# Is this really it?



## anthonymoody (Apr 29, 2008)

Not trolling. I'm a Roamio Plus/Mini owner. Mostly happy, and the hardware and software and iOS apps do more or less what I understood them to do.

However, I'm surprised that not a single meaningful app has been added. Still no Amazon streaming, no Vudu, etc. Maybe I expected (way) too much from the opera App Store. 

And look, if this really is it, I don't regret the purchases. I just would've hoped for more.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

The advice for any device is to buy it for what it can do today. You could also add your voice to whatever apps you want ported to the service provider, as it is not like Tivo is writing them for third parties anymore.


----------



## bunjicat (Jan 14, 2012)

I couldn't agree more. Tivo has the potential to lock this thing up. Creating a Roku box with live tv and recording is the finish line IMHO. I haven't given up hope yet. Tivo CEO seems to get it. Now lets hope there is follow through. Interview from last weeks Recode

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000278469


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

It would've been awesome had they bought Roku instead of integrating Opera. That would've added meaningful OTT apps. Also kind of interesting was my WDTV Live got a few new (quality) apps around Christmas. Not sure how they got that to happen; I would've thought their user base would be less than TiVos. I'd say at this point even WD has TiVo beat on apps.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

> I have no doubt we are building a very, very, strong strategic asset and to the extent the best interest of shareholders are served by providing an exit through acquisition from a strategic player who sees the fundamental uniqueness of what weve created, obviously that will get all the consideration it deserves.


Tom Rogers, TiVo CEO

http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2014-05/tom-rogers-tivo-ceo/


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jwbelcher said:


> It would've been awesome had they bought Roku instead of integrating Opera. That would've added meaningful OTT apps. Also kind of interesting was my WDTV Live got a few new (quality) apps around Christmas. Not sure how they got that to happen; I would've thought their user base would be less than TiVos. I'd say at this point even WD has TiVo beat on apps.


Even Amazon couldn't buy Roku. Well at least ROku didn't accept their offer. I don't see how TiVo could have done any better in trying to buy Roku.


----------



## jwbelcher (Nov 13, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> Even Amazon couldn't buy Roku. Well at least ROku didn't accept their offer. I don't see how TiVo could have done any better in trying to buy Roku.


Considering the guy running the joint created ReplayTV; its doubtful any offer would've been accepted from TiVo. Yes, he still seems just a bit bitter, but he did learn a thing or two about product pricing from the experience.


----------



## news4me2 (Jul 10, 2010)

I think we would all be better served if ROKU bought TiVo...


----------



## lgnad (Feb 14, 2013)

The opera App Store needs more users to attract top quality developers. Even with the addition of Tivos to the user base, it's likely that there simply aren't enough eyeballs. I mean, c'mon... The opera brand itself is virtually unknown to the masses. Then you have different kinds of devices, so your UI Design and features of your app have to be kind of generic.

They are promising 'big things' in the next update. I hope that doesn't mean 2 more screens you almost never access in HD and the updated (Romaio) user interface on Minis. It's what, a font change and a couple things are colored differently? 

I wish they'd get rid of using flash to drive then menus/guide. Flash is always inefficient, and it shows... And flash is dying/dead. I don't know if the old way the SD menus are coded or HTML5 code or stripping all the crap/layers away and writing code that talks straight to the hardware would be the best way, but after all these years you'd think someone at Tivo would have the skills and knowlege to do so.

A six pack of coders on tech visas locked in a room for six months could cook up a much more efficient solution. I've seen other companies I've worked for do it!


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Opera was more popular in Europe. Tivo's an american brand though, so kinda different user bases.

I think Opera TV is doing well given its age. But the fact that Tivo had to use a 3rd party technology instead of having a rich app platform to be kinda sad.

(not knocking the HME devs there, but rather was a demonstration of what was possible despite the artificial hurdles from Tivo)


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

news4me2 said:


> I think we would all be better served if ROKU bought TiVo...


 Being that streaming tech changes more often than DVR tech,do you really want a Tivo in 10 years with an obsolete streamer built in. In 10 years a person could easily go through 3 rokus, 3 apple tv's, etc. 
Tivo needs to go beyond the built in streamer idea.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

tenthplanet said:


> Being that streaming tech changes more often than DVR tech,do you really want a Tivo in 10 years with an obsolete streamer built in. In 10 years a person could easily go through 3 rokus, 3 apple tv's, etc.
> Tivo needs to go beyond the built in streamer idea.


If you ask anyone who really is involved in tech who is more likely to be "around" or relevant in 10 years it's likely that you will get a lot more people saying Roku than TiVo.

I agree with what others said, buy the box for what it does today not what it may do in a year or three.

The fact that TiVo can't get more partners to stream to a box that is more than capable of doing it simply shows that many in the tech industry have already written TiVo off entirely.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

jwbelcher said:


> Considering the guy running the joint created ReplayTV; its doubtful any offer would've been accepted from TiVo. Yes, he still seems just a bit bitter, but he did learn a thing or two about product pricing from the experience.


Yes, too bad emotions sway decisions like these. Even a licensing of the Roku libraries would be enough. They are both Linux based systems, and having a thin hardware interface layer between the Roku software and the Tivo hardware would make it possible to update the Roku bits without replacing the hardware.

Another thing that might have been....


----------



## anthonymoody (Apr 29, 2008)

Maybe one day someone in the know will write a tell all for how and why all this did (or didn't) go down.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> If you ask anyone who really is involved in tech who is more likely to be "around" or relevant in 10 years it's likely that you will get a lot more people saying Roku than TiVo.
> 
> I agree with what others said, buy the box for what it does today not what it may do in a year or three.
> 
> The fact that TiVo can't get more partners to stream to a box that is more than capable of doing it simply shows that many in the tech industry have already written TiVo off entirely.


 Roku's don't record, streaming on demand will never be as big as some of it's supporters would have you believe.


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

tenthplanet said:


> Roku's don't record, streaming on demand will never be as big as some of it's supporters would have you believe.


What are you smoking? Netflix US user base is already past 33 Million. Tivo US numbers peaked at 4.4 million in 2006

and that's just Netflix. Total streaming can't even see Tivo from where it is now.
"never be as big"? Put the pipe down.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

seattlewendell said:


> What are you smoking? Netflix US user base is already past 33 Million. Tivo US numbers peaked at 4.4 million in 2006 and that's just Netflix. Total streaming can't even see Tivo from where it is now. "never be as big"? Put the pipe down.


I think you'd have to add in all the cable and satellite DVRs as well to make it a fair comparison, if even that would make it more fair. I have no idea myself.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Comparing apples to apples there should easily more DVR users than Netflix has streamers. Since isn't the number of DVR users around 50% now?


----------



## chrispitude (Apr 23, 2005)

Until Roku provides a DVR experience equal to or greater than the Roamio, this is a meaningless apples-to-orange comparison.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> Comparing apples to apples there should easily more DVR users than Netflix has streamers. Since isn't the number of DVR users around 50% now?


This has some good numbers, but might require a calculator and Venn diagram.
http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/120613release.html

Random Googling:
Comcast X1, 7Million triple play customers
Roku has shipped 8Million boxes
AppleTV has shipped 12Million, world wide.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Streaming sucks. Period. If that were my only choice, I'd be severely depressed. I'm sure the Advertisers would LOVE it if we switched over to an all streaming system though. That way they could force us to watch their commercials like they do on VOD. I would hope people would be smarter than that... but we will see. Sounds like a lot of people think that's where we are going and seem fine with it... Boggles the mind.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

I agree that streaming sucks and if "they" had their way we would not only be forced to watch commercials but we would have to pass a quiz to prove we paid attention to the commercial before being allowed to watch.


----------



## anthonymoody (Apr 29, 2008)

When (not if) all movies and tv shows are available to stream on demand at any time it will be a far superior experience to DVRs, TiVo or otherwise. 

If you think that will never happen, you're simply wrong.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

anthonymoody said:


> When (not if) all movies and tv shows are available to stream on demand at any time it will be a far superior experience to DVRs, TiVo or otherwise.
> 
> If you think that will never happen, you're simply wrong.


I think it probably will happen. Not because it's better but because it will make more money for advertisers and content providers. You don't think they HATE that we can skip commercials? Remember how hard they fought against VCRs and lost? Guess what? Politicians are so easily bought and paid for now, that next time they will probably win... Then we'll have to live through a very long period of time where we are once again forced to watch commercials. Welcome back to the sixties. 

If you think it's superior to having a DVR then _you're_ simply wrong. A system based entirely on the Cloud is going to suck in SO many ways, and I can't believe people are too short sighted or naive to see where it's headed.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

bareyb said:


> If you think it's superior to having a DVR then _you're_ simply wrong. A system based entirely on the Cloud is going to suck in SO many ways, and I can't believe people are too short sighted or naive to see where it's headed.


 +1000. I'm amazed how many people actually enjoy something like Hulu+ which not only has subscription fees but you get forced to watch commercials as well. If that's the model of future TV I want no part of it. I'm OK with the Netflix model since streaming quality is pretty good and no forced commercials as of yet. But any serious TV watching I much prefer the DVR model where I have much more control.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

moyekj said:


> +1000. I'm amazed how many people actually enjoy something like Hulu+ which not only has subscription fees but you get forced to watch commercials as well. If that's the model of future TV I want no part of it. I'm OK with the Netflix model since streaming quality is pretty good and no forced commercials as of yet. But any serious TV watching I much prefer the DVR model where I have much more control.


Hulu + came in handy today for my GF and I. We are still in the process of watching Law and order SVU episodes and one of them was messed up. I think from back when I was messing with my MoCA connection. Anyway the FiOS recording had glitches and I had already deleted my OTA backup. So Hulu+ came in handy for watching the episode. Sure there were a few minutes of commercials. But it was certainly better than having to pay $3 for the episode from Amazon, Vudu, or XBL.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> So Hulu+ came in handy for watching the episode. Sure there were a few minutes of commercials. But it was certainly better than having to pay $3 for the episode from Amazon, Vudu, or XBL.


 Reinforces my point - many people (you included) will gladly pay for such services and tolerate the commercials. That's not a model I'll embrace.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Reinforces my point - many people (you included) will gladly pay for such services and tolerate the commercials. That's not a model I'll embrace.


Hulu + isnt a service I use on a regular basis . But it has come in handy when I had some kind of an issue. I had actually planned on dropping it but never got around to it. I don't use it much. The last time I used it prior to today, was to watch some episodes of Zero Hour.

For instance today, it was a quick way to watch the SVU episode. But depending on the show, I would pay the $3 for the episode from Amazon, Vudu, or XBL.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> Hulu + isnt a service I use on a regular basis . But it has come in handy when I had some kind of an issue. I had actually planned on dropping it but never got around to it. I don't use it much. The last time I used it prior to today, was to watch some episodes of Zero Hour.
> 
> For instance today, it was a quick way to watch the SVU episode. But depending on the show, I would pay the $3 for the episode from Amazon, Vudu, or XBL.


Let me ask you this. How would you like it if the Hulu model was the only choice available to you? Not much I'd guess since you "don't use it on a regular basis". That's the point we are trying to make. It may be "fine" as a last resort, but if all indicators are correct, what you are tolerating today for the sake of convenience will one day be the only choice you have. Is that what you want??? I didn't think so... and yet, people are being led here like sheep to the slaughter. It's already started. You don't think they are gauging interest and outrage right now? It's one or two commercials today, but mark my words, once they lock it down, the price will skyrocket and there will be 5 minutes of commercials for every 15 minutes of programming, just like it is right now. Possibly more since they will have you held hostage.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

bareyb said:


> Let me ask you this. How would you like it if the Hulu model was the only choice available to you? Not much I'd guess since you "don't use it on a regular basis". That's the point we are trying to make. It may be "fine" as a last resort, but if all indicators are correct, what you are tolerating today for the sake of convenience will one day be the only choice you have. Is that what you want??? I didn't think so... and yet, people are being led here like sheep to the slaughter. It's already started. You don't think they are gauging interest and outrage right now? It's one or two commercials today, but mark my words, once they lock it down, the price will skyrocket and there will be 5 minutes of commercials for every 15 minutes of programming, just like it is right now. Possibly more since they will have you held hostage.


If that happened then i would quickly drop Hulu+ and just pay the money per episode. I don't the occasional commercial. But not 20 minutes an hour worth.

And if the only option is to watch with 20 minutes of commercials. Then that will be a show I won't be watching anymore.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> If that happened then i would quickly drop Hulu+ and just pay the money per episode. I don't mind the occasional commercial. but not 20 minutes an hour worth.


Those will likely have forced commercials too. There is simply too much money to be from advertising and now they have a way to guarantee advertisers that you will have to watch their commercials.


----------



## L David Matheny (Jan 29, 2011)

bareyb said:


> Those will likely have forced commercials too. There is simply too much money to be from advertising and now they have a way to guarantee advertisers that you will have to watch their commercials.


They say "never say never", but I think there are probably some of us who will indeed never watch embedded commercials that can't be skipped or ignored somehow. Life is too short to be forced to watch ads for something you will never in a million years purchase, just because some advertiser is willing to pay to torture you. If it comes to that, I'll read more or take more naps or sit at a bar and drink more beer or something less stressful than watching mindlessly untargeted commercials.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

L David Matheny said:


> They say "never say never", but I think there are probably some of us who will indeed never watch embedded commercials that can't be skipped or ignored somehow. Life is too short to be forced to watch ads for something you will never in a million years purchase, just because some advertiser is willing to pay to torture you. If it comes to that, I'll read more or take more naps or sit at a bar and drink more beer or something less stressful than watching mindlessly untargeted commercials.


Ah, but they won't be un-targeted, they'll be driven by everything google and amazon knows about you. In fact I can see it now:

"We know you've been looking at the new WizzBang 2000, so we've ordered one for you. Cancel by the end of this commercial if you don't want to get one (cancellation instructions are embedded in the 4000 page terms of service document you never read ."


----------



## anthonymoody (Apr 29, 2008)

bareyb said:


> I think it probably will happen. Not because it's better but because it will make more money for advertisers and content providers. You don't think they HATE that we can skip commercials? Remember how hard they fought against VCRs and lost? Guess what? Politicians are so easily bought and paid for now, that next time they will probably win... Then we'll have to live through a very long period of time where we are once again forced to watch commercials. Welcome back to the sixties.
> 
> If you think it's superior to having a DVR then _you're_ simply wrong. A system based entirely on the Cloud is going to suck in SO many ways, and I can't believe people are too short sighted or naive to see where it's headed.





moyekj said:


> +1000. I'm amazed how many people actually enjoy something like Hulu+ which not only has subscription fees but you get forced to watch commercials as well. If that's the model of future TV I want no part of it. I'm OK with the Netflix model since streaming quality is pretty good and no forced commercials as of yet. But any serious TV watching I much prefer the DVR model where I have much more control.





bareyb said:


> Let me ask you this. How would you like it if the Hulu model was the only choice available to you? Not much I'd guess since you "don't use it on a regular basis". That's the point we are trying to make. It may be "fine" as a last resort, but if all indicators are correct, what you are tolerating today for the sake of convenience will one day be the only choice you have. Is that what you want??? I didn't think so... and yet, people are being led here like sheep to the slaughter. It's already started. You don't think they are gauging interest and outrage right now? It's one or two commercials today, but mark my words, once they lock it down, the price will skyrocket and there will be 5 minutes of commercials for every 15 minutes of programming, just like it is right now. Possibly more since they will have you held hostage.


Fact is, you're munging the notion itself with the implementation thereof. I never did. Your straw man about how you believe it will play out in terms of specific implementation is simply that: a straw man. One with which, incidentally, I agree for the most part. Your emotional knee jerk speaks for itself.

All else being equal however, an on demand cloud based system in which you can watch whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want, on any device you want, is simply flat out better than a DVR solution for which you have to, among other things:

-Remember to set season passes prior to the first episode airing, and if not, then remembering to find a rerun of the missed episodes, and record those separately, or switch your season pass from New to All and back to New again. What fun!

-Constantly manage storage space. Yes, even in the age of 3-4TB solutions. What fun!

-Figure out the hard way which shows your cable company flags such that you can't side load them onto your devices. And then live with those limitations. What fun!

-Skip through ads while watching shows, either with multiple presses of the 30 sec skip, or with the FF button, in which you overshoot a meaningful % of the time and then have to scrub back to find the right spot. Again, what fun!

Those are all PITAs that exist today when using DVRs. That's fact, not conjecture. You may not be bothered by those things. I am. Others are too. Still others maybe not so much.

You may be bothered by forced commercial watching for a paid service (eg Hulu+). Others are too. And still others not so much given the relatively low price and high convenience.

Then there is that little service that belies your supposition about where it's all going: the iTunes purchase market. You can currently buy pretty much any episode of any show, and usually at the earliest possible date (ie before they appear on streaming services), and watch without restriction (save for android devices) and without ads.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Any of the minor inconveniences you mention with current DVRs would be completely eclipsed by forced commercials.


----------



## CloudAtlas (Oct 29, 2013)

tenthplanet said:


> Roku's don't record, streaming on demand will never be as big as some of it's supporters would have you believe.





anthonymoody said:


> All else being equal however, an on demand cloud based system in which you can watch whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want, on any device you want, is simply flat out better than a DVR solution [list of DVR faults...]


I think everyone in this group is aware of the negative's of DVR's. But VOD in it's current implementation has it's own negatives:

- FF/RW implementations range from terrible to somewhat acceptable.

- some popular shows not available (CBS)

- no one-stop service means multiple VOD apps (Netflix, HBOGo, ShowtimeAnytime, Hulu+, Amazon, Vudu, iTunes, cable VOD)

Yes, iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, etc. all have $1.99/$2.99 HD episodes but who wants to pay $45 for a season of "Two and a Half Men?!" But yes, given enough money you can get VOD of any show ($495 for 11 seasons of THM).

VOD is the future and with enough RAM/SSD hardware can buffer an entire episode/movie allowing perfect FF/RW.

And some day a VOD service like Hulu+ will have every new show available for viewing. Maybe a pay extra feature to avoid commercials.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I agree. There's another issue too which is that although streaming quality has improved, it is still nowhere near as good (especially in the audio realm) as what we are currently getting in the way of OTA or CATV programming. CATV is not very good but at least it has "real" DD 5.1 for the better programming.

By comparison, even though Netflix rates my connection as "the best" in terms of available speed, I still get over compressed audio in some programs that results in odd chirping noises, etc, through surround channels.

Unfortunately people with 5.1 surround make up a small fraction of users and those with mid-fi level systems like mine an even smaller percentage (less than 1% I imagine) so even though we are willing to spend more on content the market will move in the direction that makes the most sense for mass adoption....

That direction being "all you can eat" buffet services that for general programming will definitely have ads. Pretty much what you see now with Hulu+.

Companies like Netflix and HBO and others who offer premium content commercial free won't be able to ignore the temptation of the ad revenue for much longer... certainly not after they've killed off DVR and BD distribution.

If we are "lucky" what we'll be offered is a cheaper "all you can eat" option and a higher priced "opt out of ads" option, but based on what TiVo themselves have done with charging for a premium service AND pounding on us with annoying ads I would say that option is unlikely. The fact that Hulu+ charges AND has ads is the likely future direction... with a premium option to get the content through a premium service like iTunes or Amazon at a very high price per episode or season... not to mention you never actually own a backup copy of your shows.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

CloudAtlas said:


> I think everyone in this group is aware of the negative's of DVR's. But VOD in it's current implementation has it's own negatives:
> 
> - FF/RW implementations range from terrible to somewhat acceptable.
> 
> ...


Maybe someone will come up with a S-DVR that can record a streamed program, than the problem would be solved.


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

Streamed content is captured and shared on BitTorrent already. Ads are removed and it can be watched offline on, ironically, my TiVo.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

anthonymoody said:


> When (not if) all movies and tv shows are available to stream on demand at any time *it will be a far superior experience to DVRs, TiVo or otherwise. *


Completely, utterly false. When they get control back over the user experience (including no ad-skipping), it will be FAR worse. If you enjoy ads in exchange for watching whatever then sure, it will be better. But IMO the vast majority of Tivo users would not want to make that deal.

And there's no way all TV content will be available at any time, they could do it now but content comes and goes with limited viewing windows now. What you're saying is going to happen is a fantasy because of business models, not technical reasons.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

seattlewendell said:


> What are you smoking? Netflix US user base is already past 33 Million. Tivo US numbers peaked at 4.4 million in 2006
> 
> and that's just Netflix. Total streaming can't even see Tivo from where it is now.
> "never be as big"? Put the pipe down.


I have to agree. Look at what MP3's and the whole mobile platform has done to music. The far superior quality and experience of a CD just never appealed to the new generation, and that is the generation that does NOT have a DVR. They have streamed EVERYTHING all of their lives. Just like the MP3 music listeners who don't know how great music can sound and blow their socks off, the streaming generation have no idea of the advantages of the DVR and are ignorant of Level 3's exhausted backbone and the perils it brings to streaming.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

slowbiscuit said:


> Completely, utterly false. When they get control back over the user experience (including no ad-skipping), it will be FAR worse. If you enjoy ads in exchange for watching whatever then sure, it will be better. But IMO the vast majority of Tivo users would not want to make that deal.
> 
> And there's no way all TV content will be available at any time, they could do it now but content comes and goes with limited viewing windows now. What you're saying is going to happen is a fantasy because of business models, not technical reasons.


I'm afraid what anthonymoody says is quite likely to happen because that is where the world and the content owners (not the cable channel content providers) are going. However, I agree with you slowbiscuit, that it will be a sad day when it comes. I don't think we will even have hard copies like DVD or Blu-ray to purchase (Hollywood would love to get rid of what amounts to a "lifetime" license to their content), just in the cloud streaming with NO SKIP commercials (or the option of paying MORE not to have ads) and losing content here and there due to licenses expiring (like Netflix lost the Viacom content, especially parents upset that their kiddies are upset) and some, perhaps NEVER to be offered again because the streamers like Netflix have gotta save money and keep their, by now, $40 (eventually increasing) a month fee from getting any higher now that Hollywood know it gave away its content to Netflix. All the streaming cloud is doing is just moving all the channel content we now get from MVPD's over to the cloud and streaming services, who will eventually be owned by Comcast/Universal, et al. the same media companies who own the MVPD's today, including AT&T (DirecTV) and Verizon. Dish is launching what will be the first OTT service with traditional "cable" channels. Yeah, it IS happening.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

anthonymoody said:


> Fact is, you're munging the notion itself with the implementation thereof. I never did. Your straw man about how you believe it will play out in terms of specific implementation is simply that: a straw man. One with which, incidentally, I agree for the most part. Your emotional knee jerk speaks for itself.
> 
> All else being equal however, an on demand cloud based system in which you can watch whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want, on any device you want, is simply flat out better than a DVR solution for which you have to, among other things:


No one denies that this fantasy world of anything being available anytime is a great thing, IF it was implemented with good trickplay controls that include ad skip. The problem here is that it is indeed a fantasy because the content providers don't want it your way. It is WAY more of a straw man for your view of what will happen than what barey and others here are saying will happen (the situation we have today).

Again, there is no technical reason why this can't be done now. There is no technical need for a DVR - shows can all be streamed as MP4s in excellent quality with good audio. Netflix and Vudu do it, and we're quickly moving past the time where bandwidth was an issue.

The streaming fantasy you wish for doesn't exist (and won't exist anytime soon, IMO) because the players don't want to make the deals to make it exist.


----------



## CloudAtlas (Oct 29, 2013)

Series3Sub said:


> [...] streamers like Netflix have gotta save money and keep their, by now, $40 (eventually increasing) a month fee from getting any higher now that Hollywood know it gave away its content to Netflix.


$40! WTF? After years of adding content, including original, costing Netflix billions in yearly license fees - fees so high that analysts said Netflix would never be profitable - they finally raised their prices ... wait for it...$1.

And these high fees were made even higher by the bidding wars between Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, and HBO. Yet you talk about Hollywood giving away content to Netflix? This is a total win for Hollywood.

And Netflix is profitable now, without the current increase, and with the costly ongoing European expansion yet you talk about $40 a month fees as if there is any factual basis. As Netflix or any other streaming provider grows it's user base the high content fees become more affordable. Netflix's user base will surpass 50 million when numbers are announced in July.

All they care about is adding more subscribers and keeping the current ones. Which is why the recent increase is so small and why current users won't see the price increase until June 2016.

As for commercials and streaming Netflix is commercial free just like HBOGo, ShowtimeAnytime, Vudu, Amazon, et al. Only Hulu has commercials and that's because it's owned unfortunately by NBC, Fox and ABC. I say unfortunately because rather than grow the customer base like Netflix did they choose to be greedy and also get revenue from commercials. And the reason why Hulu+ only has 6 million customers.


----------

