaming/dvr solution.
> 
> For 450 you can get a Bolt that records 160HD hours and a Mini to connect an additional TV, with the first year of service included.
> Then take the avg dvr rental price per month x2 (or how ever the cable co's do it to share recordings) and illustrate the savings over 2 of years.
> ...


This is RIGHT ON!!!!!!! This is one of their two big advantages and they do not do a good job of presenting it. Start a web page for whole home HD DVR. Ask ONE question: How many TV"S do you have and then give them a price for the whole house.

Keep it simple and advertise the crap out of it. TIVO would double their revenue in a short time and the boxes would be rolling out the door until the cable providers start providing STB for free!


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> True, if it's inside wiring, that's your problem, and you should be able to fix it. If that's the case, the Verizon box was right on the edge with an extremely marginal signal, and the TiVo box was right over the edge. Some equipment is more sensitive than other equipment.


Zero sign of anything being on the edge. The Verizon installer was happy with the signal quality when he installed the FIOS box, and the TiVo's signal strength and SNR were both strong on all channels.

And yes, I was able to fix it ... but it was not just a matter of plug & go as was suggested.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Stephen_Harman said:


> What is that? Saw it on my in-laws bill. Too much effort to ask what it was.


For $10/mon Verizon will fix for free any issues with the inside wiring. Normally they only cover wiring up to their box (or boxes) at the point of entry (the ONT).


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

andyw715 said:


> TiVo should sell some sort of Bolt/Mini(s) package, and advertise it as the whole house streaming/dvr solution.
> 
> For 450 you can get a Bolt that records 160HD hours and a Mini to connect an additional TV, with the first year of service included.
> Then take the avg dvr rental price per month x2 (or how ever the cable co's do it to share recordings) and illustrate the savings over 2 of years.
> ...


Everybody's situation is different. Someone who's worried about their job or that may be moving soon wouldn't want to commit $450 up front. Someone who's currently sending the output of their DVR to other TV's using the Component Video connection wouldn't buy the Bolt because it lacks that. Someone else may be happy with a single DVR and an STB and simply see no reason for whole home. Someone else may be getting their DVR for free as part of their bundle or a promotion. Someone else may have no interest in learning how to operate a new DVR.


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

jonw747 said:


> Everybody's situation is different. Someone who's worried about their job or that may be moving soon wouldn't want to commit $450 up front. Someone who's currently sending the output of their DVR to other TV's using the Component Video connection wouldn't buy the Bolt because it lacks that. Someone else may be happy with a single DVR and an STB and simply see no reason for whole home. Someone else may be getting their DVR for free as part of their bundle or a promotion. Someone else may have no interest in learning how to operate a new DVR.


True but that doesn't mean that TiVo shouldn't target some customer type. Today they aren't telling anyone why they need a TiVo.

"Streaming" and "whole house DVR" are the terms of the day. "Bundles" are what people like.

Drop the single MSRP of the Mini to 129 even 119 (even that is to much for what it is) and "Bundle" it with a TiVo for 79-99


----------



## Sixmm (Oct 2, 2015)

andyw715 said:


> True but that doesn't mean that TiVo shouldn't target some customer type. Today they aren't telling anyone why they need a TiVo.
> 
> "Streaming" and "whole house DVR" are the terms of the day. "Bundles" are what people like.
> 
> Drop the single MSRP of the Mini to 129 even 119 (even that is to much for what it is) and "Bundle" it with a TiVo for 79-99


Yes, they have to get away from being compared to apple and roku etc.....Whole home HD DVR at a fair price is an easy and effective differentiation. Right now they are making the consumer come to the conclusion that they can have the streaming HD/DVR in their whole house at a good price. The marketing group needs to provide that bridge.


----------



## davefred99 (Oct 31, 2004)

jonw747 said:


> Everybody's situation is different. Someone who's worried about their job or that may be moving soon wouldn't want to commit $450 up front. Someone who's currently sending the output of their DVR to other TV's using the Component Video connection wouldn't buy the Bolt because it lacks that. Someone else may be happy with a single DVR and an STB and simply see no reason for whole home. Someone else may be getting their DVR for free as part of their bundle or a promotion. Someone else may have no interest in learning how to operate a new DVR.


I agree everyone's situation is different. I think even $300.00 up front to get started with new bolt is still too much. I also think the Mini is still too expensive, it should be no more than $99.00 one time for life. Maybe a promo like $99 upfront for a bolt & 0ne mini and a $15 a month sub would work better. Make it a 2 yr lease where you have to return the boxes if you cancel early with an ETF.
I don't know no matter how you slice it consumers are fickle and putting a lot of money up front is not popular and long term contracts are hated too. Cheap once and done is what they want but quality products cost money.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

Why would Tivo want to deal with a potential ton of returned boxes after two years? They would rather not, I'm sure, have to price into the deal some residual value of a box that is either EOL or about to be EOL. That would probably make it more expensive!


----------



## duncan7 (Sep 17, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> Your average consumer has no clue about any of these devices.


And tier 1 at your cableco probably doesn't, either. At least, that's been my experience with Charter.

Another two cents: My experience with Charter's STB equipment has been pretty limited, but I've never seen it do the equivalent of V52s on a random selection of channels, as I recently had on my TiVos. A power-cycle of the Roamio and TA fixed this for the main TV, but hasn't for the Premiere. Luckily, they aren't channels I watch much (only noticed it because one of them is ESPNU.) Even though I suspect it's something on their end, since I used to get these channels on both units, it's hard to fault the Charter folks when they inevitably say, "Rebooting your TiVo fixes it, at least sometimes? Must be a TiVo problem."

Returning to the original thread, I'd submit that cable company disinterest (at best) and CableCARD+TA technology are the biggest vulnerability in the TiVo model. I used an X1 DVR in a Comcast house recently and it's worlds better than anything I've seen from Charter. If mine were a Comcast town and I didn't already have TiVo units, it'd be hard to make the case for one, though I did notice that Comcast supports OnDemand content on TiVo. (Will the only dividend of the Charter experiment be the cheap Charter-branded peanut remote I picked up on eBay?)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jonw747 said:


> Zero sign of anything being on the edge. The Verizon installer was happy with the signal quality when he installed the FIOS box, and the TiVo's signal strength and SNR were both strong on all channels.
> 
> And yes, I was able to fix it ... but it was not just a matter of plug & go as was suggested.


Then what was the problem?



jrtroo said:


> Why would Tivo want to deal with a potential ton of returned boxes after two years? They would rather not, I'm sure, have to price into the deal some residual value of a box that is either EOL or about to be EOL. That would probably make it more expensive!


Hey, the way the MSOs roll stuff out, they could sell them dirt cheap to the MSOs to live out another 5 years. 



duncan7 said:


> If mine were a Comcast town and I didn't already have TiVo units, it'd be hard to make the case for one, though I did notice that Comcast supports OnDemand content on TiVo. (Will the only dividend of the Charter experiment be the cheap Charter-branded peanut remote I picked up on eBay?)


And no SDV, so no TA. TiVo works pretty well on Comcast, although the On Demand often doesn't work, at least in my limited testing.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

lessd said:


> That just it!, I don't want to go into business to go into people homes having no idea what I would find, beside I am retired and at age 74 I not going to get involved whith people besides my family/friends.
> Most people don't want to pay for in home service otherwise the Best Buy geek squad would be doing a lot more business, I think they could come into your home and connect up a TiVo, but I have seen their work, they connected up a friends new Best But HDTV to the cable box using component cables even though he had a HDMI cable, he never new the difference, until I reconnected using the HDMI cable.


Component HD and HDMI HD are visually identical. The difference is Component cannot do HDCP (copy protection) so went the way of the arc.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

andyw715 said:


> True but that doesn't mean that TiVo shouldn't target some customer type. Today they aren't telling anyone why they need a TiVo.
> 
> "Streaming" and "whole house DVR" are the terms of the day. "Bundles" are what people like.
> 
> Drop the single MSRP of the Mini to 129 even 119 (even that is to much for what it is) and "Bundle" it with a TiVo for 79-99


Go to Amazon and pay that price anyway!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HobokenSkier said:


> Component HD and HDMI HD are visually identical. The difference is Component cannot do HDCP (copy protection) so went the way of the arc.


Component is analog so it's susceptible to interference where HDMI is digital with error correction, so it either works or doesn't. Also component can't carry 1080p/60, it doesn't have enough bandwidth.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Component is analog so it's susceptible to interference where HDMI is digital with error correction, so it either works or doesn't. Also component can't carry 1080p/60, it doesn't have enough bandwidth.


Component cables are essentially mini-coax cables, with shielding to prevent interference. Over the short distances of typical component cables (<10 feet) you really won't get much, if any, signal interference that would be visually noticeable. And actually, I think that component cables could carry 1080p/60 from purely a bandwidth perspective. But content owners hate the analog hole, and have prevented hardware manufacturers from extending component outputs to resolutions higher than 1080i.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> Component is analog so it's susceptible to interference where HDMI is digital with error correction, so it either works or doesn't. Also component can't carry 1080p/60, it doesn't have enough bandwidth.


These are marginal use cases. No broadcaster is putting out 1080p60 signals, the only place that really exists in the home is on BD or PC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p sums that up pretty nicely.

My point was that the drive to HDMI was from the movie studios, not the TV manufacturers. Even the opening line of the HDMI Wikipedia article talks to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

The HDMI founders are Hitachi, Panasonic, Philips, Silicon Image, Sony, Thomson, RCA and Toshiba.[15] *Digital Content Protection, LLC provides HDCP (which was developed by Intel) for HDMI*.[16] *HDMI has the support of motion picture producers* Fox, Universal, Warner Bros. and Disney, along with system operators DirecTV, EchoStar (Dish Network) and CableLabs.[4]

Most CEDIA members are not fans of HDMI, it makes video distribution a lot harder with HDCP handshakes, CEC overrides and lowest common denominator audio distribution messing with Home Theater environments. The only people it made life better for are the motion picture producers.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I know HDCP was the reason for the big push to HDMI. However another major advantage over component is that it's a single cable, so it's easier to run, and with only one end on it it's easier to plug in blindly. (easy to mix up that blue and green cable on component when trying to see behind something in the A/V rack.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> I know HDCP was the reason for the big push to HDMI. However another major advantage over component is that it's a single cable, so it's easier to run, and with only one end on it it's easier to plug in blindly. (easy to mix up that blue and green cable on component when trying to see behind something in the A/V rack.


Yes, HDMI is easier to run and connect over short distances; but over long distances, Component is fantastic and I do believe the TV can compensate for signal drop in the cable; whereas like you say, with HDMI if it can't get through, you'll get nothing.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

andyw715 said:


> True but that doesn't mean that TiVo shouldn't target some customer type. Today they aren't telling anyone why they need a TiVo.
> 
> "Streaming" and "whole house DVR" are the terms of the day. "Bundles" are what people like.
> 
> Drop the single MSRP of the Mini to 129 even 119 (even that is to much for what it is) and "Bundle" it with a TiVo for 79-99


I suppose they're playing the numbers game. There's a lot of people out there who own just a single DVR.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

jrtroo said:


> Why would Tivo want to deal with a potential ton of returned boxes after two years? They would rather not, I'm sure, have to price into the deal some residual value of a box that is either EOL or about to be EOL. That would probably make it more expensive!


Then why do cable and satellite companies lease their boxes?

1. Free repair or replacement to customer. Tivo costs $50 or more.
2. They get to capitalize (treat as an asset) the cost of the boxes and then write off their depreciation over time as a tax break.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> Then why do cable and satellite companies lease their boxes?...


Because if they sold them at even a break even point the public would understand how much they cost and demand the Government actually have regulations that make 3rd party alternatives viable.

And lets be honest mostly the cable/sat companies are not really leasing their hardware as that insinuates the lease cost is actually paying for it. Cable/sat hide the major cost of hardware in the cost of programming, using the hardware's low or free cost as a marketing tool while assuring third party STB/DVRs will stay fringe products.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Because if they sold them at even a break even point the public would understand how much they cost and demand the Government actually have regulations that make 3rd party alternatives viable.
> 
> And lets be honest mostly the cable/sat companies are not really leasing their hardware as that insinuates the lease cost is actually paying for it. Cable/sat hide the major cost of hardware in the cost of programming, using the hardware's low or free cost as a marketing tool while assuring third party STB/DVRs will stay fringe products.


Unfortunately (for TiVo) you are correct as my Comcast package includes a "Free DVR", I don't take it and instead get a free cable card and $2.50/month cr., so no matter how you figure I am paying more for the TiVo DVR than if I took the Comcast DVR, ( that has free on sight service) that makes it hard for TiVo to compete on price.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HobokenSkier said:


> Component HD and HDMI HD are visually identical. The difference is Component cannot do HDCP (copy protection) so went the way of the arc.


They *should* look identical, although Component HD has to be converted D>A>D, so if the box and TV don't do a good job at that, there could be some degradation.



HobokenSkier said:


> Most CEDIA members are not fans of HDMI, it makes video distribution a lot harder with HDCP handshakes, CEC overrides and lowest common denominator audio distribution messing with Home Theater environments. The only people it made life better for are the motion picture producers.


I hated HDMI until I actually set up a home theater with a whole bunch of components. Using Redmere HDMI cables, HDMI was the least bulky type of cable in the setup. With component, I would have double the number of cables to have component video and S/PIDIF audio, and the S/PIDIF alone would have been thicker than the Redmere cables.



atmuscarella said:


> Cable/sat hide the major cost of hardware in the cost of programming, using the hardware's low or free cost as a marketing tool while assuring third party STB/DVRs will stay fringe products.


If you actually did the math you, you would realize what an completely absurd statement that is. The boxes are a cash cow for the MSOs. Comcast is bundling the base X1 DVR in their high-end Triple Play packages, but the additional TV boxes are $10/mo, and normally the X1 DVR is $20/mo.

Even if you say the DVR is only $10/mo in the bundle, they are making a bit of profit on that. Comcast buys in humongous quantities, with custom designs. So those TiVo boxes that have an all-in cost of $650-$1100+ are a bad comparison. Figure Comcast is paying somewhere around $300-$400 for the DVR. They may be paying less, so this is a conservative assessment. Even at the discounted bundled rate, and discounting all the costs that Comcast has associated with X1, they are still making a small profit over the course of the box's 5-8 year life. And many customers are paying $20/mo, which is just a plain cash cow for Comcast.

Now let's look at those $10/mo add-on boxes. The customers with Triple Play are more likely to have more of them. Figure 2-3 additional boxes in the average Triple Play household, maybe 1-2 in others. For each box, Comcast is likely paying less than $100 for them. They are then renting them out at $10/mo, which means that they are making their price back many times over, even after you discount for the cost of providing guide data and setting them up, and everything else.

Equipment is a cash cow for cable, and has been for a long time. Comcast has invested millions in the X1 infrastructure, and the "cloud" that supports it and everything else, but at the same time, the actual costs of the hardware have come way down, and they have been able to make a more compelling whole-home DVR system so that people will want more boxes. Looking back 5 years, a lot of people only had one or two boxes, now every TV in the house has to have something, and with whole-home DVR, a lot of those DTAs have been converted to full $10/mo X1 mini boxes.

But wait, it gets worse. They are renting cable modems that cost $60 on Amazon for $8/mo. And Comcast isn't paying $60 for them, they are probably paying $50 TOPS. Probably less than that. Even their fancy gateway, which might cost them $150 is renting for $10/mo. Even if you give them an average life of only 3 years, they are still immensely profitable, and the average life on cable gear tends to be pretty long, as they get good lives out of their gear, downcycling it through customers that don't need the latest stuff.

The programming is the huge cost for operating a cable system, and around half of their revenues just go to programming costs. Comcast is so big that they can drive the costs down somewhat, but still. Their margins are much better on HSI than on TV, but don't worry about poor Comcast, they are still making money on TV, it's just not a great profit for how large the revenue is, since the programming costs big $$$, and the TV signals use up most of their plant's capacity and drive plant upgrades that internet and phone don't.

Oh, and while phone is a relatively small amount of their revenue and profit, the margins are completely insane. It costs almost nothing to provide, so they have 80-90% margins. It's nice padding, and makes the customers feel like they are getting an insane deal when they are paying $20/mo, or in many cases even less depending on the Triple Play package, for their home phone service. And, add that probably 95% of home phone subscribers are renting Comcast's eMTA, and the profits looks even more delicious for Comcast's shareholders.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Because if they sold them at even a break even point the public would understand how much they cost and demand the Government actually have regulations that make 3rd party alternatives viable.
> 
> And lets be honest mostly the cable/sat companies are not really leasing their hardware as that insinuates the lease cost is actually paying for it. Cable/sat hide the major cost of hardware in the cost of programming, using the hardware's low or free cost as a marketing tool while assuring third party STB/DVRs will stay fringe products.


That may be true for some providers like Comcast, but Time Warner Cable doesn't do that. They make you pay very high box lease fees, sometimes even for the special 12-month introductory rates. I have a Roamio Plus and 3 Minis, and my TWC bill would be almost $70/month higher due to box leasing fees if I were renting their whole-home DVR and 3 cable boxes.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> That may be true for some providers like Comcast, but Time Warner Cable doesn't do that. They make you pay very high box lease fees, sometimes even for the special 12-month introductory rates. I have a Roamio Plus and 3 Minis, and my TWC bill would be almost $70/month higher if I were renting their whole-home DVR and 3 cable boxes.


Even TWC offers deals, my friends have TWC and they called to fish for a better price (did not say they were leaving just asked because they had added a second HD TV and wanted a STB for it without a price increase) and they got an increase in Internet speed, 2 DVRs that replaced the one STB they had, and more channels plus TWC lowered their bill. They have to pay for the second DVR after a certain period of time (1 yr I think) but the other DVR is a STB replacement that they claim will not result in an increased cost down the road. Unfortunately the DVRs still suck but they are not big TV people and only use it for a few shows so they work for them.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They *should* look identical, although Component HD has to be converted D>A>D, so if the box and TV don't do a good job at that, there could be some degradation.
> 
> I hated HDMI until I actually set up a home theater with a whole bunch of components. Using Redmere HDMI cables, HDMI was the least bulky type of cable in the setup. With component, I would have double the number of cables to have component video and S/PIDIF audio, and the S/PIDIF alone would have been thicker than the Redmere cables.
> 
> ...


Redmere can be flakey. Repulling component never happened. Replacing redmere or using HDMI baseT due to a failure that happens.

My install has CAT6S next to the 50ft unpowered hdmi for when that fails.

And just look at the time warner rental fee on a modem. $5 a month on a device you can buy on Amazon for $50!


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Even TWC offers deals, my friends have TWC and they called to fish for a better price (did not say they were leaving just asked because they had added a second HD TV and wanted a STB for it without a price increase) and they got an increase in Internet speed, 2 DVRs that replaced the one STB they had, and more channels plus TWC lowered their bill. They have to pay for the second DVR after a certain period of time (1 yr I think) but the other DVR is a STB replacement that they claim will not result in an increased cost down the road. Unfortunately the DVRs still suck but they are not big TV people and only use it for a few shows so they work for them.


They must either have more competition in their area or just better luck than I did getting a better deal out of TWC. I could never get them to drop or reduce any equipment rental fees. They always told me there was no way they could do it.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> They must either have more competition in their area or just better luck than I did getting a better deal out of TWC. I could never get them to drop or reduce any equipment rental fees. They always told me there was no way they could do it.


I luckily live at two addresses in their DB. Each year I move to the other address for an intro offer.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> They must either have more competition in their area or just better luck than I did getting a better deal out of TWC. I could never get them to drop or reduce any equipment rental fees. They always told me there was no way they could do it.


That had been my take on TWC up until they told me about their deal. But I do agree with you that TWC's normal equipment pricing is high and certainly makes buying TiVos look good. I still know plenty of people that use Dish/Direct because of past experiences with TWC.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> That had been my take on TWC up until they told me about their deal. But I do agree with you that TWC's normal equipment pricing is high and certainly makes buying TiVos look good. I still know plenty of people that use Dish/Direct because of past experiences with TWC.


Yeah I hate Time Warner Cable. Their boxes were complete garbage and they were charging us ridiculous fees for them. I guess I should be thanking them though. If their boxes weren't so bad and rental fees so high, I never would have set out on my search for alternatives and found TiVo. Satellite wasn't an option because of some very tall trees and I was tired of TWC's boxes having a stroke every time I would hit a button on their clunky remote.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HobokenSkier said:


> Redmere can be flakey. Repulling component never happened. Replacing redmere or using HDMI baseT due to a failure that happens.


I wasn't suggesting running it through a wall. Running video through a wall like that is just asking for problems. If you're doing a projector, I'd try and use a drop ceiling, so that you can just run new wire when you need it, or if that's not possible, a conduit AND CAT-6 cable so that you have the most options.

I used it on an entertainment center type of setup with about a dozen HDMI devices, and it reduced the cable bulk there significantly. Without Redmere, it would have been even more of a mess to set up. Someday I'll have a game room with a 4k projector and everything neatly rackmounted. Someday. 



> And just look at the time warner rental fee on a modem. $5 a month on a device you can buy on Amazon for $50!


Yup. And Comcast is ever worse.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I wasn't suggesting running it through a wall. Running video through a wall like that is just asking for problems. If you're doing a projector, I'd try and use a drop ceiling, so that you can just run new wire when you need it, or if that's not possible, a conduit AND CAT-6 cable so that you have the most options.
> 
> I used it on an entertainment center type of setup with about a dozen HDMI devices, and it reduced the cable bulk there significantly. Without Redmere, it would have been even more of a mess to set up. Someday I'll have a game room with a 4k projector and everything neatly rackmounted. Someday.
> 
> Yup. And Comcast is ever worse.


But running cables in walls is what custom AV is about. That and something customers can't get from best buy, integrated whole home audio and distributed video and all this tied to security light and HVAC.

Anyway. Where as the likely problems with component were super low (nail through cable?) the HDMI problems are all over the place from end damage to cable length to handshake issues.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HobokenSkier said:


> But running cables in walls is what custom AV is about. That and something customers can't get from best buy, integrated whole home audio and distributed video and all this tied to security light and HVAC.


I'm familiar with the central A/V distribution systems. However, they use HDBaseT over CAT cable anyway. I also don't think they are a great idea, since you end up spending many times over what the equipment costs, for what benefit? Back in the days before whole-home DVRs, you could rack up a bunch of DVRs, and make them available in any room, but we have that with X1 or TiVo or Genie now. Centralizing a device like a Roku or a Blu-ray player is just silly, it costs many times what the device costs, and makes upgrades that much harder.

Central structured wiring with CAT and RG cabling to every room, surround sound speaker wiring, home theater, and distributed audio all makes sense, but distributed video makes no sense at this point. And yes, there are applications where you might want to run HDMI through a wall for a short distance, like for a wall-mounted TV or projector or something, but beyond that, it just doesn't make sense.



> Anyway. Where as the likely problems with component were super low (nail through cable?) the HDMI problems are all over the place from end damage to cable length to handshake issues.


Sure. But component was never meant for that application either. It just happened to work. HDMI works great for the vast majority of users the vast majority of the time. It's easy to use, can carry audio and/or video, and is a single connection.

On a side note, it's really disappointing that no one bothered to add support for HDMI Ethernet Channel. If everything supported it, then you could just plug one Ethernet cable into your whole entertainment center, and it would be carrier over HDMI. But no, nothing that I've heard of ever supported it. It's a shame, as it would have made HDMI even that much more useful.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

On runs under 50 ft you can use UN powered HDMI. Run CAT6S alongside as backup. Saves $$ on the baluns.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

My thoughts:

Tivo concentrated on patent Lawsuits for revenue instead of improving and expanding on an excellent product. 

Now they are scrambling with a half assed product called the Bolt.

I'm saying this with love, because I love the Tivo's and want them to succeed.

But I'm afraid with their current direction, they are becoming the next Sirius/XM, Boxee Box


----------



## tom42 (Sep 30, 2015)

People do not like the concept of paying a monthly charge after buying "their own" cable box, plus all they see is a simple onscreen guide that costs more than netflix. Its a hard sell telling people to buy a cable box that will not function unless you pay a monthly fee.

To avoid the monthly (or yearly) charge you can buy a lifetime pass but my lord it is 600 bucks. You get the 1st year free with the bolt and then it is 150 a year. 

600 / 150 is 4 years plus the free year equals 5 years. Who it their right mind would buy a lifetime pass that does not start being profitable for 5 years. In 5 years the device will be way beyond obsolete so what it the point? 99% of users do not swap hard drives or any of that, they want plug and play. 5 years ago Tivo released the TCD746320 Premiere DVR, it held 45 hr of HD and does not do 4k. Who would be happy with that today? You also have the fact most people did not know Tivo still existed, I have heard that many times from many places since the Bolt was released. If these people did not think Tivo still existed they will be hesitant buying a lifetime pass because they are not sure Tivo will still be around in 5 years.

All that said I understand it is a good deal, not the lifetime pass but the Tivo with a yearly pass. Take TWC for example

$11.99 For DVR box
$11.99 for 2nd cable box
$12.99 for DVR service
$3.00 for Extra outlet

Yearly total is $479.64

Tivo set up costs
299.99 for Bolt
149.99 for Mini Tivo
$4.00 for smartcard and tuner per month

1st year cost $497.98
Each year after $198 (pass + smartcard)

So you lose 20 bucks the 1st year but save $282 each year after.

Try explaining all that to the general population in a 30 second commercial, plus you need to tell them On-demand will not function too (Roku to the rescue) 




on a side note, Tivo should try to get a TWC app for their devices. TWC should realize that if people use such an app they still have to be a customer. It is better to have a customer that does not rent equipment than a cord cutter they make nothing off of


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

tom42 said:


> Try explaining all that to the general population in a 30 second commercial, plus you need to tell them On-demand will not function too (Roku to the rescue)


And that self-installation is required, and that there will be a $50 fee to repair a broken unit.

Maybe they could start the commercial with this disclaimer?

Anybody who thinks MOCA has something to do with Coffee should press skip on their DVR right now.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jonw747 said:


> And that self-installation is required, and that there will be a $50 fee to repair a broken unit.
> 
> Maybe they could start the commercial with this disclaimer?
> 
> Anybody who thinks MOCA has something to do with Coffee should press skip on their DVR right now.




Few people know much about networking with wired or wireless. Even fewer know anything about MoCA.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> Few people know much about networking with wired or wireless. Even fewer know anything about MoCA.


I'd argue lots of people do and TiVo should be happy to market to them.

But if they're hellbent on reaching the masses ... they'd better add an option that includes includes installation, in-home support, no-money-down AND still comes out way ahead in terms of features/price.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

jonw747 said:


> But if they're hellbent on reaching the masses ... they'd better add an option that includes includes installation, in-home support, no-money-down AND still comes out way ahead in terms of features/price.


I'd say that's impossible. TiVo could offer all that but not be ahead of cable-provided DVRs on price. If that were possible, I think TiVo would have found a way to do it by now.

And that's why retail distributed TiVos will never be more than a niche player in the world of cable DVRs. If something major changes in the cable TV landscape, such as a software-only replacement for CableCards, or some kind of new mandate from the FCC, MAYBE that will change in the future, although I doubt it.

TiVo today reminds me of Apple and the Mac platform back in the late 90s - early 00s, when I left Windows for my first Mac. It was a niche platform with a small devoted group of users who loved it because it was different and offered something better than the status quo. But there was a lot of concern over the continued livelihood of the platform. Of course, what ultimately turned things around for Apple wasn't their traditional product, Mac personal computers, but the introduction of the iPod, the iTunes Music Store, and then the iPhone. All of that success then buoyed the Mac platform, which is far more popular today than it was 15 years ago.

Perhaps the "cord cutter/OTA + streaming" market could be a big growth area for TiVo if they price and market their product right. (I'm not suggesting it has anywhere near the growth potential that Apple saw with the iPod and iPhone though.) Beyond that, I don't see a lot to be optimistic about regarding TiVo's future.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> I'd say that's impossible. TiVo could offer all that but not be ahead of cable-provided DVRs on price. If that were possible, I think TiVo would have found a way to do it by now.
> 
> And that's why retail distributed TiVos will never be more than a niche player in the world of cable DVRs. If something major changes in the cable TV landscape, such as a software-only replacement for CableCards, or some kind of new mandate from the FCC, MAYBE that will change in the future, although I doubt it.
> 
> ...


Well, as I understand it, TiVo provides everything a cable company would when people buy the product via an MSO. A custom installer should also be capable of providing full support.

I suppose what's at stake here is TiVo as a retail product, but they just might be nailing that last one in to their own coffin by placating neither the mass market nor the enthusiast market.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

tom42 said:


> People do not like the concept of paying a monthly charge after buying "their own" cable box, plus all they see is a simple onscreen guide that costs more than netflix. Its a hard sell telling people to buy a cable box that will not function unless you pay a monthly fee.
> 
> To avoid the monthly (or yearly) charge you can buy a lifetime pass but my lord it is 600 bucks. You get the 1st year free with the bolt and then it is 150 a year.
> 
> ...


You can't use price between TiVo and a MSO DVR system as each MSO has different plans with different prices. My Comcast triple play comes with a "free DVR" but because I use a TiVo I get only the cable card for free and a $2.5/month cr, so at best I put out $500 for a Roamio that pays for itself in what *16 years * not counting having to replace the hard drive a few times and it still may do the job in 16 years but that asking a lot from electronics. I like TiVo so I use TiVo, has nothing to do with the cost as compared to cable just as I drive a $60,000 car when a $20,000 car will get me places just a fast.


----------



## moveandstore (Oct 17, 2015)

I have had Tivo for many years now, since the DirecTV boxes that came with Tivo. Tivo is the best DVR solution out there imho, but many people other than technophiles do not know what its. One reason is the upfront price. "Lifetime" should be just that: If you shell out $599.00, it should be for lifetime service with any box you buy, not with just an individual box. In other words, I should be able to upgrade my box in a few years instead of keeping the same one and having to pay another 599.00 or so to upgrade. A lot of people do not like the upfront cost and it is a hard sell for many. So people go with the cable box that they come with.

I went with Tivo because I had to give up my DirecTV Series 2 unit when I moved. Since DirecTV changed their business model of leasing boxes (after the NewsCorp buyout and their boxes had their own DVR interface), I have had the DirecTV with Tivo, and I fell in love with it. Once I gave it up, I had to go with the Cable company box which was horrible. Not enough recording space; the lag changing channels; and the horrible GUI. Once I learned about the use of a Cable Card, and my cable company offered them (@ 2.00 per month), I went with the Tivo Premier. The cost savings was about 5.00 cheaper per month than the Cable company's DVR & Remote and HD service. So my package was a little less per month. Now that I have the Bolt, I really like it. But many people do not know about Tivo and the great interface and easier recording that it does. Plus it integrates the Netlfix; Amazon; and Hulu services for a seamless integration especially if you are keeping track of your favorite TV series. The cable box can't offer that, so the cable companies have VOD. If only you can use the VOD thru the Tivo instead of the cable box, I feel many more people will migrate to Tivo.

I feel that the Bolt was rushed out the door and not completely ready. The shape doesn't bother me, but the color should have had more choices other than white. It also should have also come with a USB 3.0 or a 3.1 port instead of eSATA for additional storage. I know that Western Digital and Seagate/Samsung can come up with a better (or faster) storage solution.

Bottom line is Tivo is a niche product. Hopefully it will last in some form or the other. Maybe when 4K/UHD television is broadcasted in full, maybe Tivo will have a role to play in that. Who knows.......


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

jonw747 said:


> I suppose what's at stake here is TiVo as a retail product, but they just might be nailing that last one in to their own coffin by placating neither the mass market nor the enthusiast market.





lessd said:


> I like TiVo so I use TiVo, has nothing to do with the cost as compared to cable just as I drive a $60,000 car when a $20,000 car will get me places just a fast.


You both make great points, I think. If I were running TiVo, I guess I would have a two-pronged approach targeting two markets. First, the company's foundation: the enthusiasts. Most of the regulars on this board fall in this camp. These are cable subscribers who probably have cable connected to more than one TV. They probably also subscribe to at least one major OTT streaming service. These folks are tech-savvy. They highly value video entertainment, want the best possible experience, and will seek it out. They aren't turned off by stuff like CableCards or simple home networking to connect a Mini. This is your high-margin crowd. Without these folks, the whole company folds. Pricing for hardware and ongoing service for the TiVo units that serve these enthusiasts will be relatively high. The marketing pitch may mention "You may even save money versus your clunky cable company DVR" but saving money isn't the main rationale for these folks. It's about having the Mercedes Benz of TV-watching that powerfully blends together cable, on-demand (hopefully), and OTT streaming with a best-of-breed user interface. There's a natural ceiling for the size of this market, which is why retail cable-compatible TiVos will always be a niche product. But they should aggressively market to this high-margin niche and try to capture as much of it as possible.

The second market would be the growing OTA-only (or, more aptly, the non-cable/satellite) crowd. To get folks to sign up, the price must be lower here, not only the upfront hardware cost but also the ongoing monthly pricing. Helping people stitch together their own custom bundles of video entertainment from OTA and streaming as seamlessly as possible for a good perceived value is the game here. (And assure buyers that, should they choose to drop their subscription in the future, they can continue using their TiVo for the individual streaming apps only -- no DVR, universal search, or OnePass but they can still use Netflix, etc.) Yes, the margins will be much lower for these folks but the incremental cost of re-purposing cable-compatible TiVos for the OTA market isn't that much. The incremental support costs for each additional OTA-only subscriber isn't much. And they've already developed the software, apps, and OnePass program database. They're already doing the commercial tagging on all the major broadcast networks for SkipMode. So instead of charging $15 a month for ongoing service, they could charge $10 or even $8 for these OTA-only units. May as well get the incremental revenue you can from the OTA-only crowd to increase the company's bottom line and help ensure its survival.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

The only thing that has really stood out with TiVo is the transferring shows to a Mac/PC, and a better user experience over the cable companies. These are things mostly for tweaks.

The newer units have demonstrable features that set TiVo a bit more apart, but is it too little to late? And can they keep it up? TiVo seems to always take forever to bring new things to bear.

Rather than constantly trying to reinvent the wheel, TiVo needs to integrate with an Amazon or a Google. Either of these provide an already established ecosystem that TiVo would never be able to achieve on their own. A Bolt version of Android TV/TiVo DVR could be a very compelling product, and for a comparatively small investment, integrate voice, cloud, gaming, social, and IoT genres to the 'one box' experience.

But I think I am only dreaming here as I don't see TiVo having their brand take a back (or even passenger) seat to someone else's.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

solutionsetc said:


> Rather than constantly trying to reinvent the wheel, TiVo needs to integrate with an Amazon or a Google. Either of these provide an already established ecosystem that TiVo would never be able to achieve on their own. A Bolt version of Android TV/TiVo DVR could be a very compelling product, and for a comparatively small investment, integrate voice, cloud, gaming, social, and IoT genres to the 'one box' experience.
> 
> But I think I am only dreaming here as I don't see TiVo having their brand take a back (or even passenger) seat to someone else's.


Well, as I have stated elsewhere on this site, I think TiVo should embrace Android as their app platform. They don't even have to partner with Google to do this. Amazon didn't. Android is free and open source. Amazon just took Android, made a few slight tweaks, and called it Amazon Fire OS. TiVo could do the same. Any app designed for Android TV or Amazon Fire TV should be able to run on an Android-powered TiVo with little or even no tweaking to the code. The biggest thing would probably be re-mapping the app controls to the correct buttons on the TiVo remote. The bar would be FAR lower for TiVo to convince HBO, Showtime, Sling TV, Crackle, Twitch, etc. to take their existing Android TV or Fire TV app and put it on an Android-powered TiVo than it would be to get them to develop an HTML5 app from scratch for TiVo as it stands now.

In the end, I believe that there will really only be two major app ecosystems: Apple (iOS, tvOS, etc.) and various flavors of Android. Even Microsoft appears to be considering turning to their own version of Android for their mobile devices, as Windows Mobile just can't draw the developers necessary to create an app ecosystem that can compete with Apple or Android.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9...fork-signs-point-to-satya-nadellas-plan-b.htm

I wouldn't be surprised if Roku eventually does the same thing.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Android is free and open source. Amazon just took Android


Yes... but working with Google has too many advantages to ignore (Play Services, Play Store, Play Games, and Google Now). I would love to fire up my TV and see my Google Now cards. I used to use Google TV with a TiVo passed through it and it was wonderful to see my notifications superimposed on the screen, along with weather data and reminders.

Couple that with cloud storage for shows, social sharing of shows you love, direct hooks to your play music/movies library, full casting (dunno why only Netflix and YouTube are currently supported)... etc. How many Android users are out there? And how many of them would embrace a DVR with TiVo's prowess, that allows them to bring their entire mobile ecosystem to their TV's. My guess is plenty of them, and I would be one of the first in line.

But to throw a huge bucket of cold water on this fire... TiVo is very proud of their brand and design... almost to the point of arrogance (at least IMHO), and would probably not be interested in working this closely with a partner, no matter what the possible returns would be. Even with Google wanting to see more players in the Android TV arena, I just don't see TiVo asking them to come aboard.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Of course there are also those of us are always on the lookout for a $60,000 car at a $20,000 price, which is why the Summer Sale drew my attention and many other new customers. 

But seems to me the whole point of the Aereo customer list is that it's a pre-qualified list of people willing to shell out $8/mon for OTA TV. Can they up-sell those people on a Bolt OTA? I really doubt it.

TiVo's just doing their thing, except it's now white and bent.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

solutionsetc said:


> Yes... but working with Google has too many advantages to ignore (Play Services, Play Store, Play Games, and Google Now).


Yeah, except going the stock Android TV route with Google Services means no Amazon Video app, which is a big negative for me. (Amazon doesn't want to play nice with Google or Apple.) Plus that would cost TiVo licensing fees paid to Google. As for casting, it's an open protocol (DIAL) and already implemented on the Netflix and YouTube apps currently on TiVo. No reason it couldn't be on other apps to if they were designed that way.

As for Google Now and full compatibility with the Android ecosystem, yeah, that'd be cool. I have my eye on Android TV and the Nexus Player. Wouldn't surprise me if it eventually incorporates some kind of tv tuner/dvr add-on, like Xbox One is getting. If that happens, I'll take a close look.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, except going the stock Android TV route with Google Services means no Amazon... Plus that would cost TiVo licensing fees


I have lost a lot of respect for Amazon over the last few years and am no longer a member. As for fees, I think it would be far more economical to pay them rather than to cultivate your own ecosystem as Amazon has done.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

jonw747 said:


> Of course there are also those of us are always on the lookout for a $60,000 car at a $20,000 price, which is why the Summer Sale drew my attention and many other new customers.
> 
> But seems to me the whole point of the Aereo customer list is that it's a pre-qualified list of people willing to shell out $8/mon for OTA TV. Can they up-sell those people on a Bolt OTA? I really doubt it.
> 
> TiVo's just doing their thing, except it's now white and bent.


I don't really understand the link from Aero to TiVo except maybe that these people want to cut cable but do not want an antenna. I don't see a market for TiVo in this since Roku and Amazon are already streaming Sling TV unless TiVo plans to create its own OTT service. This would be very complicated given licensing and restrictions on the premium programming broadcast in prime time. Then there is the issue of linking local programming with local subscribers. BUT one of my local ABC affiliates merges local programming with MeTV programming. I suppose hybrid channels like this could be streamed to a TiVo box.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

wizwor said:


> I don't really understand the link from Aero to TiVo except maybe that these people want to cut cable but do not want an antenna. I don't see a market for TiVo in this since Roku and Amazon are already streaming Sling TV unless TiVo plans to create its own OTT service. This would be very complicated given licensing and restrictions on the premium programming broadcast in prime time. Then there is the issue of linking local programming with local subscribers. BUT one of my local ABC affiliates merges local programming with MeTV programming. I suppose hybrid channels like this could be streamed to a TiVo box.


Aereo was providing local programming at an affordable price with no upfront cost, no antenna, DVR abilities, and no annual commitment that could be streamed to your TV, your phone, your tablet, etc.

It was likely an even sweeter deal for sports fans who were willing to lie about their location as they could receive out of market sports programming for a fraction of the cost of the various league-pass packages.

The presumption has been that TiVo could reach some segment of that group that could use an OTA antenna, and then the Bolt OTA (Aereo Edition) would deliver the programming to their TV or remote device.

But if TiVo sticks to the same old, the question is how much of the Aereo market could they pickup (that they didn't already get with the Roamio OTA sales)? Certainly nothing gaudy like 50%, and possibly no more than 1-5% I'd guess.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I had Aereo for a short time...

https://thebeersoncomcast.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/aereo-first-impressions/
https://thebeersoncomcast.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/aereo-one-month-later/

I was pretty underwhelmed. I don't think they had many paying customers -- mostly a mailing list of people who were or had been trialing the product. If you could put up an antenna, you got better programming for less money.

If those people got an antenna post apocalypse, then they probably have no interest in Aereo v2. In fact, many may already be TiVo customers (I am).

I think TiVo has some viability issues once their patents expire in 2018. Most hardware vendors deal with such things by entering the services marketplace. Probably just wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

This guy makes a lot of good points, but even he can't figure the math out about how much TiVo actually costs:

http://fortune.com/2015/10/25/tivo/


----------

