# Tivo's future



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

First off, i want to start this with the preface that I have been a long time tivo customer. 10+ yrs. Started with series 2, moved up to a series 3; HD and OLED (STILL my favorite), but have moved on to more current hardware. I currently have 2 roamios, a 4 tuner premiere and two minis (ethernet and moca ). All work great and flawless throughout my house. I love the setup and it works fantastic for my whole family.

That being said, I wonder if tivo (and the cable industry for that matter) has its days numbered. I have recently discovered numerous rogue applications and hardware that allow MANY more channels and cost considerably less. I wont mention their names, but some are even free. Some require some technical knowledge, but some dont and are easy.

I actually work in the TV industry as well (for a big cable network) and seeing this trend is concerning on all levels and for many reasons. While I am not a fan of Comcast, I think it's a BIG threat to them and the smaller companies like tivo. I know everything is going in the ip based direction and I hate to say it, but I can't see tivo surviving this wave for more than another 5-10 yrs. Especially when it comes to hardware. Again, I love my tivos and I hope they prove me wrong, but are there any other big future plans that may combat this issue? Just wondering some thoughts out there on this.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

Definitely in 5 to 10 years I can't fathom the TV delivery landscape won't look radically different. And with the new Rovi/TiVo company I can't see them wanting to commit to building hardware. The number of streaming cable alternative services is growing pretty rapidly, so I think they will be a player but it's hard to say what systems will win out in the long run. I'm OK investing a few hundred or so in TiVo equipment for now but would be more hesitant to start laying out a grand or so now for a whole house system. I do have that kind of money invested already but I've gotten a number of years of use already and expect to get at least several more.


----------



## toricred (Mar 9, 2004)

To be fair Tivo/Rovi can't even get the guide right now. Maybe they're hoping things change so they won't ever have to address the issue.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

There have been posts predicting TiVos death for years before I ever registered with the site, and perhaps hundreds more since that time. 

It's clear that getting in with the cablecos has been the only successful path to growth that there has been to date. They are now getting closer to dumping the box building business with the first true retail third party offering in well over a decade.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

The only thing that I would say is certain, is that video delivery is changing. 

If TiVo DVRs are going to be useful really depends on where video delivery ends up going, and if TiVo is going to be relevant really depends on TiVo's future products. 

Video delivery breaks down into 2 broad categories, linear broadcasts (live TV) and video on demand (VoD). There are multiple (different) delivery technologies used for both linear broadcasts and VoD. 

Regarding DVRs as long as there are linear broadcast in the future there will be people who will want to record them. Regarding TIVo DVRs, it depends on the where the delivery tech goes and if the broadcasters give TiVo access to the broadcasts. Right now linear broadcasts are delivered via OTA, cable (QAM), Satellite, and IPTV. TiVo stand alone DVRs are locked out of Satellite and IPTV because those companies are not forced to allow third part access by the Government. Given the current changes in the FCC this is not going to change and if they rewrite a telecom bill even access to cable maybe up in the air. 

VoD is certainly gaining popularity and I expect will continue to do so. While there is no need for a DVR with VoD there is a role for what TiVo was trying to do with search and One Pass, if they can delivery products in the future that actually deliver on those promises then TiVo may have a role even if linear broadcasts become less relevant. 

So like I started I will end with the only thing we can know for certain, is things are changing.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

buscuitboy said:


> I wonder if tivo (and the cable industry for that matter) has its days numbered. . .
> 
> . . . I know everything is going in the ip based direction and I hate to say it, but *I can't see tivo surviving this wave for more than another 5-10 yrs. Especially when it comes to hardware.* Again, I love my tivos and I hope they prove me wrong, but are there any other big future plans that may combat this issue? Just wondering some thoughts out there on this.


I don't see any utility in trying to predict the A/V future beyond the five-year window unless you're a financial analyst or investment counselor. Even anticipating the landscape three years from now is highly speculative. But 10 years from now the industry is likely to be operating on a vastly different technological plane, so it is not only futile from a theoretical view but also from a practical view as a consumer because if you are purchasing a TiVo DVR today with the expectation of getting the same benefits from it 10 years from now, then you are almost certainly dreaming.

HST, I think most of us are interested in trying to figure out where TiVo will fit into our entertainment needs in the next two to three years. That's a slightly less arcane exercise and one that impacts more directly on the cost/benefit of the investment we have made in our current equipment.


----------



## Tylor Dettore (Dec 8, 2016)

buscuitboy said:


> First off, i want to start this with the preface that I have been a long time tivo customer. 10+ yrs. Started with series 2, moved up to a series 3; HD and OLED (STILL my favorite), but have moved on to more current hardware. I currently have 2 roamios, a 4 tuner premiere and two minis (ethernet and moca ). All work great and flawless throughout my house. I love the setup and it works fantastic for my whole family.
> 
> That being said, I wonder if tivo (and the cable industry for that matter) has its days numbered. I have recently discovered numerous rogue applications and hardware that allow MANY more channels and cost considerably less. I wont mention their names, but some are even free. Some require some technical knowledge, but some dont and are easy.
> 
> I actually work in the TV industry as well (for a big cable network) and seeing this trend is concerning on all levels and for many reasons. While I am not a fan of Comcast, I think it's a BIG threat to them and the smaller companies like tivo. I know everything is going in the ip based direction and I hate to say it, but I can't see tivo surviving this wave for more than another 5-10 yrs. Especially when it comes to hardware. Again, I love my tivos and I hope they prove me wrong, but are there any other big future plans that may combat this issue? Just wondering some thoughts out there on this.


If I'm correct, there was a thread that claimed that TiVo would work with directv. Especially the TiVo Bolt. Its under negotiation. This so far is a FCC thing, or something like that. I'm hoping for DirecTV support.


----------



## dave13077 (Jan 11, 2009)

Tylor Dettore said:


> If I'm correct, there was a thread that claimed that TiVo would work with directv. Especially the TiVo Bolt. Its under negotiation. This so far is a FCC thing, or something like that. I'm hoping for DirecTV support.


I am hoping for Direct TV Now support. I hope Tivo can work with one of the streaming services and allow the streams to be recorded on the hard drive


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dave13077 said:


> I am hoping for Direct TV Now support. I hope Tivo can work with one of the streaming services and allow the streams to be recorded on the hard drive


Is not the idea of streaming to keep one from recording the stream ? so the provider has complete control including commercials, if any. IE. CBS has two streaming plans, one with commercials and one (at more cost) without commercials.


----------



## alexb (Jan 4, 2003)

lessd said:


> Is not the idea of streaming to keep one from recording the stream ? so the provider has complete control including commercials, if any. IE. CBS has two streaming plans, one with commercials and one (at more cost) without commercials.


Correct I think, best we will get is better deeper integration into onepass if they ever get it working, Comcast recently took same approach with Netflix on X1.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

toricred said:


> To be fair Tivo/Rovi can't even get the guide right now. Maybe they're hoping things change so they won't ever have to address the issue.


Nobody is (or has been) thinking that long term. Not the dregs of Tivo, not Rovi and not the current Rovi ... uh Tivo. There are a couple of years left while the last few big players in this little charade get their contracted payouts completed, then the whole house can collapse as far as anybody is concerned.


----------



## BadMouth (Mar 1, 2016)

Most people I know have dumped cable simply because it costs too much. They have less disposable income these days and need to free up money in their budget wherever possible. It's a major unnecessary expense for a lot of households.

When I first switched to OTA a few years ago, I got 12 channels. Since then 5 new digital channels have been added to existing stations. I feel like OTA just keeps getting better. So I do think there will still be a market for an OTA DVR without subscription fees.

If Comcast would offer me a decent cable and internet package with HD, DVR, taxes and fees included for $75 a month, I'd probably go back. But no. You might get something close to that as an introductory offer, but then have to throw a tantrum once a year to keep it. ..and expect consistent increases in price over time despite wages and inflation being stagnate. 

My cell phone bill has gone from $83 a month to $35 a month for the same service. The same thing needs to happen for cable if they want to keep their subscribers.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

BadMouth said:


> When I first switched to OTA a few years ago, I got 12 channels. Since then 5 new digital channels have been added to existing stations. I feel like OTA just keeps getting better. So I do think there will still be a market for an OTA DVR without subscription fees.


If I was OTA, I could start a thread "My quality has decreased" since my broadcast channels added five sub-channels in 2016. Quantity v Quality. Other than that, we have no vote in getting more sub-channels. I figure most of the country now get PBS Kids, so PBS now has three sub-channels.

Since my cable feed doesn't change the content it receives, I could still start the thread, but it would be a waste. My basic cable channels are now sent at a higher bit rate than my broadcast channels. They were so good in 2015. I can't blame TiVo. It's the future for all of us.


----------



## scottchez (Dec 2, 2003)

I think the key to Tivo/Rovi Surviving is * "Apps" and a Streaming GUIDE Integration*

1. It is all about the *Apps*
If Tivo can install every Streaming app possible on the Tivo Bolt / Mini Platform they will be around for a long time as if TV changes to more IPTV or Streaming they will be there. They will also still have the traditional CATV channels for recording as you know the very powerful CATV CO are not going to give that up, its too profitable.
Maybe Tivo/Rovi should buy ROKU and merge the Platform, then they would have every App.

2. Tivo should add into the *Guide a list of all Live Streaming Web Feeds.* There are hundreds out there. Most local news stations from around the USA all stream their news now, ADD THIS TO THE GUIDE, maybe in the 9000s range to not bump into cable channels. THey can also add all the Free Music and Public Access channels. USA and Word Wide.
This would be a game changer as they could advertise, Tivo, now with over 400 free streaming channels or what ever the number is now.

The Tivo Bolt and MINI can do all this, they just need to hire more programmers or merge with ROKU.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

WHat EVERYONE here is really missing is the IPTV factor that the original poster refers to. I recently dumped most of my TiVOs (kept one for local content) AND COmcast TV and subscribed to an IPTV service that offers ALL cable channels, ALL movie channels, ALL OnDemand (TV and new movie releases), PPV events, NFL Sunday ticket, NHL Center and MANY more for $24.95/month. Yes, ALL of this content is included.

I'm not gonna say who I got either, but all I needed was a Roku or ANdroid based box (I have both) to install their app. there is no need for TiVO as they have ALL the TV shows in their OnDemand section. And its essentially portable so I just take it on our vacation and have all the same content (w/ an internet connection).All in all, hundreds of channels and content for less than $30/month. TIVO's days are numbered and I predict no more new hardware will be produced.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mcf57 said:


> WHat EVERYONE here is really missing is the IPTV factor that the original poster refers to. I recently dumped most of my TiVOs (kept one for local content) AND COmcast TV and subscribed to an IPTV service that offers ALL cable channels, ALL movie channels, ALL OnDemand (TV and new movie releases), PPV events, NFL Sunday ticket, NHL Center and MANY more for $24.95/month. Yes, ALL of this content is included.
> 
> I'm not gonna say who I got either, but all I needed was a Roku or ANdroid based box (I have both) to install their app. there is no need for TiVO as they have ALL the TV shows in their OnDemand section. And its essentially portable so I just take it on our vacation and have all the same content (w/ an internet connection).All in all, hundreds of channels and content for less than $30/month. TIVO's days are numbered and I predict no more new hardware will be produced.


Umm, is there a reason you can't provide the name of this wonder service, which seems to be offering EVERYTHING at a cost lower than everyone else (and who only offer PART OF EVERYTHING)?


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

Mikeguy said:


> Umm, is there a reason you can't provide the name of this wonder service, which seems to be offering EVERYTHING at a cost lower than everyone else (and who only offer PART OF EVERYTHING)?


It's obviously Kodi/Krypton. (Maybe the newer system which is basically the same) Not something the average household is using.


----------



## scottchez (Dec 2, 2003)

What I am saying is TIVO should add the Hundreds of Legal and Free TV Streams to a Menu or at least allow the customer to add them to a menu via say a TIVO.COM web page tied to their account which then makes them show up on the TIVO screen as a menu or the GUIDE in the 9,000 range.

I found most of the illegal copyrighted ones are typically poor quality and are choppy anyway.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> It's obviously Kodi/Krypton. (Maybe the newer system which is basically the same) Not something the average household is using.


Thanks, will check it out; that's a new one to me. If it sounds too good to be true . . . . 

edit: Don't see anything there to support mcf57's clams.


----------



## 241705 (Mar 9, 2010)

I'd also like to see apps on my TiVos for PSVue, SlingTV, DirecTVNow and others that come along, but given the state of things I'm not holding my breath. I'd also like to know how I can get EVERYTHING for $24.95 a month - but, like having my TiVo be the "one box" for everything, I don't think that is a real possibility.


----------



## mcf57 (Oct 19, 2012)

tampa8 said:


> It's obviously Kodi/Krypton. (Maybe the newer system which is basically the same) Not something the average household is using.


Yea, its basically Kodi. There are also some standalone apps that work on Android boxes that I have used. Just google 'paid IPTV'


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

scottchez said:


> I think the key to Tivo/Rovi Surviving is * "Apps" and a Streaming GUIDE Integration*
> 
> 1. It is all about the *Apps*
> If Tivo can install every Streaming app possible on the Tivo Bolt / Mini Platform they will be around for a long time as if TV changes to more IPTV or Streaming they will be there. They will also still have the traditional CATV channels for recording as you know the very powerful CATV CO are not going to give that up, its too profitable.
> ...


This is hilarious. Tivo can't even get their own guide straight, and somehow they could be a "game changer" by adding apps to a broken, decrepit, and flawed guide? What, so we could have bad and incorrect data about live streaming feeds in addition to the bad and incorrect (or missing) guide data that already exists? Tivo by ROKU? Seriously? PLEASE don't let them destroy another technology.

That's not even remotely in the realm of possibility.


----------



## MikeBear (May 21, 2015)

Tivo has no future if they can't get their Rovi guide fixed.

A dvr without good guide data is worthless.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

mcf57 said:


> Yea, its basically Kodi. There are also some standalone apps that work on Android boxes that I have used. Just google 'paid IPTV'


Your $25/mo. IPTV is also illegit and not worthy of discussion as an alternative here. I can d/l any torrents I want but don't brag about it. You shouldn't either.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

User-owned cable TiVos are an endangered species. Whether or not the CableCard mandate goes away, cable companies are moving to IPTV, so TiVos will be locked out of that. OTA is a potential growth market, Roamio OTA is a good product, but we'll have to see how Mavrik looks. TiVo as a company is doing OK for now, as the MSO business is much larger than used owned boxes anyway.

DVRs on cable are going into the cloud. It's just a matter of time. The MSOs don't want the hardware deployed in the field to support local DVR operations, and having it in the cloud allows easy streaming. Satellite, where TiVo has virtually no presence, will have hardware DVRs for a very long time, since there is no way to do cloud DVR unless the user provides broadband with a decent sized cap, which isn't possible in some areas or some users just don't care and have slow DSL or something.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> User-owned cable TiVos are an endangered species. Whether or not the CableCard mandate goes away, cable companies are moving to IPTV, so TiVos will be locked out of that. OTA is a potential growth market, Roamio OTA is a good product, but we'll have to see how Mavrik looks. TiVo as a company is doing OK for now, as the MSO business is much larger than used owned boxes anyway.
> 
> DVRs on cable are going into the cloud. It's just a matter of time. The MSOs don't want the hardware deployed in the field to support local DVR operations, and having it in the cloud allows easy streaming. Satellite, where TiVo has virtually no presence, will have hardware DVRs for a very long time, since there is no way to do cloud DVR unless the user provides broadband with a decent sized cap, which isn't possible in some areas or some users just don't care and have slow DSL or something.


Yep, all true. And as for satellite, I see that only declining as a percentage of the pay TV market. All video entertainment is ultimately going IP, whether that's cable, OTA (ATSC 3.0), or, of course, the growing OTT space. That's a key reason why DirecTV sold to AT&T (which owns internet pipes) and why DISH has been buying spectrum for years (which they're going to deploy as 5G wireless internet). Several years from now, satellite will pretty much only be used by rural folks who have no other choice for TV or affordable broadband.

TiVo does have an opportunity on the OTA side, especially if ATSC 3.0 takes off and spurs more cord-cutting. But the challenge is to offer OTA DVR in a way that's integrated with content discovery and management for all the major OTT apps, something they've fallen well short of so far. I don't ever see TiVo having the clout to build a TV app platform to rival the likes of the big five (Roku, Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV, Chromecast), which is why I've long argued that they should either embrace Android TV for their own TiVo branded OTA device or simply go the network DVR route (a la Tablo and probably Mavrik) with apps for all the popular streaming boxes, although that latter option probably necessitates some compromises to the UX.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yes, satellite peaked out a year or two ago in terms of sub numbers. DirecTV's are artificially inflated from U-Verse conversions. That being said, while satellites number are going to decline, it's not going away anytime soon. I disagree with the "only rural" concept, at least for DirecTV. Both providers have the rural market and foreign language programming, plus DirecTV has sports nuts, sports bars/restaurants, hotels, high end users, and bundling with AT&T in their 21-state territory. For an older demographic, Triple Play is still king, and AT&T is selling DirecTV in their territory for Triple Play.

DISH's DBS system could make a comeback if they figure out the internet bundling part of the equation, like if they bought T-Mobile and deployed fixed 5G wireless in suburban areas, but that's all speculation at this point.

The interface can't be as responsive when transcoding and streaming, but that may be there the market is going, i.e. everything wireless, everything streaming. I like the idea of an Android TV base, as that would allow TiVo to run Android TV apps. I think they could really push a lot more Roamio OTA units if they just marketed the thing. Some combination of the two in a new box with local usage and transcoded streaming would be a really compelling product too. Either way, they need to market the concept of a cord-cutting DVR, as I feel like it's still a niche to most people who accept whatever DVR their MSO throws at them.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

jrtroo said:


> There have been posts predicting TiVos death for years before I ever registered with the site, and perhaps hundreds more since that time.


The company is dying. The thing is it is more like smoking for 40 years than it is getting hit by a train and ending it in a micro second.

Same thing will be true of the IP delivery method. It will eventually kill traditional cable as we know it. The death will be slow, steady and likely take decades but there will be no mistaken that it is dying.

Hell news papers still exist. I don't know many that would argue that isn't a dying medium.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

aridon said:


> The company is dying. The thing is it is more like smoking for 40 years than it is getting hit by a train and ending it in a micro second.


Great--at least I'll get 40 more years outta my boxes.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Yes, satellite peaked out a year or two ago in terms of sub numbers. DirecTV's are artificially inflated from U-Verse conversions. That being said, while satellites number are going to decline, it's not going away anytime soon. I disagree with the "only rural" concept, at least for DirecTV. Both providers have the rural market and foreign language programming, plus DirecTV has sports nuts, sports bars/restaurants, hotels, high end users, and bundling with AT&T in their 21-state territory. For an older demographic, Triple Play is still king, and AT&T is selling DirecTV in their territory for Triple Play.
> 
> DISH's DBS system could make a comeback if they figure out the internet bundling part of the equation, like if they bought T-Mobile and deployed fixed 5G wireless in suburban areas, but that's all speculation at this point.


What you're describing in terms of DirecTV's strengths are really all about business relationships and nothing to do with satellite technology as a means of delivery, per se. AT&T sees the strength in the DirecTV brand (and in its subscriber base and the relationships it has with content providers, e.g. Sunday Ticket) and I don't see them getting rid of that brand for a long time, if ever. What I do see is that there will be various ways to get DirecTV, via satellite, via managed IP (currently still called "U-verse TV") and via OTT (DirecTV Now) and as time goes on, with the further rollout of AT&T Fiber and various forms of AT&T 5G in the future (both fixed and mobile), we'll see more and more of the user base transition to IP, leaving those rooftop dishes mainly on the homes of rural customers. But it will be a long, slow fade.

As for DISH, it isn't speculation that they're going to use their spectrum holdings to build out a 5G network. Their CEO said they've already begun work on it. The network will have to be available to 70% of the US (population, not area, I think) by March 2020. He sounds pretty confident they can reach that target whether DISH merges with another company or goes it alone. Ergen: Dish Is Ready for 5G | Multichannel


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

It's not the rouge apps that are gaining traction, it's the on-line MVPD's like SlingTV, Sony Vue, and not DirecTV Now, and the cloud DVR functionality. Sony Vue's cloud DVR content is limtied to 30 days, but SlingTV _claims _their coming cloud DVR now in beta will be no extra charge for 100 hrs of recordings (additional charge if one wants more than 100 hrs.) and that recordings will stay in your cloud DVR indefinately, like local DVR's from cable or sat, and will work for all channels except for Disney owned channels by the time of public release. That's going to be met or beaten by compeititors, for sure.

Most people don't really want to go the pirate route, and certain, infamous Kody apps have left sour tastes in many people's mouths (we're talking abou the non-techy folks who repersent about 98% of the population) once they discover that those apps require updates once they can no longer circumvent roadblocks, and those poor folks don't know what do when those apps stop working just a week or 2 after having paid for the stuff. People aren't looking to "steal" anything; they want a reasonable price for services, and are always willing to pay that reasonable price before they go off looking to be pirates, and "reputable" services do offer some degree of "support" and will work on demand with no special tech knowledge. That's why on-line MVPD's are the future, until they too get to be too expensive, but that will take some years.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Rovi was a patent licensing company; TiVo is being slowly changed to that. TiVo's future is NOT the local DVR box company that Rovi bought. TiVo's future is light-weight cloud experience devices and mostly licensing the TiVo patents and brand allowing the use of the TiVo logo on other companies products and/or displaying the "Powerd by TiVo" phrase somewhere in the UI. That's it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Great--at least I'll get 40 more years outta my boxes.


People like making worthless/meaningless statements/predictions. Here are 2 examples of a worthless/meaningless statements/predictions that I can even give you 100% assurance are true:

The stock market will go up
The stock market will go down
Predicting/saying that technologies, companies, or products are "dying" is the same thing. Pretty much all technologies, companies, and products will dye someday, so the prediction is likely true and without any specificity is also worthless/meaningless.

By the way the company referred to as TiVo prior to this fall has already died. It no longer legally exists.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> What you're describing in terms of DirecTV's strengths are really all about business relationships and nothing to do with satellite technology as a means of delivery, per se. AT&T sees the strength in the DirecTV brand (and in its subscriber base and the relationships it has with content providers, e.g. Sunday Ticket) and I don't see them getting rid of that brand for a long time, if ever. What I do see is that there will be various ways to get DirecTV, via satellite, via managed IP (currently still called "U-verse TV") and via OTT (DirecTV Now) and as time goes on, with the further rollout of AT&T Fiber and various forms of AT&T 5G in the future (both fixed and mobile), we'll see more and more of the user base transition to IP, leaving those rooftop dishes mainly on the homes of rural customers. But it will be a long, slow fade.


I disagree. DBS has an inherent advantage in that it has a LOT of bandwidth for linear video delivery. As a result, it carries a lot of out-of-market sports feeds, since all the RSNs are carried on CONUS beams. This allows sports bars and sports nuts to get sports content that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get on a cable feed that is highly localized. Further, the PQ is better, since they have the bandwidth offer decent (albeit not great) PQ, unlike many cable and IPTV providers that are just downright horrible. In terms of hotels, restaurants, and even gyms, if you're running a regional or national chain/franchise/whatever, do you want to deal with a whole bunch of different cable companies in different places with different services, or have one national contract with DirecTV, knowing that DirecTV covers the entire CONUS, Hawaii, and even much of Alaska?

AT&T seems to want to use DirecTV for their linear video distribution as much as possible, since it's got the bandwidth and the content, although U-Verse has to stay around too for MDUs or people with dish phobia syndrome.



> As for DISH, it isn't speculation that they're going to use their spectrum holdings to build out a 5G network. Their CEO said they've already begun work on it. The network will have to be available to 70% of the US (population, not area, I think) by March 2020. He sounds pretty confident they can reach that target whether DISH merges with another company or goes it alone. Ergen: Dish Is Ready for 5G | Multichannel


I tend not to believe this stuff until I see it, so we'll see what happens. If Ergen really can compete with wireline providers, that would be amazing, but I'm always skeptical when I hear about these things.


----------



## scottchez (Dec 2, 2003)

Looks like you agree. The key to the future is get the guide right AND add a "Gamer Changer" with streaming app links and Apps.
They need to do both else why not just rent the Dish or CATV box.



wmhjr said:


> This is hilarious. Tivo can't even get their own guide straight, and somehow they could be a "game changer" by adding apps to a broken, decrepit, and flawed guide? What, so we could have bad and incorrect data about live streaming feeds in addition to the bad and incorrect (or missing) guide data that already exists? Tivo by ROKU? Seriously? PLEASE don't let them destroy another technology.
> 
> That's not even remotely in the realm of possibility.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

scottchez said:


> Looks like you agree. The key to the future is get the guide right AND add a "Gamer Changer" with streaming app links and Apps.
> They need to do both else why not just rent the Dish or CATV box.


We don't agree. I see no future in this - or frankly with TiVo.


----------



## TeamPace (Oct 23, 2013)

scottchez said:


> I think the key to Tivo/Rovi Surviving is * "Apps" and a Streaming GUIDE Integration*
> QUOTE]
> 
> I'd love to see what your described in your post, but I'm not hopeful we will ever see it. There are going to be too many different streaming services for one thing. However I think TiVo's move towards a product like the Mavric may be the closest thing to a TiVo product merged with the likes of Roku. It probably won't be as well integrated but at least it could put a TiVo based product on the same platform/device/input as lot's of other apps and streaming services.


----------



## scottchez (Dec 2, 2003)

All we can do is keep asking for these changes. 
I have been talking to Exec Support weekly about my Guide data issues. I was under the 30 day return policy and threatened to return everything.
I know many have Guide issues. Myself there were 14 wrong channels.
TIVO needs to hire a lot more people to fix things and work on future things. I got to wonder if the Rovi Re org will fix this, they are still working on it since two companies became one.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Wrong channels to me are a minor symptom, as once a lineup is corrected, one would think that you'd start to see consistency. 

However, data QUALITY is a completely different issue, and there is not even the smallest, slightest, minuscule piece of evidence that this will ever improve. This is historical Rovi quality. It's bad, and IMHO it's going to stay bad. It will (again, IMHO) never, ever improve to pre-Rovi quality levels of data. To me, this is a deal killer, and completely undermines the basic value of Tivo. It makes it to me worthless. I've gone to being a lukewarm supporter of Tivo, where I could at least tell people where the value is, and for whom it makes sense - to somebody who simply tells people to run - FAR AWAY - from Tivo. 

The "Rovi Re-Org" (whatever that means) can not fix this. This is not an issue resulting from two companies integrating (and make no mistake, Rovi bought Tivo. It was NOT a merger It was an acquisition. They simply then took the Tivo name. Fact.) This is an issue resulting from our devices formerly getting data from GraceNote (which DOES still exist, just with the new name of Nielsen - contrary to what some here are saying). And now getting data from the same, old, bad, poor quality Rovi data sources. 

This is not an issue about "hiring more people". This is a systemic and foundational issue. Get used to it. If you're sticking around, this is your new norm.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

blackngold75 said:


> I'd also like to see apps on my TiVos for PSVue, SlingTV, DirecTVNow and others that come along, but given the state of things I'm not holding my breath. I'd also like to know how I can get EVERYTHING for $24.95 a month - but, like having my TiVo be the "one box" for everything, I don't think that is a real possibility.


Of course not. It is not a legal possibility. The only way that can be accomplished is by illegal means. And even the streaming services you can get by legal means for some of the channels, they are lower resolutions at 720P. And only stereo audio.

I'll continue with my cable subscription. Prices keep going down. I pay much less for Tv now on FiOS than I did fifteen years ago with DirecTV. And I even pay less now with FiOS than when I first got FiOS ten years ago. Only I get many more HD channels than in 2007. Over 150 now.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> This is not an issue about "hiring more people". This is a systemic and foundational issue.


Yep, seemingly so. But if the decision is made to fix that and if people are hired so that there is staff to get it done, it can be done, it seems to me.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Sorry but incorrect. Their is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Effectively they need to redevelop their service and they have no reason to. Again it's not about hiring people. It's about changing their entire culture and philosophy. Ain't gonna happen. Period. TiVo is dead.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

Mikeguy said:


> Thanks, will check it out; that's a new one to me. If it sounds too good to be true . . . .
> 
> edit: Don't see anything there to support mcf57's clams.


His post/claims are 100% accurate that's how I knew what he was referring to.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

And 100% illegal.


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

aaronwt said:


> I'll continue with my cable subscription. Prices keep going down. I pay much less for Tv now on FiOS than I did fifteen years ago with DirecTV. And I even pay less now with FiOS than when I first got FiOS ten years ago. Only I get many more HD channels than in 2007. Over 150 now.


Could not agree more.

Same here.

I would never give up cable tv.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

wmhjr said:


> Sorry but incorrect. Their is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Effectively they need to redevelop their service and they have no reason to. Again it's not about hiring people. It's about changing their entire culture and philosophy. Ain't gonna happen. Period. *TiVo is dead.*


Whether or not the hyperbole was intentional, your statement is grossly inaccurate and detracts from the merits of your argument.

I think most of us long-time users are not extremely hopeful that Rovi will turn things around in the near term. But the TiVo service is far from dead; on the contrary, it remains the best DVR on the market IMHO despite the ongoing shortcomings.

For those users whose programming choices are not FUBAR'ed (a very small minority I would guess), the TiVo experience is only marginally less convenient than it was a year ago. Personally, I am now expending more effort monitoring my recording activity and have missed or had to reschedule or stream a couple of shows here or there, but on the whole (disregarding the ludicrously facile program descriptions) my satisfaction level is still very high.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

chiguy50 said:


> Whether or not the hyperbole was intentional, your statement is grossly inaccurate and detracts from the merits of your argument.
> 
> I think most of us long-time users are not extremely hopeful that Rovi will turn things around in the near term. But the TiVo service is far from dead; on the contrary, it remains the best DVR on the market IMHO despite the ongoing shortcomings.
> 
> For those users whose programming choices are not FUBAR'ed (a very small minority I would guess), the TiVo experience is only marginally less convenient than it was a year ago. Personally, I am now expending more effort monitoring my recording activity and have missed or had to reschedule or stream a couple of shows here or there, but on the whole (disregarding the ludicrously facile program descriptions) my satisfaction level is still very high.


It would not be possible to disagree more strongly with your inaccurate opinion.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> Sorry but incorrect. Their is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Effectively they need to redevelop their service and they have no reason to. Again it's not about hiring people. It's about changing their entire culture and philosophy. Ain't gonna happen. Period. TiVo is dead.


Then, Rovi largely just lost a $1.5 billion investment along with future revenue/pure profit, and the CEO and other management very easily will be out on their ears, along with Board members. IMHO, I don't see that happening easily, and "they have [every] reason to" avoid the circumstances that would lead to that.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

That logic is flawed from the start. Rovi had issues prior to the acquisition. Not as a result of it. There are thousands of examples of failed acquisitions. Maybe more. It is exactly what I see happening. It's just not in their DNA to do anything else.


----------



## whoareyou_1999 (Feb 3, 2016)

wmhjr said:


> That logic is flawed from the start. Rovi had issues prior to the acquisition. Not as a result of it. There are thousands of examples of failed acquisitions. Maybe more. It is exactly what I see happening. It's just not in their DNA to do anything else.


Are they gaining customers? I ask because they're about to lose me because of the Rovi guide data.

I invested in TIVO and Rovi comes along. Was I surprised at what happened to the guide post acquisition? Heck no. I just went through all of the same exact s****t with Rovi and Windows Media Center. Did Rovi learn anything from MC debacle? Did they care? Who knows.

And then, to top it off, when I call to report guide data issues TIVO/Rovi support doesn't have a clue. Some of the most incompetent support (in fairness some of their techs have been good) I've dealt with in a long long time . But overall their support has gone steadily downhill since I signed up.

Now, why am I going to continue paying for this guide data FUBAR? This will be my 2nd, and last year, of paying for the "privilege" of troubleshooting flawed guide data for TIVO.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> That logic is flawed from the start. Rovi had issues prior to the acquisition. Not as a result of it. There are thousands of examples of failed acquisitions. Maybe more. It is exactly what I see happening. It's just not in their DNA to do anything else.


You could be right--there are failed managements all over, and failed acquisitions and mergers.

But (and in response to your assertion, "That logic is flawed from the start"), Rovi has a $1.5 billion incentive not to bullocks TiVo, and Rovi has not owned TiVo before.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> You could be right--there are failed managements all over, and failed acquisitions and mergers.
> 
> But (and in response to your assertion, "That logic is flawed from the start"), Rovi has a $1.5 billion incentive not to bullocks TiVo, and Rovi has not owned TiVo before.


I'm actually not convinced of this. There could be many reasons why Rovi chose to make the acquisition - and why it was priced as it was. It wouldn't be wise to assume that Rovi even included potential future revenues of a Tivo retail business in their plan in a significant way. It's certainly possible to at least some extent that they were purchased solely for the value of MSO software licensing as opposed to the retail business, and that they planned from the start to starve the retail side and just take whatever revenue they got with as little investment as possible. Who knows?

But my opinion is (again) that it just doesn't matter. I don't see the slightest bit of evidence of any possible kind that might indicate that anybody at Tivo (or whatever you want to call them now) gives a crap, or has any intent to actually solve the issues (not the symptoms). None. IMHO, absolutely nothing whatsoever has improved in any possible way. Symptoms get fixed only to have more appear. The problem isn't touched. If (and I don't think it will happen) I see any signal that things have changed, then I'll re-evaluate. But I don't think that happens. Again, I think this is the new norm, and will last until the last vestiges of retail Tivo are gone for good. It's a sad day, but IMHO, Tivo is dead - never to reappear.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

wmhjr said:


> If (and I don't think it will happen) I see any signal that things have changed, then I'll re-evaluate.


There has been notice of an upcoming 20.7.1 software release. For me, I think 20.7.1 will be the litmus test for RiVo as a whole. If most of the outstanding problems we all struggle with are fixed, I will be more optimistic. On the other hand, if all it adds is more fluff and new bugs, while ignoring the old bugs, RiVo will be officially dead to me.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Remember - the software release has nothing to do with the quality of the guide data.....

Or more succinctly put - they can fix every other issue in existence (obviously will never happen) but if the guide data is still garbage, then the Tivo is still, well, I'll leave that description to others. You can guess what mine is.

Streaming problems? I already now use Roku and other devices - don't need Tivo for Amazon, Netflix, etc. Other devices already do it better IMHO, and are cheaper and more reliable.

BSC? Nothing but changing architecture will ever make those really go away. I can live with it - not happy but I can.

But guide data? If it's bad, the entire Tivo value proposition is dead. EVERYTHING is based on the guide data.

I can't imagine anything Tivo could do at this point to change my perspective. The guide data fiasco has convinced me that they just can't be trusted now or in the future. I'll either ride out my devices on lifetime until they (or the Tivo service) dies, or try to get some value out of them via resale. Unfortunately, it appears as though current situations have already taken a bite out of Roamio/Mini with lifetime resale value. I've been around here for a decade and never before have I seen such an increased awareness of problems. In the past, any negative comments about Tivo were met with harsh responses.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> If (and I don't think it will happen) I see any signal that things have changed, then I'll re-evaluate. But I don't think that happens.


You're right, lots of unknowns out there. But I see the potential for motivating forces, at the very least. 1.5 billion of them.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I'm glad there are few issues with the guide data of programs I watch in my area. The only real problem I've run into is with a cable show I record for my GF. But at least they have the new episode each week right with specific episode info. It's the other airings throughout the week that has generic info so the TiVos record them.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Mike, We'll just have to disagree. I've been involved in a lot of M&A activity. The value of an acquisition is often not based on future earnings of its historical product or service. In many many cases it's based on the value of components that may be ripped apart - or even on the elimination of a potential market threat. I see that $1.5B investment having nothing to do with the retail revenues of Tivo. Therefore, I see their actual plan going in very likely being to scavenge whatever revenue they can while investing nothing of substance. That, BTW, would also explain their reported very heavy handed integration strategy, where they so quickly drew down staff. In most M&A actions where the core historical value of a service is critical to the net value of the acquired company, you wouldn't see layoffs that quickly. To me that was the very first sign that Rovi really never intended to maintain retail Tivo as a valued investment.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> Mike, We'll just have to disagree. I've been involved in a lot of M&A activity. The value of an acquisition is often not based on future earnings of its historical product or service.


Yep, you're right. But absent one having inside information here, it's speculation as to events here, and I don't see the potential for motivation to "do things right" as discounted.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

wmhjr said:


> Mike, We'll just have to disagree. I've been involved in a lot of M&A activity.


Remember when Tandy bought Radio Shack for a tax loss? It took a while, but it could be over soon.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> Yep, you're right. But absent one having inside information here, it's speculation as to events here, and I see the potential for motivation as possible.


But we do have inside information.

There were significant layoffs reported virtually immediately after the acquisition.
There has been no reported shift of any other resource toward existing or future development.
There has been absolutely zero improvement on the quality of guide data. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's actually continued degrading even further.
There have been no announcements of any significant strategic plans, etc.

You have to base an opinion off of facts at hand. And all the facts point singularly in one directly. If that direction is not correct, Tivo/Rovi/Rivo/whatever is doing absolutely nothing to dispel the notion.

Rovi never intended to do much with Tivo. It's a cow they'll milk as long as they can without feeding it.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

JoeKustra said:


> Remember when Tandy bought Radio Shack for a tax loss? It took a while, but it could be over soon.


Not the first example that came to mind, but..... Actually, not a bad one. Both of them were also examples where they outlived their value. The world changed around them, and they just never realized it until it was way too late. Kind of like Tivo, actually. And both of them were leaders that actually kind of defined a market for a while - only to be eaten alive by that same market.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

wmhjr said:


> It would not be possible to disagree more strongly with your inaccurate opinion.


Aside from the illogic of your statement (an opinion can not, by definition, be inaccurate), I would respond that your opinions appear to be greatly distorted by animus and thus not to be taken at face value.

You may be soured on TiVo, but most of us are not, despite recent developments. And I remain confident that anyone who has a recent-generation TiVo w/PLS will get fair value from their investment, Rovi be damned.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> Yep, you're right. But absent one having inside information here, it's speculation as to events here, and I don't see the potential for motivation to "do things right" as discounted.


Oh, btw - I think the deal was actually valued at around $1.1B - not $1.5B. Not a big difference, but just to be clear.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

chiguy50 said:


> Aside from the illogic of your statement (an opinion can not, by definition, be inaccurate), I would respond that your opinions appear to be greatly distorted by animus and thus not to be taken at face value.
> 
> You may be soured on TiVo, but most of us are not, despite recent developments. And I remain confident that anyone who has a recent-generation TiVo w/PLS will get fair value from their investment, Rovi be damned.


Sorry, but opinions can in fact be inaccurate. I could have an opinion that a particular post is accurate when by fact it is not. Your definition is flawed. Sorry.

You also make statements based on facts not in evidence. You have no idea what "most of us" think. That is, unless you know every person out there and exactly how they feel.

My opinions are based on facts in evidence. I would like nothing more than for Tivo to become relevant and of high quality. I have a substantial investment in Tivo technology in my home. More than most. However, evidence points to a contrary position. Your "opinion" as to "fair value from their investment" is based on your own personal priorities and values. However, facts are not in your favor. Resale values seem to be already dropping (based on facts supplied by people actually selling recent generation Tivo with PLS). Not opinion. And if you're talking about the value of the product itself in use, well, sorry. When you have to check daily to insure that the products core function is working we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Mikeguy said:


> Then, Rovi largely just lost a $1.5 billion investment along with future revenue/pure profit, and the CEO and other management very easily will be out on their ears, along with Board members. IMHO, I don't see that happening easily, and "they have [every] reason to" avoid the circumstances that would lead to that.


Rovi bought TiVo for its Digital Smiths asset. To Rovi it was about Discovery and Addressability.
Rovi's $1.1B TiVo Acquisition Is About Discovery And Addressability | AdExchanger

I don't see support for us retail customers going on much longer. I can not even get a simple channel added to my lineup. I have submitted two support tickets and contacted Margret twice in the past month. What good is a DVR if you can not even get channels added to the lineup. Add on all the other issues and the evidence is getting over whelming that this is going to end. Some of you are holding hope over the top of hope that this DVR is going to be kept alive for the benefit of a few people. And if they are going to continue then corporate has a funny way of showing it by just flat out ignoring us.
There is no sign on TiVo.com "pardon our dust" as we are working to improve customer service. There is nothing but the deafening sound of silence which means bad news is on the way.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> Oh, btw - I think the deal was actually valued at around $1.1B - not $1.5B. Not a big difference, but just to be clear.


Sorry, I had recalled the info. incorrectly. And so Rovi only has 1.1 billion reasons not to be stupid.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> But we do have inside information.
> 
> There were significant layoffs reported virtually immediately after the acquisition.
> There has been no reported shift of any other resource toward existing or future development.
> ...


Sorry, but I just see lots of speculation and assumption as to what Rovi intends, and predictions of doom and gloom. Who knows, maybe it will prove correct, ultimately. But until then, speculation.

"You have to base an opinion off of facts at hand." Absolutely. But, it seems to me, the above speculation from the outside just doesn't provide them, including for a conclusion that "Rovi never intended to do much with Tivo. It's a cow they'll milk as long as they can without feeding it."

Maybe, indeed, Rovi intends to run the old TiVo into the ground, taking the money and running. Maybe, somehow, in the world of investments, that would work a financial plus. But I just don't see that anyone has facts in that regard, to assume that TiVo is dead as a doornail. And I see logic to think that matters may well be otherwise.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> Sorry, but I just see lots of speculation and assumption as to what Rovi intends, and predictions of doom and gloom. Who knows, maybe it will prove correct, ultimately. But until then, speculation.
> 
> "You have to base an opinion off of facts at hand." Absolutely. But, is seems to me, the above speculation from the outside just doesn't provide them, including for a conclusion that "Rovi never intended to do much with Tivo. It's a cow they'll milk as long as they can without feeding it."


We will just have to disagree. Frankly, I can't understand your perspective. There are facts out there. I listed some. Jed listed some. All of those point to a position contrary to yours. Yet, you're basing an opinion apparently on "hope and change" as opposed to facts. No problem - everybody has their own opinion. But speculation, analysis, and predictions HAVE to be based on something. Your assumption that there are "$1.1B reasons" is not in and of itself a fact. In fact, as Jed (and I) pointed out, there are facts out there pointing to the idea that the $1.1B investment had not the slightest thing to do with retail subscriptions.

But anyway, back you your regularly scheduled (but inaccurately reported) programming....


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> Rovi bought TiVo for its Digital Smiths asset. To Rovi it was about Discovery and Addressability.
> Rovi's $1.1B TiVo Acquisition Is About Discovery And Addressability | AdExchanger
> 
> I don't see support for us retail customers going on much longer. I can not even get a simple channel added to my lineup. I have submitted two support tickets and contacted Margret twice in the past month. What good is a DVR if you can not even get channels added to the lineup. Add on all the other issues and the evidence is getting over whelming that this is going to end. Some of you are holding hope over the top of hope that this DVR is going to be kept alive for the benefit of a few people. And if they are going to continue then corporate has a funny way of showing it by just flat out ignoring us.
> There is no sign on TiVo.com "pardon our dust" as we are working to improve customer service. There is nothing but the deafening sound of silence which means bad news is on the way.


In my area I've had messages about channel additions and deletions regularly. Since FiOS has added or deleted a bunch in the last few months. But this was also the case before Rovi bought TiVo.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> But speculation, analysis, and predictions HAVE to be based on something.


Absolutely. And I just don't see that in the above dire predictions; rather, many assumptions and guesses, from the outside--to be expected, absent leaks from the inside. Just as I don't claim to have inside facts, apart from my belief that a smart company (yes, I know, a big assumption there) will not just throw away $1.1 billion (send it to me, send it to me!  ). But as I said, maybe there would be a good (and sad) reason, in the world of investment, to do so--my point has been, we just don't know.


> But anyway, back you your regularly scheduled (but inaccurately reported) programming....


Good one. Although I think you meant to say, in the words of the Guide, "Back to your regularly scheduled (but inaccurately reported) programming, brought to you in the world of the reporting of information done by people who report information on a recurring basis so as to keep viewers informed of the reporting in the best manner possible."


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Maybe this tweet from Margret's twitter feed will convince people here that time is running out. This is her response to the problems a owner had about getting a channel fixed in Boston.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829510955977412608

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/829525216489398272


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

No future. Gone. Rovi.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Interesting post on TiVo's Facebook page. It seems that TiVo is done in New Zealand and Australia. Click on the photo.



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10154178379435178


Click on comments.


> Very annoyed and disappointed to receive the email this morning telling me that TiVo in New Zealand will be finishing in October!! WHAT THE HECK!!!!!!





> Same for Australia Karren. Soooo not happy!!!! I love my TiVo


TiVo: your ultimate source for entertainment | myTiVo.com.au


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> Interesting post on TiVo's Facebook page. It seems that TiVo is done in New Zealand and Australia. Click on the photo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But what was the last model sold there? A Series 3?


----------



## delgadobb (Mar 6, 2004)

wmhjr said:


> It would not be possible to disagree more strongly with your inaccurate opinion.


Um, if it's an *OPINION *it's just that. An *OPINION*. You may disagree with it, you may feel it's off-base, but it's an *OPINION*. Calling it inaccurate is piling on with a pretty strong sense of judgement. How about just saying you disagree? The guy's entitled to his *OPINION*.

I happen to love ferrets. I realize they're not for everyone. My *OPINION *is they're the funniest & most entertaining pet I've ever had. Would you call that inaccurate? It's my *OPINION*.

We know, we know ... the sky is falling & Tivo is dead. According to you. Not all of us share that opinion. Are there concerns? Sure. You still won't see me getting all fatalistic & saying "Tivo is dead".


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> Interesting post on TiVo's Facebook page. It seems that TiVo is done in New Zealand and Australia. Click on the photo.


Also hitting the TiVo forums: Why are you giving up on Australia???? | TiVo Features | TiVo Help Forums

And TCF: Tivo finishing in October & Question for Australian TiVo owners


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

delgadobb said:


> Um, if it's an *OPINION *it's just that. An *OPINION*. You may disagree with it, you may feel it's off-base, but it's an *OPINION*. Calling it inaccurate is piling on with a pretty strong sense of judgement. How about just saying you disagree? The guy's entitled to his *OPINION*.
> 
> I happen to love ferrets. I realize they're not for everyone. My *OPINION *is they're the funniest & most entertaining pet I've ever had. Would you call that inaccurate? It's my *OPINION*.
> 
> We know, we know ... the sky is falling & Tivo is dead. According to you. Not all of us share that opinion. Are there concerns? Sure. You still won't see me getting all fatalistic & saying "Tivo is dead".


Sorry, but you're pretty wildly wrong.

If you have an opinion that the world is flat, and facts prove the contrary, guess what? Your _*OPINION*_ is *INACCURATE*. How about those that have an opinion that man never landed on the moon? You seem to be of the "no accountability" mindset that many people in todays world have where they can just "say it's so" without comment. Perhaps you should look at the actual definition of opinion. To say that an opinion can't be accurate or inaccurate is probably the biggest pile of doggy doo doo on this site. Hint: Guess what a synonym for the word opinion is? Belief. Maybe you just might want to look at some of the examples in the definition as well. Your opinion about ferrets cannot be disproven or contradicted with facts. The accuracy of an opinion can only be measured by facts in evidence. If there are no facts, then it cannot be proven OR disproven. If there are, then guess what? The degree to which an opinion can be measured is directly related to the quality and quantity of the data (facts) available to support or contradict it. Matter of fact, why don't you just take the even easier route? Just google "Accurate Opinion"........ Just sayin......

As for the future of Tivo, that is most certainly an opinion that is out for judgement. Nobody really knows. I'm glad for you that you feel Tivo is OK. I'm not sure what you're basing that on, as even if you look at financials (such as pretty consistent revenue and earnings declines and VERY poor profitability), combined with publicly stated reasons for Rovi acquiring Tivo (posted in this thread), combined with the historical behavior of the former Rovi, combined with the fact that there has been absolutely no instance of any of the ISSUES (guide data) being resolved (not symptoms, but actual issues), combined with the ever increasing percentage of cord cutters, combined with ongoing Tivo difficulty in dealing with streaming services combined with increased Tivo subscription costs combined with... well, I think you see the point. And the evidence that all is OK is.... Uh...... Hope? Service is still active? I sure hope you have somebody else doing your investments for you.... Do I hope that Tivo somehow miraculously turns things around and makes my current multiple Roamio Pros, minis, etc last longer? Heck yeah! But I also hoped in the past that some financial investments turned things around - only to have to write off the loss later as those investments ended up following the decline that evidence suggested they would do, rather than finding that miracle.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

wmhjr, actually there HAVE been improvements to the Rovi guide data. Very slow moving improvements, but there have been improvements. 2 recent examples:
1. Not too long ago, for sports based wishlists every single re-airing of a game would get recorded, so one would constantly have to check ToDo list to remove repeated recordings. That is no longer necessary as it's been fixed several weeks ago.

2. Movies were not getting proper categories/genres assigned, so to perform a search via genre such as "Science Fiction" would not yield any results. That has recently been fixed where movies are now getting more relevant categorizations, so a search for "Science Fiction" genre now actually works again.

I know there is still a lot of GUIDE data related issues, but to say there has been no improvements at all in GUIDE data is not accurate.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> Absolutely. And I just don't see that in the above dire predictions; rather, many assumptions and guesses, from the outside--to be expected, absent leaks from the inside. Just as I don't claim to have inside facts, apart from my belief that a smart company (yes, I know, a big assumption there) will not just throw away $1.1 billion (send it to me, send it to me!  ). But as I said, maybe there would be a good (and sad) reason, in the world of investment, to do so--my point has been, we just don't know.


Mike, it's clear to me that you haven't been involved in many mergers or acquisitions. No insult intended. However, I've been in a bunch and it's actually the norm - not the exception - that the company being acquired is being done based on reasons completely different that for the "continued operation" of that acquired company. In probably about 70% of those I've been involved with, the company is being acquired specifically for the purpose of patent, trademark, embedded service, etc and the acquired company is effectively stripped bare. I've been on both sides of these acquisitions - and let me tell you - it's one of the most demoralizing things you can imagine to have helped to build a company only to watch it get gutted, with the (to you) most important components destroyed. Watch the news, read the financial news. You see this every single day of every single year.

And further, for those instances where a company is actually bought FOR its historical product with an intent to expand service into a new territory, a very very high percentage of such acquisitions actually fail. The complexities - combined with "rationalization of services" - often take good intentions and destroy them.

One thing that jumped out at me right away when this happened here. Typically, when a technology based service company like Tivo is bought for its value and based on continued operation, integrations take on a far slower speed in order to protect the core value of the acquired asset. Almost NEVER do you see any degree of layoffs within the first year other than with a small percentage of shared services (i.e., HR, Finance, internal IT). Here, layoffs happened within WEEKS - and reportedly not restricted to shared services, but actually impacting proprietary technology. That, to anybody familiar with M&A, is a very very dire signal.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

moyekj said:


> wmhjr, actually there HAVE been improvements to the Rovi guide data. Very slow moving improvements, but there have been improvements. 2 recent examples:
> 1. Not too long ago, for sports based wishlists every single re-airing of a game would get recorded, so one would constantly have to check ToDo list to remove repeated recordings. That is no longer necessary as it's been fixed several weeks ago.
> 
> 2. Movies were not getting proper categories/genres assigned, so to perform a search via genre such as "Science Fiction" would not yield any results. That has recently been fixed where movies are now getting more relevant categorizations, so a search for "Science Fiction" genre now actually works again.
> ...


I'm sorry, but I don't consider those as core improvements. I'm talking about just missing or incorrect guide data. That's my opinion. I see no improvements. For every "fix" I see another "error". And root cause has not been remediated.

More to the point - if the actual content (meaning the "program") regardless of category, genre, repeat or otherwise, is incorrect (as so often occurs now) then nothing else matters. I personally find the guide of little value any longer, and instead use other sources that have a much higher level of quality than Tivo. The problem is that we don't ever know what is correct and what is not correct on the Tivo guide.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

All I can say is that the 80 or so 1Ps and ARWLs that I have work correctly. Some I've had to tweak to include new keywords for ARWLs and to set new and repeats instead of new only at various times but that's mostly been fixed as well.

The guide data still has a lot of crap for sure but it works for me and many others here, so to claim that it holds little value is incorrect as a whole. It might not work for you but it *generally *is still working even if it's not as good as it was before the switch.

And more importantly, my Tivo and Minis are all paid for with lifetime service. They all still work as intended and I have little choice in any real alternatives here, so all I can hope is that Rivo can get better. If it craps out completely then we'll all have to pick something else but right now it's still the best DVR I can get. YMMV.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Sorry Slowbiscuit. I used the phrase "for me personally" for a reason. So to say it holds little value is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. For me, personally. I'm very glad you haven't missed recordings on your OPs apparently. I'm glad you haven't had to use manual recordings (looking at one right now - it says Manual: (program name). With the wrong program name. In other words, the content is not accurately reflected by the title.

The absolute, core, principle purpose of the Tivo is based on the quality and accuracy of the guide data. Period. A car that starts 80 out of 100 times is "mostly operational". But for those 20 out of 100 times it doesn't start, that "mostly" really doesn't matter for crap. 

I completely agree that both of my Roamio Pros, my 4 minis, and my old HD are all on lifetime - so my decision is not easy. But it's not like there wasn't cost to that. I paid for that lifetime. And it has not yet reached the time period when it has "paid for itself" compared to alternatives. As for alternatives here, IMHO I have real alternatives that I'm looking at that have both advantages and disadvantages compared to Tivo. The problem I'm having is that there is a time limit on this, as members on this site have already experienced declines in resale value of Roamios with lifetime. So, I'm trying to figure out the "best" strategy - for me. As for it getting better, I'm sorry. I simply just have absolutely zero belief that this will happen. I don't think it's even their intent. This product has a shelf life to begin with. I don't think that's why Tivo was bought.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

delgadobb said:


> Um, if it's an *OPINION *it's just that. An *OPINION*. You may disagree with it, you may feel it's off-base, but it's an *OPINION*. Calling it inaccurate is piling on with a pretty strong sense of judgement. How about just saying you disagree? The guy's entitled to his *OPINION*.
> 
> I happen to love ferrets. I realize they're not for everyone. My *OPINION *is they're the funniest & most entertaining pet I've ever had. Would you call that inaccurate? It's my *OPINION*.
> 
> We know, we know ... the sky is falling & Tivo is dead. According to you. Not all of us share that opinion. Are there concerns? Sure. You still won't see me getting all fatalistic & saying "Tivo is dead".


You hit the nail on the head, delgadobb, on both counts. (BTW, I am a retired linguist and understand full well the proper usage of the English language but didn't wish to continue to press the point.) OP's logic is objectively off-base; however, you will never get through to anyone who is so obdurately argumentative and intent on promulgating hyperbolic invective against TiVo.

The only reason I bothered to respond to his earlier posts was out of concern for other readers who might be persuaded from his slanted diatribes that their TiVo service is truly about to become moribund.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> Sorry, but you're pretty wildly wrong.
> 
> If you have an opinion that the world is flat, and facts prove the contrary, guess what? Your _*OPINION*_ is *INACCURATE*. How about those that have an opinion that man never landed on the moon? You seem to be of the "no accountability" mindset that many people in todays world have where they can just "say it's so" without comment. Perhaps you should look at the actual definition of opinion. To say that an opinion can't be accurate or inaccurate is probably the biggest pile of doggy doo doo on this site. Hint: Guess what a synonym for the word opinion is? Belief. Maybe you just might want to look at some of the examples in the definition as well. Your opinion about ferrets cannot be disproven or contradicted with facts. The accuracy of an opinion can only be measured by facts in evidence. If there are no facts, then it cannot be proven OR disproven. If there are, then guess what? The degree to which an opinion can be measured is directly related to the quality and quantity of the data (facts) available to support or contradict it. Matter of fact, why don't you just take the even easier route? Just google "Accurate Opinion"........ Just sayin......
> ...


Fundamentally I agree that an opinion that can be checked against actual facts can be labeled accurate or inaccurate.

However I have seen no opinions in this thread that can be fact checked (proven or dis-proven) with the information we have available (certainly none of the ones predicting the future). Therefor labeling any of them accurate or inaccurate is not an appropriate us of the language. Or put another way when an opinion is labeled as inaccurate, that means there are facts showing the inaccuracies.

In the end opinions are just opinions and as per your request per Google:

Opinion = a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.​
Basically people can have any opinion they want, if someone wants to label it is inaccurate (effectively ending debate) it is on them to factually prove it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

If someone walked into this thread at this point, they would think the sky is falling! I've personally noticed the decline in guide data quality, and yes, it is a real problem, but it's not like TiVos are completely a brick now. I have a few manual recording running now on my XL4. Let's also not pretend that the guide data was perfect before. The Daily Show and a few other shows were completely screwed up before RiVo, and those shows are actually now improving, but many other shows have started to have issues that they didn't before.

I think RiVo needs to seriously address their guide data problem, and I can understand people who pay monthly leaving (although monthly makes no sense in the first place). But to those of us with Lifetime units, it's not they've suddenly turned into a brick... they still work almost as well as they did before.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> Mike, it's clear to me that you haven't been involved in many mergers or acquisitions. No insult intended. However, I've been in a bunch and it's actually the norm - not the exception - that the company being acquired is being done based on reasons completely different that for the "continued operation" of that acquired company. In probably about 70% of those I've been involved with, the company is being acquired specifically for the purpose of patent, trademark, embedded service, etc and the acquired company is effectively stripped bare. I've been on both sides of these acquisitions - and let me tell you - it's one of the most demoralizing things you can imagine to have helped to build a company only to watch it get gutted, with the (to you) most important components destroyed. Watch the news, read the financial news. You see this every single day of every single year.
> 
> And further, for those instances where a company is actually bought FOR its historical product with an intent to expand service into a new territory, a very very high percentage of such acquisitions actually fail. The complexities - combined with "rationalization of services" - often take good intentions and destroy them.
> 
> One thing that jumped out at me right away when this happened here. Typically, when a technology based service company like Tivo is bought for its value and based on continued operation, integrations take on a far slower speed in order to protect the core value of the acquired asset. Almost NEVER do you see any degree of layoffs within the first year other than with a small percentage of shared services (i.e., HR, Finance, internal IT). Here, layoffs happened within WEEKS - and reportedly not restricted to shared services, but actually impacting proprietary technology. That, to anybody familiar with M&A, is a very very dire signal.


Thank you (and yes, I actually have been involved in corporate acquisitions and other transactions). As you might have seen in my earlier posts, I have never denied that there could be matters happening behind the scenes here, and that there may be other, tactical reasons for the acquisition.

My point simply has been, absent someone here having inside information as vs. speculation, _we simply don't know_. Certainly not for the bald proposition made that Rovi intends to run TiVo into the ground. (Indeed, that's the sort of campaign that a competitor might try to start.) And the minimal number of events that have been pointed to and speculated on, sometimes incorrectly (e.g. that the former TiVo management is gone), has not convinced me otherwise.

Again, maybe the speculation will pan out, in the end. But until then or more conclusive facts come out, it's still largely that, speculation. And there still is $1.1 billion at issue, which no sane management wants to lose.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> If someone walked into this thread at this point, they would think the sky is falling! I've personally noticed the decline in guide data quality, and yes, it is a real problem, but it's not like TiVos are completely a brick now. I have a few manual recording running now on my XL4. Let's also not pretend that the guide data was perfect before. The Daily Show and a few other shows were completely screwed up before RiVo, and those shows are actually now improving, but many other shows have started to have issues that they didn't before.
> 
> I think RiVo needs to seriously address their guide data problem, and I can understand people who pay monthly leaving (although monthly makes no sense in the first place). But to those of us with Lifetime units, it's not they've suddenly turned into a brick... they still work almost as well as they did before.


Some of this (but not all) *guide data problem *may come from a lack of information that ROVI can get from their sources, does anybody know where the guide data starts from,? Who or what provides Rovi with the guide data for any given channel? IE does each network like say TBS give ROVI their programing for the next two weeks, and how much effort does TBS put into that data, if TBS is not differentiating between repetes in any week how would ROVI know what is a repete or not?.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> All I can say is that the 80 or so 1Ps and ARWLs that I have work correctly. Some I've had to tweak to include new keywords for ARWLs and to set new and repeats instead of new only at various times but that's mostly been fixed as well.
> 
> The guide data still has a lot of crap for sure but it works for me and many others here, so to claim that it holds little value is incorrect as a whole. It might not work for you but it *generally *is still working even if it's not as good as it was before the switch.
> 
> And more importantly, my Tivo and Minis are all paid for with lifetime service. They all still work as intended and I have little choice in any real alternatives here, so all I can hope is that Rivo can get better. If it craps out completely then we'll all have to pick something else but right now it's still the best DVR I can get. YMMV.


Yes. i have 200+ One Passes and the vast majority of them have zero issues. The dozens of shows I watch on a regular basis have been fine. But one of the shows I record for my GF has certainly had issues. The show Being Mary Jane.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

wmhjr said:


> Sorry, but you're pretty wildly wrong. If you have an opinion that the world is flat, and facts prove the contrary, guess what? Your _*OPINION*_ is *INACCURATE*.


You're using the word "Opinion" wrong. By definition, an opinion is about a subject that is concerned with a topic that is unable to be verified with complete certainty. You can't have an 'opinion' on a factually testable statement.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> Thank you (and yes, I actually have been involved in corporate acquisitions and other transactions). As you might have seen in my earlier posts, I have never denied that there could be matters happening behind the scenes here, and that there may be other, tactical reasons for the acquisition.
> 
> My point simply has been, absent someone here having inside information as vs. speculation, _we simply don't know_. Certainly not for the bald proposition made that Rovi intends to run TiVo into the ground. (Indeed, that's the sort of campaign that a competitor might try to start.) And the minimal number of events that have been pointed to and speculated on, sometimes incorrectly (e.g. that the former TiVo management is gone), has not convinced me otherwise.
> 
> Again, maybe the speculation will pan out, in the end. But until then or more conclusive facts come out, it's still largely that, speculation. And there still is $1.1 billion at issue, which no sane management wants to lose.


Sorry, Mike, it doesn't sound as though you have much experience with this, since you insist on continuing that whole "$1.1B" issue. We will have to just agree to disagree about this. The statement that "no sane management wants to lose" is simply irrelevant, as so far as any analysts have indicated, the purchase of Tivo was not about the retail business at all. It was about Search, Discovery, and the Rovi Cloud. Based on comments from industry experts (as apposed to the biased Tivo fans here on this site), there was not a single, solitary statement about Tivo subscriptions being even a consideration that I've read. Everything has been based on stuff like patents, search capability, the remnants of Aereo, DigitalSmiths, and the down the road advent of ATSC 3.0. According to analysts - and frankly to Rovi themselves, these are the reasons for the acquisition.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

ah30k said:


> You're using the word "Opinion" wrong. By definition, an opinion is about a subject that is concerned with a topic that is unable to be verified with complete certainty. You can't have an 'opinion' on a factually testable statement.


Realllllyyyy........ Maybe you should check that definition, just sayin.....

Definition of OPINION


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

wmhjr said:


> Realllllyyyy........ Maybe you should check that definition, just sayin.....
> 
> Definition of OPINION


the definition of opinion

noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

Tomato, tomatoe, check around to find whatever definition you want. If you want to, you can then move on to define "complete certainty". 

Funny how the fanboys come out but don't want to acknowledge the facts in evidence.....


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

lessd said:


> Some of this (but not all) *guide data problem *may come from a lack of information that ROVI can get from their sources, does anybody know where the guide data starts from,? Who or what provides Rovi with the guide data for any given channel? IE does each network like say TBS give ROVI their programing for the next two weeks, and how much effort does TBS put into that data, if TBS is not differentiating between repetes in any week how would ROVI know what is a repete or not?.


So how would you explain the (common) situation where Gracenote (or call it Nielsen if you like now) has the correct guide data, but Rovi (now called Tivo) does not? You think that all of those different markets just don't like Rovi so they consistently provide different data to them than they did/do provide to Gracenote? Seriously - a real question.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

wmhjr said:


> Tomato, tomatoe, check around to find whatever definition you want. If you want to, you can then move on to define "complete certainty".
> 
> Funny how the fanboys come out but don't want to acknowledge the facts in evidence.....


Your facts are not so factual. I like how most of your facts are about the absence of events. The company DIDN'T do x, y or z so it PROVES a fact. Lame facts if you ask me.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

ah30k said:


> Your facts are not so factual. I like how most of your facts are about the absence of events. The company DIDN'T do x, y or z so it PROVES a fact. Lame facts if you ask me.


Wrong again.

Facts.

Purchase price.
Change from GraceNote to Rovi.
Statements from Rovi (now Tivo) senior leadership.
Statements from Market Analysts.
Layoffs executed by Tivo (combined company following acquisition).
Q4 and full year financials from Tivo.
Strategy for ATSC 3.0
Regulatory changes regarding cablecard/integration ban

How exactly are those "absence of events"?


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

wmhjr said:


> But we do have inside information.
> 
> There were significant layoffs reported virtually immediately after the acquisition.





wmhjr said:


> There has been no reported shift of any other resource toward existing or future development.


Your lack of insight does not make this a fact.



wmhjr said:


> There has been absolutely zero improvement on the quality of guide data. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's actually continued degrading even further.


This is an opinion if I've ever seen one. Please back up your FACT with a reference.



wmhjr said:


> There have been no announcements of any significant strategic plans, etc.


What company telegraphs their strategic plans in advance? This is like saying that since the New England Patriots didn't announce their game plans then they didn't have one.



wmhjr said:


> You have to base an opinion off of facts at hand. And all the facts point singularly in one directly. If that direction is not correct, Tivo/Rovi/Rivo/whatever is doing absolutely nothing to dispel the notion.
> 
> Rovi never intended to do much with Tivo. It's a cow they'll milk as long as they can without feeding it.


 I see one fact in your list here.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

BTW, I'm certainly not saying that my opinion about the future of Tivo is a fact. That opinion is a conclusion based on the factual data available. Which frankly includes more than the above - it includes Tivo subscription trends, increase on cord cutting, market cap, and other (some qualitative rather than quantitative based) items. I could certainly be wrong - and frankly hope I am.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

ah30k said:


> Your lack of insight does not make this a fact.
> 
> This is an opinion if I've ever seen one. Please back up your FACT with a reference.
> 
> ...


Sorry - you'll never be convinced. Not worth my time or effort. And btw, EVERY public company telegraphs their strategic plans. They do this with analysts because predictability is incredibly important in the market. The market doesn't like surprises. This isn't a football game, where, btw a game plan is a TACTICAL plan. Not a strategic plan.

Hope is not a plan. Head - meet sand.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

wmhjr said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> Facts.
> 
> ...


I was referring to your earlier post about your 'facts' but since you brought this new list up,

Purchase price. <-- what does this have to do with the question??
Change from GraceNote to Rovi. <-- this was forced by Gracenote refusing to renew the contract, not a choice by Rovi/TiVo so not sure what your point is.
Statements from Rovi (now Tivo) senior leadership. <-- please provide references to your facts
Statements from Market Analysts. <-- ha ha, statement from an analyst as evidence 
Layoffs executed by Tivo (combined company following acquisition). <-- yes this happened, is anyone surprised?
Q4 and full year financials from Tivo. <-- what does this prove?
Strategy for ATSC 3.0
Regulatory changes regarding cablecard/integration ban


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

wmhjr said:


> Sorry - you'll never be convinced. Not worth my time or effort. And btw, EVERY public company telegraphs their strategic plans. They do this with analysts because predictability is incredibly important in the market. The market doesn't like surprises. This isn't a football game, where, btw a game plan is a TACTICAL plan. Not a strategic plan.
> 
> Hope is not a plan. Head - meet sand.


 I agree, your nonsense and insults are getting old.


----------



## wmhjr (Dec 2, 2007)

ah30k said:


> I was referring to your earlier post about your 'facts' but since you brought this new list up,
> 
> Purchase price. <-- what does this have to do with the question??
> Change from GraceNote to Rovi. <-- this was forced by Gracenote refusing to renew the contract, not a choice by Rovi/TiVo so not sure what your point is.
> ...


The fact that you don't even comprehend financials says everything. The fact that you haven't read through the posts on this thread where there have been links (find them yourself, btw) that include statements from Tivo senior management. The fact that you think market analysts provide no value is hilarious. Obviously, we should all just listen to you personally and discount anything else. Uh huh. And if you don't think there was more behind the Gracenote departure, well, I've got some swamp land to sell you. It'll be really good.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> You hit the nail on the head, delgadobb, on both counts. (BTW, I am a retired linguist and understand full well the proper usage of the English language but didn't wish to continue to press the point.) OP's logic is objectively off-base; however, you will never get through to anyone who is so obdurately argumentative and intent on promulgating hyperbolic invective against TiVo.
> 
> The only reason I bothered to respond to his earlier posts was out of concern for other readers who might be persuaded from his slanted diatribes that their TiVo service is truly about to become moribund.


That was fun to read, and made wading through the thread worth it. Refreshing to get a benchmark for what the "best words" might sound like, strung together.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

wmhjr said:


> The fact that you don't even comprehend financials says everything. The fact that you haven't read through the posts on this thread where there have been links (find them yourself, btw) that include statements from Tivo senior management. The fact that you think market analysts provide no value is hilarious. Obviously, we should all just listen to you personally and discount anything else. Uh huh. And if you don't think there was more behind the Gracenote departure, well, I've got some swamp land to sell you. It'll be really good.


Your continued use of the word fact when your statement is clearly baseless opinion along with your continued personal insults make me think you are a troll posting to incite.

I do not care if anyone believes me or you but I do care when people trot out facts to support their position that are clearly not facts. In all of your dozens of facts to prove your point I think perhaps two may have been facts and even those don't scientifically support your conclusion.

Have a great day.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

wmhjr said:


> So how would you explain the (common) situation where Gracenote (or call it Nielsen if you like now) has the correct guide data, but Rovi (now called Tivo) does not? You think that all of those different markets just don't like Rovi so they consistently provide different data to them than they did/do provide to Gracenote? Seriously - a real question.


This has been THE question for years. Data exists. Does the supplier send it in a timely manner? Does TiVo use it in a timely manner? Does someone change the data? I'm going to ignore the timing of connections for this problem, since it's not a factor for next week's descriptions. If Screener is correct for three days, yet my guide still has bad content a week into the future, who's to blame?

Nobody knows. We know that Screener and TitanTV are 99% correct. We know tvguide.com and tv.com are like the guide on my TiVo. I "feel" it's the fault of Rovi, but I can't prove it. I don't work for TiVo.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

ah30k said:


> Your continued use of the word fact when your statement is clearly baseless opinion along with your continued personal insults make me think you are *a troll posting to incite*.
> 
> I do not care if anyone believes me or you but I do care when people trot out facts to support their position that are clearly not facts. In all of your dozens of facts to prove your point I think perhaps two may have been facts and even those don't scientifically support your conclusion.
> 
> Have a great day.


Gee, ya think? Whatever could have led you to that conclusion?


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

krkaufman said:


> That was fun to read, and made wading through the thread worth it. Refreshing to get a benchmark for what the "best words" might sound like, strung together.


:blush::blush::blush:


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> Funny how the fanboys come out but don't want to acknowledge the facts in evidence.....


Pulling the "fanboy" name card out, when people actually are trying to discuss the issues . . . come on . . . .


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

wmhjr said:


> So how would you explain the (common) situation where Gracenote (or call it Nielsen if you like now) has the correct guide data, but Rovi (now called Tivo) does not? You think that all of those different markets just don't like Rovi so they consistently provide different data to them than they did/do provide to Gracenote? Seriously - a real question.


It could happen. I spoke with the techs in programming at Sony/GetTV and at that time; back in August 2016, they told me they only provided data directly to Nielsen (Gracenote). That could have all changed now, as the data for GetTV has improved since then.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> Purchase price.
> Change from GraceNote to Rovi.
> Statements from Rovi (now Tivo) senior leadership.
> Statements from Market Analysts.
> ...


I guess I'm not familiar with the factual predicates for many of these (e.g. statements from Rovi senior leadership, statements from market analysts) and how all these factors otherwise establish that Rovi plans to milk TiVo dry, essentially.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

wmhjr said:


> Sorry, Mike, it doesn't sound as though you have much experience with this, since you insist on continuing that whole "$1.1B" issue. We will have to just agree to disagree about this. The statement that "no sane management wants to lose" is simply irrelevant, as so far as any analysts have indicated, the purchase of Tivo was not about the retail business at all. It was about Search, Discovery, and the Rovi Cloud. Based on comments from industry experts (as apposed to the biased Tivo fans here on this site), there was not a single, solitary statement about Tivo subscriptions being even a consideration that I've read. Everything has been based on stuff like patents, search capability, the remnants of Aereo, DigitalSmiths, and the down the road advent of ATSC 3.0. According to analysts - and frankly to Rovi themselves, these are the reasons for the acquisition.


I'm not denying what analysts have said, as to key assets. But the analysts, as far as I've heard and you've pointed out, have not then gone forward and said, "So, it is Rovi's intention to run TiVo into the ground." And goals need not be mutually exclusive--in fact, one can feed the other, as Rovi management recently pointed out when noting one of the benefits of the the retail market.

My issue, again, is as to the _speculation_, and the absence of _facts_, as to that or similar purported plans. I'm not saying that any of this doesn't exist--just that the speculation here, and the throwing of facts into the wind, does not make it so (or, thus far, rise to a level approaching conclusiveness).

And going back to the $1.1 billion: you're right, I'm just a simple guy, and just can't see a management throwing away a $1.1 billion investment without a plan--and thus far, I've not seen a factually-backed plan laid out, to essentially gut TiVo.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

The other day, somehow or other, I had clicked on a thread that said Tivo was ended as of October. Now, clearly, we all know that that was in a forum here on Australia. But I gasped before realizing I was in the wrong place. Scary! I usually pay more attention than that. 

I don't want Tivo to go away and I can't even speculate as to anything in that regard. It doesn't seem likely to me. Yeah, we've had some ridiculous problems lately and problems that they sure don't seem to be doing much about. But I don't think that means they are out. If they were going to dick around and ruin it for the purpose of killing it at some point down the road, it seems to me they would just choose to kill it in one fell swoop and be done with it. Doesn't make sense to me to run it into the ground over a fairly long period of time.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

sharkster said:


> The other day, somehow or other, I had clicked on a thread that said Tivo was ended as of October. Now, clearly, we all know that that was in a forum here on Australia. But I gasped before realizing I was in the wrong place. Scary! I usually pay more attention than that.


The exact same thing happened to me--first I had a few seconds of shock, then wondering if I was being punked, and then I finally noted the sub-forum's geography. And then I started breathing again.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> The exact same thing happened to me--first I had a few seconds of shock, then wondering if I was being punked, and then I finally noted the sub-forum's geography. And then I started breathing again.


Whew! I know, right?


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> The exact same thing happened to me--first I had a few seconds of shock, then wondering if I was being punked, and then I finally noted the sub-forum's geography. And then I started breathing again.


Australia signed up for "Priority Release". It will be rolling out to the rest of us later.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> In my area I've had messages about channel additions and deletions regularly. Since FiOS has added or deleted a bunch in the last few months. But this was also the case before Rovi bought TiVo.


I think change is coming your way if you want to stay with Fios. It appears that they are going to roll out an all IP solution and do away with the legacy TV signals that your TiVos rely on. You will need their hardware once that is done. In order to use your TiVos you will need to change providers unless they are also deciding go in that direction.
This Is the New Fios TV From Verizon | Light Reading

I also had success last fall with channel updates but that was when Margret was asking for them. That has changed though as the two emails I sent her and also the two I sent to TiVo Support have went unanswered. A months time has passed since the first email. If the new TiVo really has any future plans for the direct to retail TiVo customers they are really not showing it here. I see that the OTA channel requests get immediate attention which makes sense as that was Rovis official policy after they shut down the TVGOS broadcast system. The internet connected guides that were consumer facing after the shutdown were OTA only as they deemed the CableCard a failure and also the cable systems were encrypting their lineups so there even was no in the clear lineups to deal with. This seems to be the policy that they are still pursuing as they intend to offer their UI's and guide data to consumer electronic companies that want to license their UIs and data.
They already have made statements regarding they are not really interested in the direct to consumer DVR business that the old TiVo was doing but will continue to support retail CE manufactures that want to license their guides for use in devices that they may offer to consumers.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Jed1 said:


> They already have made statements regarding they are not really interested in the direct to consumer DVR business that the old TiVo was doing but will continue to support retail CE manufactures that want to license their guides for use in devices that they may offer to consumers.


But then I also see the TiVo statements that it likes having the retail side around. And so I find it confusing.

When I looked into the history a bit ago, I found that TiVo originally didn't want to do the retail route itself but then did so and has continued to do so (even ceasing with 3rd-party retail). Schizophrenia can be a challenge.


----------



## delgadobb (Mar 6, 2004)

wmhjr said:


> Sorry, but you're pretty wildly wrong.


Passive aggressive much? Leading with 'sorry' doesn't make it any better.

If you want to be the smartest guy in the room, so be it. I know my level of intelligence & there are a lot of VERY sharp people around here. I, for one, am grateful for their contributions; they've helped me to gain more enjoyment from my Tivos & learn some things in the process.



wmhjr said:


> You seem to be of the "no accountability" mindset that many people in todays world have where they can just "say it's so" without comment.


Paint with broad strokes much? Jeez.

If you look at the total body of what I've posted here (& other message boards), you'd be well aware I'm my own biggest critic & hold myself accountable. One of my big frustrations in today's world is the 'entitlement' mentality so many carry through life. I also realize everyone beats to a different drum & respect that. Accepting that I'm not going to fix all the ills of the world doesn't mean I'm OK with it.

In this case, it sure seems you've made a snap judgement on who I am. Nice. You accumulated this evidence where? There's a whole lotta hubris goin' on ... it seems to be a common theme. My *opinion*, of course.



wmhjr said:


> Perhaps you should look at the actual definition of opinion.


o-pin-ion
_noun_

a view or judgment formed about something, *not necessarily based on fact or knowledge*.
That was literally the first thing that came up in my search.



wmhjr said:


> I'm glad for you that you feel Tivo is OK.


Put words in people's mouths much?

When did I say this?

Directly above in this thread I said 'Not all of us share that opinion. Are there concerns? Sure. You still won't see me getting all fatalistic & saying "Tivo is dead".' In this other thread I recently expressed my concerns:

I did it..TiVo no more

I'm not sure how you've judged that I 'feel Tivo is OK'. I have concerns about its future while still appreciating the positive aspects that remain for many of us.

One statement I've found to be more & more true as I get older (and hopefully wiser) is "I used to think it was all black & white, but now I realize it's all shades of grey." If it makes it easier for you to treat things as black & white, more power to you. For me, I realize Tivo has significant issues yet I can still appreciate the positive aspects that remain. There are plenty of grey areas wrt Tivo. What else would I choose today that would be an improvement beyond my overall experience with Tivo? (Acknowledging that I need to make no more future investment if I so choose.)

Once there is a compelling alternative to Tivo at a reasonable investment, you'll see me make the migration. In the meantime, I'll enjoy what I can while I can, leveraging large amounts of content that *I* can control rather than a 3rd party service.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> But then I also see the TiVo statements that it likes having the retail side around. And so I find it confusing.


Well, it would be insane for TiVo to make a declaration that they're looking to wind down retail support.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

krkaufman said:


> Well, it would be insane for TiVo to make a declaration that they're looking to wind down retail support.


Well, I think that some here would say that fits TiVo, lol. (There's also a difference between those 2 poles.)


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

To maybe help with some of the confusion... Separate the concepts of selling into retail and manufacturing their own hardware themselves. 
I think some comments from the company were about the latter and listeners assumed the former.

There are many manufacturing models from OEM, ODM, etc which I am not even remotely expert on.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> I think change is coming your way if you want to stay with Fios. It appears that they are going to roll out an all IP solution and do away with the legacy TV signals that your TiVos rely on. You will need their hardware once that is done. In order to use your TiVos you will need to change providers unless they are also deciding go in that direction.
> This Is the New Fios TV From Verizon | Light Reading
> 
> ..............


FIOS won't be doing away with legacy QAM anytime soon. They have too many old STBs that would cost tens of millions to replace. FiOS is too stingy to replace these devices when they don't need to.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Mikeguy said:


> But then I also see the TiVo statements that it likes having the retail side around. And so I find it confusing.
> 
> When I looked into the history a bit ago, I found that TiVo originally didn't want to do the retail route itself but then did so and has continued to do so (even ceasing with 3rd-party retail). Schizophrenia can be a challenge.


You have to be careful as all the statements that Rovi has made during and after the sale is they are not staying the hardware business. Retail to Rovi is what is has been since Gemstar TVGuide International was formed in the 1990's and that is license their UI and data to CE manufacturers to embed in their consumer products. They already moved away from using the direct to consumer retail boxes at the MSOs. They have been using the Pace MG1 and it client boxes in place of the Roamios. The new UI that Vodafone in Spain is using is made by Technicolor. There is absolutely no Bolts being used in MSOs.
The new direction for cable is to convert their legacy TV signals to DOCSIS and then use that massive downstream IP pipe to bring video to their customers. This will require that the customers have boxes that have built in DOCSIS cable modems in them, which non of retail TiVos have. So when this happens all these TiVo boxes will be junk. My little cable system is now under two years out from going all IP.
Comcast is already using a box of this type which is X1. It uses the DSG protocol and has built in DOCSIS cable modems in them. Their VOD streams are sent to the customer via their downstream DOCSIS internet to those boxes. Their older legacy boxes, including the TiVo with the app, still use the old VOD system which uses the legacy 6Mhz channels to deliver. Comcast is in a big push now to get those legacy box customers switched over to the X1. Once they have the majority of the customers switched then they will wind down the old legacy system. In fact all of the Whole Home Boxes being made have DOCSIS modems in them and support the DSG protocol. Our TiVo's use the old Aloha and Davic protocols which rely on the legacy OOB channel at 75.250Mhz to receive messages from the headend. The DSG protocol uses the downstream and upstream channels of the cable systems DOCSIS feed which our TiVo's can't use.
Verizon has just announced they are moving Fios to IP and once Comcast moves their customers over that will be about 23 million homes converted. If Charter moves in the next few years then that is over half the cable market so there is no market going forward for direct to consumer TiVo's. And with the current election results the FCC has dropped all the previous mandates that the previous chairman has implemented for STB competition.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> FIOS won't be doing away with legacy QAM anytime soon. They have too many old STBs that would cost tens of millions to replace. FiOS is too stingy to replace these devices when they don't need to.


Unfortunately your wrong because their current STB can do IP as it has a built in modem. Those Quantum boxes get their VOD and messages from the downstream and upstream fiber feeds. Those boxes can operate on all IP right now so they don't have to replace to much of their hardware. Verizon just has to replace the ONTs at the customers premise so it will not be to hard for them to accomplish this.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Jed1 said:


> The new direction for cable is to convert their legacy TV signals to DOCSIS and then use that massive downstream IP pipe to bring video to their customers. This will require that the customers have boxes that have built in DOCSIS cable modems in them, which non of retail TiVos have. So when this happens all these TiVo boxes will be junk.


True, this is the new direction for OTA as well, using ATSC 3.0 to broadcast IP. So Roamio OTA's will also be junk after this happens.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Lurker1 said:


> True, this is the new direction for OTA as well, using ATSC 3.0 to broadcast IP. So Roamio OTA's will also be junk after this happens.


As long as it's 40 years from now, I'm fine with it.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> Unfortunately your wrong because their current STB can do IP as it has a built in modem. Those Quantum boxes get their VOD and messages from the downstream and upstream fiber feeds. Those boxes can operate on all IP right now so they don't have to replace to much of their hardware. Verizon just has to replace the ONTs at the customers premise so it will not be to hard for them to accomplish this.


That is their current STB. The problem is a very large percentage of people don't have that. They have much older boxes.Heck the old boxes can't even handle MPEG4. These are the boxes that would need to be changed out for their new system. FiOS is too cheap to switch out these boxes. They are perfectly happy to let their customers continue using these old boxes and continue paying their monthly rental fees.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> As long as it's 40 years from now, I'm fine with it.


Very well could be, but more likely to be closer to 10.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> That is their current STB. The problem is a very large percentage of people don't have that. They have much older boxes.Heck the old boxes can't even handle MPEG4. These are the boxes that would need to be changed out for their new system. FiOS is too cheap to switch out these boxes. They are perfectly happy to let their customers continue using these old boxes and continue paying their monthly rental fees.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


We'll see what Verizon actually ends up doing but the article that originally broke the story of a Verizon IPTV service was this one last year from Variety. That article indicated that Verizon would do a total switchover from the existing QAM-based FiOS TV to the new IPTV service, one area at a time, which would require a lot of equipment swap-outs.

_"Verizon had long planned to eventually switch from QAM to IP, and in fact boosted this as one of the reasons it acquired OnCue in 2014. However, it's also a massive undertaking that will likely see the company switch over large numbers of customers in a short period of time, market-by-market."_

I suppose they could instead switch customers over to the new IPTV system gradually, through attrition, but that would take a very long time for the company to see the benefits of the switchover...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> Verizon has just announced they are moving Fios to IP and once Comcast moves their customers over that will be about 23 million homes converted. If Charter moves in the next few years then that is over half the cable market so there is no market going forward for direct to consumer TiVo's. And with the current election results the FCC has dropped all the previous mandates that the previous chairman has implemented for STB competition.


You're conflating two totally different systems and technologies. Comcast is an HFC provider. In order to free up more bandwidth for IP, they have to cut the QAM signals as they move over to IPTV. They may have a short "overlap" period for a handful of channels at a time, but basically once channels go IP, they have to be turned off on the QAM side, where they will add more DOCSIS bandwidth, and so forth and so on. They may add a few new HD channels via IP-only first, but then the HD channels that are QAM delivered today will start to go away. My guess is the following (although it could lag several years depending on market):

2017: Launch of initial linear IP channels and conversion to IP-VOD for all X1 devices
2018-2020: Conversion of HD linear channels and possibly some SD upper tier or premium channels to an IP-only format
2020 and beyond: eventual conversion of HD locals and SD expanded basic lineup to IP-only

On the other hand, Verizon has an 860mhz QAM-based one-way cable TV system that's on a different wavelength on the fiber from the IP side of things, meaning that while new installs will be done on IP, they have basically no incentive to stop offering QAM, since the bandwidth can't be used for anything else. What will likely happen, since they are basically out of room on the QAM side, and don't want to convert any lower tiers to MPEG-4, since a lot of their older equipment is MPEG-2 only, is that they will basically keep the QAM system frozen in time for the next 10+ years, with new installs using IPTV only, but existing customers on QAM keeping QAM until they want to upgrade to the new DVRs and clients on the IPTV side to get new HD channels that aren't added to the QAM side (although if a lot more channels go away in the next couple of years, that may not be an issue, as they may free up "slots" for new channel adds).



aaronwt said:


> That is their current STB. The problem is a very large percentage of people don't have that. They have much older boxes.Heck the old boxes can't even handle MPEG4. These are the boxes that would need to be changed out for their new system. FiOS is too cheap to switch out these boxes. They are perfectly happy to let their customers continue using these old boxes and continue paying their monthly rental fees.


Exactly. And unlike Comcast, they have nothing to gain by moving people off of linear QAM.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Lurker1 said:


> Very well could be, but more likely to be closer to 10.


Let's compromise at 20--I can live with that.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Bigg said:


> You're conflating two totally different systems and technologies. Comcast is an HFC provider. In order to free up more bandwidth for IP, they have to cut the QAM signals as they move over to IPTV. They may have a short "overlap" period for a handful of channels at a time, but basically once channels go IP, they have to be turned off on the QAM side, where they will add more DOCSIS bandwidth, and so forth and so on. They may add a few new HD channels via IP-only first, but then the HD channels that are QAM delivered today will start to go away. My guess is the following (although it could lag several years depending on market):
> 
> 2017: Launch of initial linear IP channels and conversion to IP-VOD for all X1 devices
> 2018-2020: Conversion of HD linear channels and possibly some SD upper tier or premium channels to an IP-only format
> ...


Nope the key is to get around 80% of the homes on a X1 system and then start the change over. They are currently at the 50% mark. They are aggressively contacting my sister to swap out the DCX3400 for the X1. They call her every day now to make the switch. And as I stated those that are on the X1 box now are already getting VOD from the DOCSIS downstream feed.
Verizon is an easy one since their change over requires a new ONT. As they do each paying house they just swap out any legacy equipment. My little system (100,000 households) just removed all non MPEG4 and non 1Ghz boxes from their system. It doesn't take long and not the pain you will think it is. Those that refused they just turned off those boxes and they had to make a choice, upgrade, go with out, or move to some other service.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> Let's compromise at 20--I can live with that.


20 it is! I'll robocall Ajit during dinner and let him know our decision.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Lurker1 said:


> 20 it is! I'll robocall Ajit during dinner and let him know our decision.


Ooh, the new solution for calling issues to TiVo's attention: robocall campaigns!


----------



## toricred (Mar 9, 2004)

wmhjr said:


> So how would you explain the (common) situation where Gracenote (or call it Nielsen if you like now) has the correct guide data, but Rovi (now called Tivo) does not? You think that all of those different markets just don't like Rovi so they consistently provide different data to them than they did/do provide to Gracenote? Seriously - a real question.


So I'm having a problem where my Fox affiliate is getting guide data for Telemundo. I spent a lot of time Tuesday on the phone with Technical support and eventually got to talk to a supervisor (who actually spoke english). If he was correct, Comcast is telling them that the channel is in fact a Telemundo affiliate. The fact that I can watch the channel and see Fox programming in English and Screener has the right guide data couldn't get them to budge. They kept telling me that I was actually watching Telemundo. The supervisor eventually conceded that they might have the wrong data from "Comcast" and they would research it. I don't actually think anything is going to happen, but if his explanation has any truth at all it would be an interesting piece of the puzzle.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> On the other hand, Verizon has an 860mhz QAM-based one-way cable TV system that's on a different wavelength on the fiber from the IP side of things, meaning that while new installs will be done on IP, they have basically no incentive to stop offering QAM, since the bandwidth can't be used for anything else.


What you're saying is true in terms of how Verizon's FiOS network currently works but I wonder if the wavelength now used for QAM couldn't be repurposed for IP -- providing greater overall IP bandwidth/speeds -- with installation of new ONTs and/or other hardware throughout the network? Some of the stuff I've read suggest that this may be true.

As it is, based on your assessment, transitioning from QAM to IPTV does nothing for Verizon's network speeds. (Actually, it makes things worse because TV transmissions will add to network congestion on the IP side, slowing things down a bit.) It leaves me wondering why they wish to make the transition at all. I get that they're out of room on QAM, so any new cable channels will have to go somewhere else, i.e. IP, but we're almost certainly looking at fewer, not more, linear cable channels in existence over the next several years. I guess UHD channels, when they finally arrive, couldn't go on QAM though. But isn't the latest gen or two of STBs currently deployed hybrid boxes that can support both QAM and IP anyhow? Seems like current hardware could handle a gradual QAM to IP transition, much like what you anticipate Comcast will do with X1.

Maybe the switchover is mainly about offering boxes with a new UI and HEVC support and if they're going to roll out new hardware, why not make them IP-only too?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> What you're saying is true in terms of how Verizon's FiOS network currently works but I wonder if the wavelength now used for QAM couldn't be repurposed for IP -- providing greater overall IP bandwidth/speeds -- with installation of new ONTs and/or other hardware throughout the network? Some of the stuff I've read suggest that this may be true.
> 
> As it is, based on your assessment, transitioning from QAM to IPTV does nothing for Verizon's network speeds. (Actually, it makes things worse because TV transmissions will add to network congestion on the IP side, slowing things down a bit.) It leaves me wondering why they wish to make the transition at all. I get that they're out of room on QAM, so any new cable channels will have to go somewhere else, i.e. IP, but we're almost certainly looking at fewer, not more, linear cable channels in existence over the next several years. I guess UHD channels, when they finally arrive, couldn't go on QAM though. But isn't the latest gen or two of STBs currently deployed hybrid boxes that can support both QAM and IP anyhow? Seems like current hardware could handle a gradual QAM to IP transition, much like what you anticipate Comcast will do with X1.
> 
> Maybe the switchover is mainly about offering boxes with a new UI and HEVC support and if they're going to roll out new hardware, why not make them IP-only too?


Based on what Verizon has said, the fact that FIOS expansion is dead, and that they have sold off lots of it to Frontier, it is pretty clear that Verizon thinks they can go nation wide with both high speed Internet and traditional cable via 5G. So this whole move to IPTV delivery may be more about becoming a nation wide cable provider than replacing their current QAM system.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Based on what Verizon has said, the fact that FIOS expansion is dead, and that they have sold off lots of it to Frontier, it is pretty clear that Verizon thinks they can go nation wide with both high speed Internet and traditional cable via 5G. So this whole move to IPTV delivery may be more about becoming a nation wide cable provider than replacing their current QAM system.


Yeah, good point. I guess they're laying the groundwork now in terms of IPTV delivery and next-gen STBs on fiber for future repurposing on 5G. That said, FTTH was a massive investment for Verizon and it would seem like they'd want to maximize network performance on fiber if they could. Doesn't FiOS currently top out at 750 Mbps downstream? Google Fiber and AT&T Fiber both already offer 1 Gig and cable is set to soon offer even higher speeds than that with DOCSIS 3.1.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, good point. I guess they're laying the groundwork now in terms of IPTV delivery and next-gen STBs on fiber for future repurposing on 5G. That said, FTTH was a massive investment for Verizon and it would seem like they'd want to maximize network performance on fiber if they could. Doesn't FiOS currently top out at 750 Mbps downstream? Google Fiber and AT&T Fiber both already offer 1 Gig and cable is set to soon offer even higher speeds than that with DOCSIS 3.1.


I generally assume any company wants to make as much money as possible from their assets. If maximizing network performance on their fiber system offers increased profits, I am fairly sure Verizon will do that. The question is will people pay Verizon more money if speeds are increased? I have no idea. But you are talking to someone that lives where the max speed is 12Mbps, so the concept of thinking there are any benefits to 1Gbps over say 300 Mbps doesn't compute. I certainly wouldn't pay more for it, heck I wouldn't pay more for anything much over 50-60 Mbps.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> Nope the key is to get around 80% of the homes on a X1 system and then start the change over. They are currently at the 50% mark. They are aggressively contacting my sister to swap out the DCX3400 for the X1.


Verizon is not going to be swapping out a bunch of equipment just to get rid of QAM, since they have almost no incentive to get rid of QAM. Comcast's incentive is huge, as they have to reclaim bandwidth from QAM to use for DOCSIS. 1ghz is irrelevant, as Verizon's fiber system tops out at 860mhz. The only thing they can convert for in terms of QAM-based equipment is MPEG-4, and that only applies to top-tier packages that have the MPEG-4 channels in them. I don't think we'll see more MPEG-4 conversions now that they are intending to go IP. Those MPEG-2 boxes will still be running in 10 years if they haven't all died by then.

As of the end of December, the Xi3 was on IP-VOD, the XG1 and XG2 were still on linear QAM VOD. I'm not sure if that has changed since, they eventually all will use IP-VOD.



NashGuy said:


> What you're saying is true in terms of how Verizon's FiOS network currently works but I wonder if the wavelength now used for QAM couldn't be repurposed for IP -- providing greater overall IP bandwidth/speeds -- with installation of new ONTs and/or other hardware throughout the network?


I haven't studied the individual wavelengths, but there are so many different wavelength ranges out there that are practical to use on a PON-based system, and NG-PON2 uses more of them that I doubt they would aggressively try to re-use that individual one.



> As it is, based on your assessment, transitioning from QAM to IPTV does nothing for Verizon's network speeds. (Actually, it makes things worse because TV transmissions will add to network congestion on the IP side, slowing things down a bit.) It leaves me wondering why they wish to make the transition at all. I get that they're out of room on QAM, so any new cable channels will have to go somewhere else, i.e. IP, but we're almost certainly looking at fewer, not more, linear cable channels in existence over the next several years. I guess UHD channels, when they finally arrive, couldn't go on QAM though. But isn't the latest gen or two of STBs currently deployed hybrid boxes that can support both QAM and IP anyhow? Seems like current hardware could handle a gradual QAM to IP transition, much like what you anticipate Comcast will do with X1.
> 
> Maybe the switchover is mainly about offering boxes with a new UI and HEVC support and if they're going to roll out new hardware, why not make them IP-only too?


You make a lot of good points. So all their boxes are linear IP/QAM, since they've been using IP for VOD since day one back in 2005 or 2006 or whenever they added TV to their FiOS internet/phone service. One potential point is that IPTV boxes are going to be a lot cheaper, as they don't need all the QAM tuners in there, and going all-IP makes doing cloud DVR easier, which again makes the boxes cheaper. Further, you can make them a lot smaller if you don't need the physical space for the QAM tuners and dissipating their heat output. Comcast has to do a slow transition, Verizon has the bandwidth to run both systems at once indefinitely.

So they have 2400mbps down on each 32-home GPON port. HDTV encoded with HEVC is probably 3-5mbps in good quality, so when you account for IP multicast, you're probably looking at 20-30 simultaneous channels in use on a GPON port at most, which might chew up 100-150mbps of the 2400mbps, so it's unlikely to impact internet speeds too much. This isn't U-Verse where you might have 30mbps of total bandwidth, and the internet slows down when you turn the TV on.

I think that's part of the thing. They don't want to force people off of the old MPEG-2-only hardware, so they are just going to use IPTV to add new channel instead. I'm actually sort of surprised that they are going to IP-only, but I think that boils down to costs and installation flexibility (Wi-Fi boxes, smaller boxes, etc).



atmuscarella said:


> Based on what Verizon has said, the fact that FIOS expansion is dead, and that they have sold off lots of it to Frontier, it is pretty clear that Verizon thinks they can go nation wide with both high speed Internet and traditional cable via 5G. So this whole move to IPTV delivery may be more about becoming a nation wide cable provider than replacing their current QAM system.


It's possible that they will run the IPTV system over 5G, although that's a few years off at best, and this is for FiOS right now. Maybe they want to run it over G.Fast to get FiOS into stubborn MDUs in NYC, but even that's a pretty niche market in the whole scheme of things.

That being said, FiOS expansion is not dead, at least within the areas it is already franchised. Since they frozen expansion to new franchises they have wired up many streets, condo buildings, etc, within markets that weren't previously marketed, and by 2020, they are planning to have some areas that currently have a high percentage of FiOS availability 100% wired so that they can start abandoning the copper system in those areas, which will put many neighborhoods and buildings online with FiOS that don't currently have it, albeit only in areas that are already franchised for FiOS.



NashGuy said:


> Doesn't FiOS currently top out at 750 Mbps downstream? Google Fiber and AT&T Fiber both already offer 1 Gig and cable is set to soon offer even higher speeds than that with DOCSIS 3.1.


Verizon's 750 package is provisioned at 1024/1024. They don't want to advertise it as gig, because like the others, it is limited to about 930mbps based on a gigabit Ethernet port.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> I generally assume any company wants to make as much money as possible from their assets. If maximizing network performance on their fiber system offers increased profits, I am fairly sure Verizon will do that. The question is will people pay Verizon more money if speeds are increased? I have no idea. But you are talking to someone that lives where the max speed is 12Mbps, so the concept of thinking there are any benefits to 1Gbps over say 300 Mbps doesn't compute. I certainly wouldn't pay more for it, heck I wouldn't pay more for anything much over 50-60 Mbps.


Ha, yeah, I agree. Right now I have 25 Mbps cable broadband and it's consistently fast enough to deliver UHD streams without fail. I wouldn't mind faster (50 would be nice) but I also wouldn't pay a lot more for it.

But I think there's a lot of marketing value in being able to tout gigabit speeds. If you move to an area and have a choice between two providers with one offering 750 Mbps and the other offering 1 Gbps at the same price, well...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> But I think there's a lot of marketing value in being able to tout gigabit speeds. If you move to an area and have a choice between two providers with one offering 750 Mbps and the other offering 1 Gbps at the same price, well...


I think there would be marketing value in selling lower tiers just because you can say you have a gig. For the people who are actually going to get the gig service, I think they are savvy enough to know that Verizon's 750 package is actually gigabit, and that fiber is far better than gigabit over DOCSIS 3. To me what is nuts is that Verizon blew what could have been a 5-year lead on gigabit internet against Comcast by not bothering to do a gigabit tier until now, when Comcast is probably a year or less from doing gigabit over DOCSIS in markets where they compete with FiOS.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I think there would be marketing value in selling lower tiers just because you can say you have a gig. For the people who are actually going to get the gig service, I think they are savvy enough to know that Verizon's 750 package is actually gigabit, and that fiber is far better than gigabit over DOCSIS 3. To me what is nuts is that Verizon blew what could have been a 5-year lead on gigabit internet against Comcast by not bothering to do a gigabit tier until now, when Comcast is probably a year or less from doing gigabit over DOCSIS in markets where they compete with FiOS.


Whoever heads marketing for FiOS should be fired if they're truly provisioning 1024 Mbps and advertising it as 750 rather than 1 Gig. That's just plain stupid. And no, as someone who has worked in marketing communications, you don't assume customers will just be savvy enough to figure out that the product is actually _better_ then how you're advertising it. Consumers are conditioned to expect the opposite (e.g. AT&T Fiber calling it gigabit service but putting "typically 940 Mbps" in the fine print).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Whoever heads marketing for FiOS should be fired if they're truly provisioning 1024 Mbps and advertising it as 750 rather than 1 Gig. That's just plain stupid. And no, as someone who has worked in marketing communications, you don't assume customers will just be savvy enough to figure out that the product is actually _better_ then how you're advertising it. Consumers are conditioned to expect the opposite (e.g. AT&T Fiber calling it gigabit service but putting "typically 940 Mbps" in the fine print).


That's what they are doing. All the info is over on DSLR. Verizon has an old-school telco mentality about oversubscription and under-promising bandwidth that is out of place in the modern marketplace. I agree, I would have marketed it as gig. However, I would argue that anyone who is willing to actually PAY for 750 darn well knows what it's provisioned at, probably has 5 miles of Ethernet running around their house, and has some pretty good reasons for getting gigabit internet. However, I think Verizon is losing a huge opportunity in terms of touting their fiber network to sell 100 and 150mbps tiers to normal customers who don't read DLSR, and don't know the nitty gritty details of the provisioning and Ethernet throughput and all of that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Oh well, that was an interesting exchange about FiOS, although somewhat of a sidetrack to the thread.

More germain to the question of the future of TiVo, perhaps, is this news bit I read today: Netflix is now in more US homes than are DVRs. DVRs aren't going away any time soon but the rise of streaming is of course a threat to them and to TiVo.

Just as VCRs are mainly thought of as a staple of the 80s and 90s, I think we'll look back on DVRs as technology of the 00s and 10s.

Study: U.S. TV Homes With Netflix Pass Those With DVRs | Broadcasting & Cable


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Another day, another article citing stats about the changing face of US TV consumption. The last article I posted showed that Netflix is in 1% more US homes than are DVRs. Today's article similarly states that streaming video services are in 1% more US homes than is traditional pay TV, 68% to 67%.

Streaming Subscription Audience Has Surpassed Pay-TV Subscribers In U.S., Claims Survey


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Another day, another article citing stats about the changing face of US TV consumption. The last article I posted showed that Netflix is in 1% more US homes than are DVRs. Today's article similarly states that streaming video services are in 1% more US homes than is traditional pay TV, 68% to 67%.
> 
> Streaming Subscription Audience Has Surpassed Pay-TV Subscribers In U.S., Claims Survey


So far most people have looked at streaming services as an add on, like a premium channel, to traditional Pay TV. The real question is how long before larger numbers start to look at streaming services as a replacement to traditional Pay TV. Seems like more people around here are starting to think that way. I guess I am technically one as I have an Amazon Prime sub, but don't sub to traditional Pay TV - not that I actually watch any video on Amazon Prime (maybe 1-2 hours total over the last few months).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

I think we've reached a tipping point with all the streaming TV options out there now, and it's going to accelerate cable/sat TV cord-cutting. There are a lot more ways now to only pay for what you want, not what you don't.

Sadly, I think this means HSI is going to get a lot more expensive given the lack of competition.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

atmuscarella said:


> So far most people have looked at streaming services as an add on, like a premium channel, to traditional Pay TV. The real question is how long before larger numbers start to look at streaming services as a replacement to traditional Pay TV. Seems like more people around here are starting to think that way. I guess I am technically one as I have an Amazon Prime sub, but don't sub to traditional Pay TV - not that I actually watch any video on Amazon Prime (maybe 1-2 hours total over the last few months).


"Amazon Prime: Sign up for the free shipping, stay for the original video programming!" 

That was me. I did not think I would be particularly interested in (or have the time to watch) Amazon Prime's streaming service, but we have become frequent viewers despite a plethora of competing programming that we subscribe to. Among the series that we have enjoyed are Catastrophe, Patriot, Goliath, Mozart in the Jungle, Sneaky Pete, and One Mississippi.

And it doesn't hurt that most of the ones we like are available in UHD!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

chiguy50 said:


> "Amazon Prime: Sign up for the free shipping, stay for the original video programming!"
> 
> That was me. I did not think I would be particularly interested in (or have the time to watch) Amazon Prime's streaming service, but we have become frequent viewers despite a plethora of competing programming that we subscribe to. Among the series that we have enjoyed are Catastrophe, Patriot, Goliath, Mozart in the Jungle, Sneaky Pete, and One Mississippi.
> 
> And it doesn't hurt that most of the ones we like are available in UHD!


I am sure I could find plenty of content on Amazon Prime that I would like. I just don't watch that much scripted TV or movies, maybe 2 1hr. shows per day. Last year I thought I might watch more during the summer season as there isn't much new OTA stuff, but I just ended up watching even less scripted TV. My guess is that I have well over 15 TBs of OTA show stored on hard drives that I recorded over the years that I have never watch and likely never will. I am sure there are also shows on cable channels and Netflix I would also like but in the end I am not willing to spend any more time watching scripted TV so why pay for it.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

chiguy50 said:


> And it doesn't hurt that most of the ones we like are available in UHD!


Hmmm... been busy setting-up Mom's semi-new UHD TV w/ a Harmony remote and was just going to program it to use her Roku 3 for streaming. May have to add a "Watch UHD" activity -- along with getting the TV wired to the network. edit: Or maybe just upgrade her to a UHD Roku.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

krkaufman said:


> Hmmm... been busy setting-up Mom's semi-new UHD TV w/ a Harmony remote and was just going to program it to use her Roku 3 for streaming. May have to add a "Watch UHD" activity -- along with getting the TV wired to the network. edit: Or maybe just upgrade her to a UHD Roku.


Yeah, the PQ is quite impressive on the Amazon UHD stream:


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

UHD HDR content on both Amazon and Netflix looks amazing! It isn't just the sharpness and clarity of the increased resolution, or the enhanced color and contrast, but the near-total lack of compression artifacts and banding. Maybe in five or ten years pretty much all the new content we watch will look this good!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Yes the Amazon and Netflix UHD streams look basically like what you see from a 2K BD. Which is certainly miles above what their 2K streaming looks like. But the UHD streams still can't touch what you get from a 4K BD.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Why can all these services pop up to watch tv on the cheap? Can't big cable just lower thier prices? Thier wires are up, headed are in place. We all know they are not spending money on shiny new boxes. All I am saying is if cable wants to continue to exist, they must realize they have to compete with the psvue,directvnow ,sling and all the others. Is there more money in failing than lowering prices?


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

Headend is in place. Sorry


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mattyro7878 said:


> Why can all these services pop up to watch tv on the cheap? Can't big cable just lower thier prices? Thier wires are up, headed are in place. We all know they are not spending money on shiny new boxes. All I am saying is if cable wants to continue to exist, they must realize they have to compete with the psvue,directvnow ,sling and all the others. Is there more money in failing than lowering prices?


These OTT services are cheaper because they are not providing the physical delivery infrastructure and because you are getting less content with more restrictions.

If one is a better "value" over the other is in the eyes of the beholder. In my mind none of them (OTT cable replacement services or transitional pay TV) offer me enough value to subscribed to any of them.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I have tried dtvnow and vue and I agree. They ain't bad...just not good enough and feature filled...yet. When a Tivo box is "operating within normal parameters ", there is nothing better.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mattyro7878 said:


> I have tried dtvnow and vue and I agree. They ain't bad...just not good enough and feature filled...yet. When a Tivo box is "operating within normal parameters ", there is nothing better.


These OTT cable replacement services are fairly new, so they are finding out what the market wants from them. So far it appears these service are being driven by price. From what I can tell the price is being lowered by several means, the most obvious is that they are providing lower content packages, I have no issue with that and think having more choices of content level is good and traditional pay TV could also do this if they decide it is in their best interests.

The other way they appear to be lower costs is imposing significantly restrictions on how the content is accessed/used. They have locked out recording of the content and have restricted the number of simultaneous users. The restriction of the number of simultaneous users is marginally acceptable as traditional pay TV providers actually charge extra per TV via various fees like STB or access charges.

For me what is 100% unacceptable is restrictions on recording. While various levels of VoD and Cloud DVR capacities mitigates this restriction for some, it doesn't cut it for me. I want full control of the content period.

I think it would be great if TiVo can get OTT cable replacement services on their DVRs, but it really doesn't matter to me as it is highly unlikely I am going to sub to any linear broadcast Pay TV provider OTT or traditional.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

aaronwt said:


> Yes the Amazon and Netflix UHD streams look basically like what you see from a 2K BD. Which is certainly miles above what their 2K streaming looks like. *But the UHD streams still can't touch what you get from a 4K BD.*


Agreed, assuming you mean a UHD Blu-ray with 4K/HDR. And even then, much depends on the filmic quality of the content for the respective source. A UHD stream with HDR can look better than a poorly mastered 4K BRD.

GIGO applies, as always.



atmuscarella said:


> For me what is 100% unacceptable is restrictions on recording. *While various levels of VoD and Cloud DVR capacities medicates this restriction for some*, it doesn't cut it for me. I want full control of the content period.


Perhaps you need to change your medication. Or did you mean to say "mitigates"?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

chiguy50 said:


> Perhaps you need to change your medication. Or did you mean to say "mitigates"?


Thanks - got to love not paying enough attention to spell check . Fixed.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> Yes the Amazon and Netflix UHD streams look basically like what you see from a 2K BD. Which is certainly miles above what their 2K streaming looks like. But the UHD streams still can't touch what you get from a 4K BD.


Nah, the average UHD stream looks better than the average 1080p BD. Even more so if the stream also has HDR.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Nah, the average UHD stream looks better than the average 1080p BD. Even more so if the stream also has HDR.


In my experience that has been extremely rare. House of Cards is one example. WHen streaming it in UHD(top UHD encode) I thought it looked very good. Until I rented the BD and actually compared it. Then I realized it was, at best, on par with the 2K BD. And just about every UHD streaming/2K BD comparison I've looked at since, has shown the same results.

Now I'm also not adding HDR to the mix. Once you add HDR that adds another level of improvement you can't get with a 2K BD. So with a UHD streaming title in HDR, I would take that over the 2K BD. But a UHD SDR streamed title, like HoC, I would take the 2K BD over it.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> In my experience that has been extremely rare. House of Cards is one example. WHen streaming it in UHD(top UHD encode) I thought it looked very good. Until I rented the BD and actually compared it. Then I realized it was, at best, on par with the 2K BD. And just about every UHD streaming/2K BD comparison I've looked at since, has shown the same results.
> 
> Now I'm also not adding HDR to the mix. Once you add HDR that adds another level of improvement you can't get with a 2K BD. So with a UHD streaming title in HDR, I would take that over the 2K BD. But a UHD SDR streamed title, like HoC, I would take the 2K BD over it.


It hard for me to believe that an average person could walk into a TV room and tell if the program on the TV was a HD program on a HDTV or UHD program on a 4K TV, I think most people could tell an old SD program on any TV. *I am talking about TVs that are 32" to 80" as I have both in my home, UHD on a 110" TV; somebody that has on will have to tell us the difference.*


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Yes the Amazon and Netflix UHD streams look basically like what you see from a 2K BD. Which is certainly miles above what their 2K streaming looks like. But the UHD streams still can't touch what you get from a 4K BD.


Narcos looks much better and sharper than the best 2k BD to me!


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

lessd said:


> I think most people could tell an old SD program on any TV.


Even there: I really can't tell much, if any, difference between a show in SD or HD on my 29" LCD TV from 10'-12' away. Maybe it's due to years of analog OTA signal.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Mikeguy said:


> Even there: I really can't tell much, if any, difference between a show in SD or HD on my 29" LCD TV from 10'-12' away.





lessd said:


> I think most people could tell an old SD program on any TV.


I think you're both right and wrong. Or should I say not all SD is created equal. I get SD mirror channels for my HD channels, so it's easy to compare. Some are very good, as I expect a digital signal to look. Some are worse than an old analog channel. Some 480i is 4x3 and some has been stretched to 16x9. I don't know who's job it is to change the 1080i to 480i, but some is done better than others. Also, like you said, size matters. I have a 24" LCD also, and smaller generally gives you a better picture. It makes me wonder why there will soon be HDR cell phones. Really? But anyhow, my observation.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

JoeKustra said:


> I think you're both right and wrong. Or should I say not all SD is created equal. I get SD mirror channels for my HD channels, so it's easy to compare. Some are very good, as I expect a digital signal to look. Some are worse than an old analog channel. Some 480i is 4x3 and some has been stretched to 16x9. I don't know who's job it is to change the 1080i to 480i, but some is done better than others. Also, like you said, size matters. I have a 24" LCD also, and smaller generally gives you a better picture. It makes me wonder why there will soon be HDR cell phones. Really? But anyhow, my observation.


I think I've been fortunate with the providers--perhaps being in a large, very-extended urban area helps. Very little monkey business with stretching and the like. And as I said, the quality seems to be there. It's even at the level that if I have a station providing both SD and HD quality (my PBS station, for example), I'll generally go for the SD for day-to-day use, to preserve storage space.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> Even there: I really can't tell much, if any, difference between a show in SD or HD on my 29" LCD TV from 10'-12' away. Maybe it's due to years of analog OTA signal.


See my edit on post *164*, I was talking about 32" or bigger TVs


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Even there: I really can't tell much, if any, difference between a show in SD or HD on my 29" LCD TV from 10'-12' away. Maybe it's due to years of analog OTA signal.


Well yeah, if you have a tiny TV and are sitting far away from it, you're not going to be able to tell the difference. At 10', your ideal screen size is 100", not 29". I am a little farther from my 65" SUHDTV than I should be, about 8', where I should be about 6.5', but it's big enough to make quality differences between 2k and 4k content pretty obvious. SD is a mess, although analog SD looks a lot better than digital SD, since there's no compression to deal with. My local cable provider still has a couple of channels in analog that aren't available in digital or HD. Between ESPNNews (analog), ESPNU (digital SD), and ESPN/2 (720p, ~19mbps), I can see the differences very clearly.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> At 10', your ideal screen size is *100"*, not 29".


You be crazy, dude.  A 100'' screen in a bedroom, let alone in most people's homes? LOL.

edit: Typo corrected (100" corrected from 100').


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> You be crazy, dude.  A 100' screen in a bedroom, let alone in most people's homes? LOL.


100", not 100'. The largest LCDs that are reasonably priced are 75", so most people would be better suited sitting 7-10' away from a 75" screen. But for those with light controlled rooms and a desire to go bigger, front projection can reasonably go up into the mid-100" range in a home. I sit a bit farther away from my screen than is ideal (~6.5' for a 65" screen), since cable and OTA content often isn't good enough quality to sit that close, but I'd definitely sit 6.5' from my 65" screen if I only watched Netflix and Blu-Ray.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> You be crazy, dude.  A 100' screen in a bedroom, let alone in most people's homes? LOL.


While I doubt than anyone is running a 100 foot screen , and not many more people even have a 100 inch TV, but more people than you might think are running projectors with 100-120 inch screens. I want my next TV to be a 65inch OLED, but I need the price to come down allot and I need to get a few more years out of my 2008 50 inch Panasonic plasma - which still has a great looking picture.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Bigg said:


> 100", not 100'. The largest LCDs that are reasonably priced are 75", so most people would be better suited sitting 7-10' away from a 75" screen. But for those with light controlled rooms and a desire to go bigger, front projection can reasonably go up into the mid-100" range in a home. I sit a bit farther away from my screen than is ideal (~6.5' for a 65" screen), since cable and OTA content often isn't good enough quality to sit that close, but I'd definitely sit 6.5' from my 65" screen if I only watched Netflix and Blu-Ray.


LOL, yep, I meant 100". And I stand by my original, agast.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> While I doubt than anyone is running a 100 foot screen , and not many more people even have a 100 inch TV, but more people than you might think are running projectors with 100-120 inch screens. I want my next TV to be a 65inch OLED, but I need the price to come down allot and I need to get a few more years out of my 2008 50 inch Panasonic plasma - which still has a great looking picture.


Yeah, the front projection system is really the ultimate if you have the right space for it. I just wish somebody would make a reasonably priced 4k projector, then all the pieces would fall into place for my dream HT with 7.2.4 Atmos/DTS:X and a 4k HDR screen of at least 120"....


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, the front projection system is really the ultimate if you have the right space for it. I just wish somebody would make a reasonably priced 4k projector, then all the pieces would fall into place for my dream HT with 7.2.4 Atmos/DTS:X and a 4k HDR screen of at least 120"....


I have yet to see a front projection system that has the color depth and brightness of a good LCD/OLED panel, maybe the newest ones do.


----------



## chiguy50 (Nov 9, 2009)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, the front projection system is really the ultimate if you have the right space for it. I just wish somebody would make a reasonably priced 4k projector, then all the pieces would fall into place for *my dream HT with 7.2.4 Atmos/DTS:X and a 4k HDR screen of at least 120"....*


I don't have a HT, just a living room setup (with two additional stereo zones in dining room and master bath). The main zone is 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos (11.1 DTS Neo:X), and I just replaced my Sony XBR-55HX929 with the new XBR-65Z9D. I was expecting a more immersive cinematic experience with the larger screen, but I was pleasantly surprised at just how significant an improvement the extra 10" makes at our viewing distance of eight feet. (Hint: a 65" screen versus 55" actually represents about 40% more real estate). This is aside from the PQ improvements accrued through access to 4K/UHD sources.

There's no way I would want anything larger, even if I could squeeze it into the space; it would simply overwhelm our living room. But if you have a dedicated HT, then anything goes.

BTW, I just couldn't bear to part with that beautiful XBR-55HX929 (which, like the Z9D, has full-array local dimming), and so I've managed to shoehorn it into our master bedroom in place of a KDL-46HX729, for which I must now find a new owner.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Mikeguy said:


> LOL, yep, I meant 100". And I stand by my original, agast.


He's going by the THX guidelines which are insane (google them). I'd need an 80" screen from my 8' viewing distance.

Um, no.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I have yet to see a front projection system that has the color depth and brightness of a good LCD/OLED panel, maybe the newest ones do.


Yeah, if you're in a bright room, they look like crap. If you're in a light controlled room, you'll have to turn the brightness WAY down on an LCD/OLED anyway, so a projector is fine. I'm not even in a light controlled room, and I had to turn the brightness WAY down on my Samsung SUHDTV, as the default is a recipe for a headache.



chiguy50 said:


> There's no way I would want anything larger, even if I could squeeze it into the space; it would simply overwhelm our living room. But if you have a dedicated HT, then anything goes.


Yeah, I like my 65" Samsung, for a dedicated HT, when I have one, I'll either go for a 75-80" LED depending on the pricing, or if 4k projectors are reasonably available, a true 4k front projector. It's unfortunate that true 4k projectors are still $10k, since that's where the resolution benefits you the most.



slowbiscuit said:


> He's going by the THX guidelines which are insane (google them). I'd need an 80" screen from my 8' viewing distance.
> 
> Um, no.


The THX guidelines for screen sizing are absolutely correct if you're using all disc-based or good streaming sources. They give you an immersive experience with the ability to see the detail in BD and UHD BD. They put too large of a screen up for cable/satellite/OTA/SD sources, so I compromise, and I have done a few setups in various places that are 8-9' from a 60-65" screen. Comcast now can't even support that, so I dumped them. I'm probably cutting the cord eventually, OTA is often much better and can support close to the THX guidelines.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Hoping to use TiVo with your cable TV service in the 2020s? You may be in luck if you live in a town served by a small or mid-sized MSO that works with Evolution Digital, a Colorado-based company that sells solutions to help pay TV providers transition to IPTV. They provide the back-end tech to power linear channels, VOD and cloud DVR, and they use STBs that feature the TiVo UI.

While TiVo currently has deals in place with MSOs to use TiVo STBs for purely QAM-based service (e.g. Mediacom, RCN, etc.), it looks like their gameplan for next-gen IPTV (and hybrid QAM/IPTV) systems will be to simply license the TiVo UI and metadata for use in other companies' full-scale solutions. AFAIK, Evolution Digital is the only such company in the US that TiVo has licensed their UI to.

Looks like the deal is bearing fruit; another 7 MSOs have just adopted the platform and will get TiVo-powered STBs.

As small-to-mid-size MSOs transition to next-gen TV platforms, it looks like their choices right now come down to partnering up with Evolution Digital/Tivo, Comcast/X1 (as Cox did), Layer3 (as NextLight, a small fiber provider, just did), or MobiTV (as C Spire, another fiber provider, just did).


----------



## Dan286 (Mar 6, 2017)

*My opinion is that while technology advances so does the opportunity for competitors to improve upon it.*

I had Tivo many moons ago with my DirectTivo and it was state of the art to my knowledge the first thing to record 2 shows at once.

I was satisfied with the DVR from FIOS although my Tivo blows it away but in an effort to save some $ I moved to CableVision and their DVR is subpar to me. Now this is a great example. It's a huge leap forward in technology as it's a Cloud based DVR that can record a whopping 15 shows at once. That's amazing and had me sold.

However the lack of a 30 second skip was infuriating. Time is money and I don't want to waste it watching commercials (even though I used to work for an ad agency and that would be considered blasphemy). Trying to fast forward in the cloud and stop on a dime when the show starts was just not possible. It was also very laggy when using FF or Rewind. Had those issues not existed I would have stayed with their DVR.

So before going back to FIOS I researched and Tivo is still around and kicking (Surprising to me haven't seen an ad or heard anything from them in years). I bought a Bolt, upgraded the hard drive and added a Tivo Mini as I only need 2 TV's now and couldn't be happier.

So in short Cablevision goes bleeding edge with Cloud DVR and creates an opportunity for Tivo to come in and sweep up some business.

No matter what the future brings there will be opportunities for 3rd parties like Tivo to succeed if they get the word out.

Besides the immediate need of 30s skip the Tivo is far superior for oh so many reasons

one but skip all commercials
30% faster replay with corrected audio
vastly superior search
keyword recording - my kids love the show Friends by creating a search on Friends and Jennifer Aniston I was able to only record friends regardless of what channel it's on
Integration with streaming services
Unified single box for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Plex, Youtube
Cross carrier compatability. If you move to another provider you keep your box just get a new cable card - you don't lose your shows
Ability to download some (not all shows) to your PC
Stream and download to your Iphone/Ipad/Android
Heck it even has a superior program guide


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan286 said:


> Besides the immediate need of 30s skip the Tivo is far superior for oh so many reasons
> 
> one but skip all commercials
> 30% faster replay with corrected audio
> ...


But TiVo, as of now, does not work with IPTV


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

lessd said:


> But TiVo, as of now, does not work with IPTV


Right. Except in IPTV systems powered by Evolution Digital, which use the TiVo UI/feature set/program data in the STBs they issue to customers, as I mentioned in my earlier post. (As I've said before, it's doubtful that there will ever be a retail TiVo box that will work with any MSO's IPTV service.)

AFAIK, Evolution Digital is only targeting QAM-based cable TV MSOs that are looking to transition to IPTV. IMO, TiVo should also be looking to serve as the UI for boxes deployed on next-gen IPTV systems from fiber and telco MSOs too.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Also if you live in an area with Atlantic Broadband, RCN, or a bunch of other MSOs that already use TiVo, you're all set.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Also if you live in an area with Atlantic Broadband, RCN, or a bunch of other MSOs that already use TiVo, you're all set.


Right. At least, until they decide to transition away from QAM to IPTV, which will eventually happen everywhere over the next several years.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I presume those MSOs will adopt TiVo-based IPTV systems, since they are rolling out the TiVos, so you don't have to rely on CableCard. The only provider that even has a shot in **** of voluntarily doing an open IPTV system that allows TiVos access is Comcast, and I'd be surprised if they did. TiVos will live on with Verizon for a very long time only because they have no reason to turn QAM off.


----------

