# The "TiVo MiNi"



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

What is "The TiVo MiNi"?

The TiVo MiNi is based loosely on the Roku.

It can be purchased as a stand alone device. Streaming of Amazon VOD, BlockBuster VOD, Netflix Streaming, Hulu, etc. similar to a Roku. It would use a pared down version of the TiVo interface.

When connected to the same network as a TiVo Premiere, The TiVo MiNi would ALSO be able to stream content directly from a Premiere. It would have access to TiVo Premiere functionality such as the guide, Season Passes, MyShows, etc. You can also use a traditional IR TiVo remote. The TiVo MiNi would be the same device used with the New DirecTiVo coming soon

An upgraded "TiVo MiNi XL" would also include a BlueTooth receiver and 11n Wireless capability. This allows easy connection to a 11n wireless network and use of the new Slide Remote.

How much memory? Same processor as a Premiere? Hard to say. Definitely a higher powered version of a Roku.

The TiVo MiNi allows TiVo to be at the heart of the home streaming industry and yet be the "TiVo extender" we need. It would even promote TiVo Premiere sales, as well.

3 in 1 for TiVo. Stand alone device to compete with others. An extender for TiVo Premiere AND an extender for the new DirecTiVo.

Thoughts?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Unless it could seamlessly control the main Tivo (as if one were sitting in front of it), I don't think it would be a big seller. One would need to be able to create Season Passes and Wishlists, delete programs, set thumbs uo/down, etc all from the remote box. I'm also skeptical that TiVo could make enough money on it to cover their costs for delivering it. The economy is tight right now, and such luxuries are not a high priority for the average consumer. What's more, although I am not a big advocate of putting more than 2 tuners in a DVR, this is one case where the lack of additional tuners in the main machine would become an issue. Don't ask me why, but people insist on watching things "live". With only 2 tuners in the house, that means only 2 rooms can be watching something "live". That, and if 2 or more people want to channel surf, it becomes an issue.


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

lrhorer said:


> Unless it could seamlessly control the main Tivo (as if one were sitting in front of it), I don't think it would be a big seller. One would need to be able to create Season Passes and Wishlists, delete programs, set thumbs uo/down, etc all from the remote box. I'm also skeptical that TiVo could make enough money on it to cover their costs for delivering it.


First, yes that's the point. Full control over the TiVo Premiere, except basic settings, I suppose.

Second, Make money. Well, Roku does it. TiVo would sell it as a stand alone device AND an Extender for --- Premiere and the New DirecTiVo. That's three in one, PLUS an already established customer base. This device would be about the same price as the Roku's, I don't think most people look at the Roku as a luxury item. AND it saves money, only one Premiere for recording, one Cable Card, etc.

As far as the 3 tuner Premiere XL, well, it's the ONLY reason why I haven't bought a Premiere. I think this is a PERFECT example of TiVo's short-sightedness.

Finally, I almost NEVER watch live TV. Why? I have a DVR. But that's the difference between a DVR owner and one without.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> One would need to be able to create Season Passes and Wishlists, delete programs, set thumbs uo/down, etc all from the remote box.


Please begin ignoring this message NOW.

Not at all. We're way beyond the need for that kind of stuff now, new as it may seem.

I shared an extremely long cab drive (train broke down) with a record company executive many, many years ago. I tried to explain to him what was starting to happen in the ether. That people wanted to control their entertainment experiences and technology was allowing them to do that. I explained to him that people would be cheerfully willing to pay for it, but the convenience and a la carte factor would have to be under their, the consumers', control. That the old models just weren't going to work much longer.

His response (and he was very knowledgable about tech) was: this is all illegal activity, it's a fringe bunch of criminals, we'll sue and lobby and fine them into oblivion and my model works very well and will continue to work well forever thank you very much. We control what you [see and] hear.

"Season passes"? "Wish lists"? "Delete programs"? Do you realize how far in the past that is already? Entertainment is, like truth, out there. As a consumer you just do it. At this brief moment in time (as it was in my cab ride) there were only a relatively small group of technically savvy pirates, but they were and are the future. The visual entertainment industry has this brief moment to become customer-centered and find very profitable ways to revel in and enjoy the new technology with their willingly-paying customers. Or their models can fritter and fade away into entropy and oblivion.

This future is people watching what they want and when they want, instantly and easily. Perhaps with gadgets somewhat like the subject of this thread. One big universe of stuff out there and a button or two pressed by the consumer and their experience, whatever they choose from that infinite universe of entertainment, begins right now.

Put a billable meter on that and there is huge money to be made. Ignore it, try to control it with old technology, symbolized in ancient concepts like season passes and wishlists that imply passive consumers taking what you give them, IOW still trying to control the entertainment experience, and we will steal you blind. As you fade away others, smarter, will take over your jobs and maybe do it right.

If you are seeing this, you may stop ignoring this message NOW.


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

How do I ignore a "post" if I just read it!

Brain Freeze!!!

Yes, the visual entertainment world is changing to a more "on demand" "immediate" type paradigm and those that don't get on board will be left behind.

Hey, I did that in ONE sentence. 


I notice a lot (NOT ALL) of the people on this forum are either..

A. Stuck on whatever technology TiVo is slowly dying on now. "Why 3 tuners?" "Why extenders?" "Why finish the HDUI?" 

OR

B. Stuck on the "It's ALL a waste of time; because DVR's, cable, satellite, etc. are all dying and the internet is where all TV will come from anyway"

Well, that's all great. Your undying support "TiVo is fine" is what's killing TiVo. AND tomorrow's stream EVERYTHING off the internet is NOT here yet. One, stuck in the past, the other stuck in the future -- maybe. In the end, any realistic, NOW type concept gets canned. 

A "TiVo MiNi" may NOT be the longterm future, but it's better than what IS now. Streaming from a TV server(TiVo Premiere), one cable card, streaming from the internet; sold alone or used in tandem with a TiVo DVR -- hey, that's a REAL future that can be done NOW!


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Moxi has extenders, but hasn't taken significant market share.


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

shwru980r said:


> Moxi has extenders, but hasn't taken significant market share.


I think the best way to respond is the way MOST Americans would...

"What's a Moxi?"

I know, you know, how many others?

I know a company, that will NEVER do it(doesn't fit their $ale$/control model). But if they did. If this company ever created a DVR like TiVo, but with a great finished GUI(and 3rd tuner option). And also, even BEGAN to explain what an extender really is and what it could do. You would be SHOCKED how many people would be talking about "You can watch a DVR'd show on ANY TV around the house!! AND still stream on ANY TV in the house; PLUS it's all wireless N, and with this COOL BlueTooth slide remote that you don't need line of sight to use" all over the place.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

deandashl said:


> How do I ignore a "post" if I just read it!


In my very early youth as a programmer, I always put an orderly exit line at the bottom of all my subroutines even when, theoretically, the process should never reach the end before going somewhere else. You just never know for sure what's going to happen!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

The future may well be an on demand streaming world - for somethings and some people but not for everything and everyone. It also will be years (maybe decades?) before the majority of video is consumed by on demand streaming from the Internet. 

The concept proposed in the O.P. is workable now and would provide access to the technologies of the past, present, and future thus providing maximum opportunities in the consumption of video and be useful to the maximum number of people. 

It is exactly where TiVo needs to be heading along with increased abilities of their main unit(s) (currently the Premiere). It will however take a mind set change by TiVo.

Thanks,


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I think it is a good concept. I don't think TiVo is ready to give up extra subscription revenue. 

Keep in mind, TiVo is a software leasing company, and their basic business model is to get their software on as many TV screens as possible, for as many ongoing subscriptions as possible.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

classicsat said:


> I think it is a good concept. I don't think TiVo is ready to give up extra subscription revenue.
> 
> Keep in mind, TiVo is a software leasing company, and their basic business model is to get their software on as many TV screens as possible, for as many ongoing subscriptions as possible.


Exactly why I said it would take a mind set change by TiVo. However the push into our living rooms by Google with GoogleTV may light a fire under TiVo to at least increase their Internet Access abilities.

If at some point someone were to base a DVR on GoogleTV I am assuming the devices would be pretty much like th O. P. suggested for TiVo or some similar modular approach.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

I think the Tivo Mini would kill Tivo overnight. Personally, I use Tivo's transfer ability all the time via Pytivo to watch downloaded content. Heck, it is 99% of what I use my Tivo's for.

So if they created Tivo Mini, I would cut cable, get rid of 2 tivos for 2 minis, and I am sure Pytivo or some programmer would figure out a way to trick the minis into thinking a subscribed Tivo was in the house. I would then download all my TV, etc. I would save like $200 a month and lose very little.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Unless it could seamlessly control the main Tivo (as if one were sitting in front of it), I don't think it would be a big seller. One would need to be able to create Season Passes and Wishlists, delete programs,


This is where Moxi has a gap as well - you can watch shows from the mate but they are working on adding in real functionality to it.

I can see this TiVo mini selling some but to be a winner it would have to be able to deal with the main TiVo DVR and that flies in the face of TiVo KISS dogma of so far only being able to delete shows.

ironically - they could not think to make this thing subscription based but would have to charge a good bit up front to stay within their business plan. I place considerable value on having tuners available at each location so I would rather pay 500 for a full premiere w/lifetime than 300 for a mini. Others would be asking - pay 100$ for some other device or 300 for TiVo Mini and really only get some added control of some other TiVo DVR.

I would rather TiVo work on streaming between DVRs versus put resources into this device


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Yeah I really don't see a need for a TiVo mini. 

For a TiVo mini to be successful, two things would have to happen. The first would be they would have to find a way to include at least one local tuner in the mini. This of course would raise the cost and require a CableCARD so I don't see that happening unless of course we see one from the TiVo/Suddenlink partnetship, but it would only work on Suddenlink Cable. This would be similar to the basic boxes you can rent from the cable company that don't support PPV and VOD, but are purely unidirectional. It would still be able to access a main TiVo unit, but wouldn't be able to record and would need a small drive to allow transfers since we know TiVo's position on streaming. There would also be a small MRV monthly fee to support the cost similar to how DirecTV charges for it now.

The second option would be the TiVo Home server where you have 4-6 tuners in one TiVo and use the TiVo mini to access those tuners similar to the 360 and Windows 7 Media Center. Of course you still have the dilemmas from the first option like you need a small hardrive for transfers and that plus there would probably be some type of fee per mini unless the TiVo Server just has a higher fee. The issue here is also TiVo doesn't allow a lot of remote access so you can't delete or schedule or do many of the basic TiVo functions. Of course TiVo could open this up, but whether they would is another question.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

deandashl said:


> Thoughts?


I think it'd be great, in fact it's exactly what I'm looking for. Unfortunately:

1) The Premiere isn't even finished yet, and work on the HDUI is painfully slow. When would the 'Tivo Mini' and streaming support be done? 2012? 2014? Will there still be cable TV then?

2) The Premiere only has two tuners, so Tivo Premiere + 2x Tivo Mini would start at a disadvantage to the 3 tuner Moxi.

3) Some thirdy party can just develop an app for one of the many existing stream-only set top boxes to stream from a Premiere. Still requires support for the Premiere to send streams, but keeps Tivo out of the hardware and software business (the Patent business seems to be what Tivo, Inc is good at).


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Bump up the number of tuners to 4 in the premiere and sell an extender (TiVo Mini?) for $150. 

See my sig.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> Yeah I really don't see a need for a TiVo mini.
> 
> For a TiVo mini to be successful, two things would have to happen. The first would be they would have to find a way to include at least one local tuner in the mini. This of course would raise the cost and require a CableCARD


yep - you would either have to also have a settop box along with the mini or have hardware that is just one tuner shy of being an actual TiVo DVR.

Otherwise you need a tuner farm and the ability to stream the TV buffer of one of the tuners with the assumption that one was free to channel surf on. Now the whole thing falls apart again due to complexity and you still have the cost of all the tuners to deal with 
or 
having a mini with no live TV ability and needing a set top box for live TV. The only cheap way TiVo could produce these is to simply remark out the code related to recording/tuners and not allow any remote control of the other TiVo (save cost of developing that) I am still not seeing the business model in that and would point out that Moxi did not exactly burn up the market with its mates.

Just give me streaming on the TiVo DVRs I have, please.


----------



## futonpimp (Dec 16, 2008)

deandashl said:


> What is "The TiVo MiNi"?
> 
> The TiVo MiNi is based loosely on the Roku.
> 
> ...


sounds good.. they will need to do something like this soon if they want to compete with moxi and similiar products.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

futonpimp said:


> sounds good.. they will need to do something like this soon if they want to compete with moxi and similiar products.


yes - becasue the Moxi is outselling TiVo by such a wide margin  and the similar DVR products....... oh wait.......


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

deandashl said:


> First, yes that's the point. Full control over the TiVo Premiere, except basic settings, I suppose.


Yes, and I don't guess I made the implications clear. The current platforms have been physically capable of such networked control for years, but TiVo has been unwilling to provide it. This could be because of patent restrictions, because it required large scale modifications to TiVo's base code, or becasue it does not fit their engineering paradigms; I don't know. The point is, however, TiVo woud have to first make these features available on their main platforms, and this they have been unwilling to do heretofore.



deandashl said:


> Second, Make money. Well, Roku does it.


Do they? I don't know. I don't have their financial statements handy. The more important question, however, is, "Do they also produce a competing product to their own Roku?" If Tivo produced a Roku-like device, it would compete significantly with their main line of hardware and their primary revenue stream. That's a very big gamble.



deandashl said:


> TiVo would sell it as a stand alone device AND an Extender for --- Premiere and the New DirecTiVo. That's three in one, PLUS an already established customer base.


That's not quite the point. The ability to buy 2 TiVo Lites would prevent the potential 3 TiVo consumer from paying two subscription fees, which is where TiVo makes its money. They are already deficient in revenue. They need some really strong motivation to impact that revenue stream.



deandashl said:


> This device would be about the same price as the Roku's, I don't think most people look at the Roku as a luxury item.


I think very few people consider it a necessity. I don't own one, and I'm a major techno-geek.



deandashl said:


> AND it saves money, only one Premiere for recording, one Cable Card, etc.


The cable card is another issue, but if the consumer is saving money, then they are not giving it to TiVo, are they? Exactly how is Tivo supposed to be making more money off this deal if the consumer is spending less?



deandashl said:


> As far as the 3 tuner Premiere XL, well, it's the ONLY reason why I haven't bought a Premiere. I think this is a PERFECT example of TiVo's short-sightedness.


I submit you are not the average consumer. Now, neither am I, but there are a lot more reasons than that why I do not recomend a Premier, and indeed adding an extra tuner or two would not change my recommendation in the slightest. It certainly would not induce me to consider buying one to add a tuner or two. Indeed, the fact the price of the unit would have to increase significantly would produce quite the opposite result. Even with a single 2-tuner TiVo, irresolute recording conflicts are rare. With two or three 2 tuner DVRs, they are non-existent.

I think you need to pause a moment before you call TiVo short-sighted. You say you would purchase a system with a central DVR and one or two remote units that is significantly more expensive than two DVRs, but would not consider purchasing two DVRs. There's a problem with that logic.



deandashl said:


> Finally, I almost NEVER watch live TV. Why? I have a DVR. But that's the difference between a DVR owner and one without.


Neither do I. I haven't watched "live" TV, channel surfed, or looked at a guide in ten years. I consider all of these to be huge waste of time. Yet you can look back through the threads in which I have participated on this forum in the past and see downright vehement objections to the notion that TiVo owners can blithely give up such habits with no negative consequences and very significant positive ones.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

futonpimp said:


> sounds good.. they will need to do something like this soon if they want to compete with moxi and similiar products.





ZeoTiVo said:


> yes - becasue the Moxi is outselling TiVo by such a wide margin  and the similar DVR products....... oh wait.......


I know. How can people talk about a company "needing to compete" with a failure?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> This is where Moxi has a gap as well - you can watch shows from the mate but they are working on adding in real functionality to it.


I don't discount the possibility some day Moxi (or someone) may produce a DVR that beats the TiVo hands down in the most important respects. Today is not that day.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I can see this TiVo mini selling some


Well, of course! To be sure, the OP would no doubt buy one... or at least he says he would. 'Funny how so many people say they would do something under some circumstances, but when the time comes, they don't.

To give an example of the more general issue at hand, here, some years ago I was seeking a remote audio solution. I looked around, and the hardware features of the Creative Labs wireless audio system (I don't recall the name, at the moment) beat every other device hands down. There turned out to be only two problems:

1. The software really sucked.

2. Too few other people prized the features I did enough for CL to continue or extend the line.

Before too long, Creative Labs dropped the system altogether. Now my TiVos do what it used to, far better than it ever did. The only thing I miss is the two-way interactive remote control.



ZeoTiVo said:


> but to be a winner it would have to be able to deal with the main TiVo DVR and that flies in the face of TiVo KISS dogma of so far only being able to delete shows.


Although your point is valid, I think there is a more fundamental issue, here. The stand-alone DVR itself is a niche market. This would be a niche of a niche - not a lot of sales potential. Finally (see my previous post), sales of this product would negatively impact their primary revenue stream, and in my estimation it would do so more than for which its own revenue stream would compensate.



ZeoTiVo said:


> ironically - they could not think to make this thing subscription based but would have to charge a good bit up front to stay within their business plan.


More, I think, than enough would be willing to pay to make it profitable. Then, increasing the cost of the main DVR would drive away not only some of the people who might consider the described system itself, but also a good many who only want the functionality of a single DVR.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I place considerable value on having tuners available at each location so I would rather pay 500 for a full premiere w/lifetime than 300 for a mini.


Well, I don't so much care where the tuners are, but I dislike an eggs-in-one-basket approach on general principles. If the main unit fails, one is stuck with a handful of useless units, unless one buys the most expensive unit, again.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I would rather TiVo work on streaming between DVRs versus put resources into this device


:up::up:


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Wil said:


> Not at all. We're way beyond the need for that kind of stuff now, new as it may seem.


Nonsense! The ability of the unit to automate selections of content is crucial to being able to get anything at all from the widely expanding pallette of content.



Wil said:


> "Season passes"? "Wish lists"? "Delete programs"? Do you realize how far in the past that is already? Entertainment is, like truth, out there.


Not if the consumer can't find it. With the number of available channels to soon exceed 1000 and the number of availble programs to soon reach the million mark, almost none of which any specific user wants, such selection filters are already vital and growing moreso exponentially.



Wil said:


> As a consumer you just do it.


That statement is just stupid. Already I can easily spend 4 or 5 hours eacha nd every night just going through the garbge I don't want. Soon, that number could easily exceed 24 hours. By the end of 2020, the number of programs available at any given time would no doubt take years to sift. Season Passes, and particualrly Wishlists and Suggestions take the vast mountian of video garbage out there and extract the gold into a manageable -but still very large - pile of pure nuggets. User compiled VOD is the wave of the future, and Wishlists and Suggestions make it happen.



Wil said:


> This future is people watching what they want and when they want, instantly and easily


And filters such as wishlists and suggestions are the only way to accomplish that. Without them, the user will spend a lifetime trying to finde one, single thing he wants to watch, and never manage it.



Wil said:


> Perhaps with gadgets somewhat like the subject of this thread. One big universe of stuff out there and a button or two pressed by the consumer and their experience, whatever they choose from that infinite universe of entertainment, begins right now.


If there is some fixed ratio of good / bad, then an infinite universe implies an infinite amount of bad. There has to be a way for a machine to find the good, because no human will have the time or resources.



Wil said:


> If you are seeing this, you may stop ignoring this message NOW.


It would have been better if you had not assaulted us with this nonsense in the first place.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

deandashl said:


> How do I ignore a "post" if I just read it!
> 
> Brain Freeze!!!


Please don't encourage him. This is not a conundrum. It's just foolishness.



deandashl said:


> Yes, the visual entertainment world is changing to a more "on demand" "immediate" type paradigm and those that don't get on board will be left behind.


'Not relevant. The vast volume of content makes content search and filtering absolutely essential.



deandashl said:


> A. Stuck on whatever technology TiVo is slowly dying on now. "Why 3 tuners?"


Because 3 tuners costs a lot more than 2 tuners (far more than the cost of just the tuner), but doesn't offer any significant improvement. With 1 tuner, the odds of having an irresolute conflict are very high. With 2, they are very low. I've had, I think, 3 or at most 4 in the last year. Those were resolved without much fuss by walking over to a different TiVo in another room. The problem can be eliminated by simple software solutions that cost nothing in the manufacturing cycle, and indeed can be implemented on existing units. Why spend tons of money on a hardware solution when a superior software solution can be had for almost nothing?



deandashl said:


> "Why extenders?"


There are two different questions in there. One is, "Why would a consumer want one?" The answer is, "An extender offers a number of features to a consumer." For the fairly small number of people who would consider them over a 2nd or third DVR, they may provide good value, and so be desirable to them. The operative phrase, however, is "small number". The second question inherent in the query above is, "Should TiVo produce one?" Given the operative phrase, and the fact it likely won't increase TiVo's profitability...



deandashl said:


> "Why finish the HDUI?"


Because the idea on which it is based is stupid. If the proposed UI looked more like this, then it would be worth something. As it is, it represents a giant step in the worst possible direction.



deandashl said:


> B. Stuck on the "It's ALL a waste of time; because DVR's, cable, satellite, etc. are all dying and the internet is where all TV will come from anyway"


I wouldn't bet on it.



deandashl said:


> Well, that's all great. Your undying support "TiVo is fine" is what's killing TiVo. AND tomorrow's stream EVERYTHING off the internet is NOT here yet. One, stuck in the past, the other stuck in the future -- maybe. In the end, any realistic, NOW type concept gets canned.


I'm stuck in neither, but I recognize that to be profitable, any proposed auxilliary line of hardware must:

1. Have enough potential buyers to allow the costs of R&D, tooling, and manufacturi8ng the line worthwhile. TiVo is having trouble selling one unit to the American public. You think it will be easier to sell two? I doubt they could sell 10,000 units.

2. The line must not reduce the revenue from the main product more than it takes in itself. If Tivo sells 10,000 of these units, but by doing so sells 5000 fewer subscriptions, they're hosed. If - due to the higher price of adding a 4 tuner DVR to their line - they sell 12,000 fewer subscriptions, then they are *REALLY* hosed. Nothing proposed here suggests this will allow TiVo to sell more subscriptions. Quitre to the contrary, your whole reason to have them sell the TiVo Mini is so you and others like you can pay for fewer subscriptions. What's in it for TiVo?



deandashl said:


> A "TiVo MiNi" may NOT be the longterm future, but it's better than what IS now. Streaming from a TV server(TiVo Premiere), one cable card, streaming from the internet; sold alone or used in tandem with a TiVo DVR -- hey, that's a REAL future that can be done NOW!


Done? Sure. Done profitably? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> The concept proposed in the O.P. is workable now


Workable technically? Of course. Desired preferentially by a majority of potential buyers? Not a chance. Financially feasible? Just about a snowball's chance...



atmuscarella said:


> and would provide access to the technologies of the past, present, and future thus providing maximum opportunities in the consumption of video and be useful to the maximum number of people.


No, it would not. Most people would not prefer this model.



atmuscarella said:


> It is exactly where TiVo needs to be heading along with increased abilities of their main unit(s) (currently the Premiere). It will however take a mind set change by TiVo.


What mind set is that? To lose the maximum possible amount of money?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bschuler2007 said:


> I think the Tivo Mini would kill Tivo overnight. Personally, I use Tivo's transfer ability all the time via Pytivo to watch downloaded content.


:up::up:



bschuler2007 said:


> Heck, it is 99% of what I use my Tivo's for.


Well, I use them to obtain the content in the first place, but your point remains valid.



bschuler2007 said:


> So if they created Tivo Mini, I would cut cable, get rid of 2 tivos for 2 minis, and I am sure Pytivo or some programmer would figure out a way to trick the minis into thinking a subscribed Tivo was in the house.


Oh, no. Re-read what the OP said. He is suggesting these should work without a Tivo, if the buyer so chooses, right out of the box. Talk about financial suicide.



bschuler2007 said:


> I would then download all my TV, etc. I would save like $200 a month and lose very little.


The point is, you would not be paying three subscription fees.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Yep $200 is pretty good savings and would be well worth it, IMHO. 2 Tivo subscriptions, cable, cablecard fees, etc.. really add up. Make it please.

I think we are getting alot closer to a point the average consumer drops cable, thus the non-DVR boxes will control the market.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bschuler2007 said:


> ...
> 
> I think we are getting alot closer to a point the average consumer drops cable, thus the non-DVR boxes will control the market.


I think we no way near the "average" consumer being able to drop cable/Satellite and replace it with streaming from the Internet. There are about 115 million households with TVs in the US and over 300 million TVs - Contrast that with GoogleTV with expects to sell about 1 million units the first year.

People need to remember that it is fairly likely that no one on this forum is an "average" TV consumer. We are mostly cutting edge.

About 90% of TV households have "pay" TV (cable or sat) and yes there is some movement away from pay TV but it is very small compared to the totals (about 1% of existing pay TVers are completing dumping cable and sat) and OTA is part of what they are moving too.

Thanks,

Thanks,


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

TiVo needs profitable products, what can that hardware provide? $5 per box? For that TiVo needs to provide customer service for the life of the product. Suggest products with profit potential as part of the reason the product should be introduced.

After over 11 years, what TiVo knows about the market for a DVR is that it wants hardware at less than cost and free service. There is a demand for a product as suggested but no market of significance willing to pay anything for it is how I see it. I don't know a single person in real life with a Moxi.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> About 90% of TV households have "pay" TV (cable or sat) and yes there is some movement away from pay TV but it is very small compared to the totals (about 1% of existing pay TVers are completing dumping cable and sat) and OTA is part of what they are moving too.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Thanks,


I have been an OTA only house for almost two years now with very little internet provided programming, mostly through TiVo. My real life experiences make me believe that 90% figure is wrong, it must be much less at this time. Do you have the source for that figure?


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Nonsense! ... just stupid ... better if you had not assaulted us with this nonsense


Hi. Howya doin'?

Please begin ignoring this message NOW.

I don't disagree, from a certain perspective, ie. trying to look ahead with one's head screwed on backwards.

No video entertainment consumer today, who has a good computer system and knows comprehensively what enabling software is available and knows programming/scripting, needs any of the mechanisms you're describing as essential. These are a _very_ few such consumers, as I said. But the edge soon becomes mainstream, and automated and accessible to all, when the technology is all there, and it is. Very soon the only one of the Tivo-esque features that will seem anything more than primitively quaint will be "Suggestions."

Historians will look at Suggestions and say, you know, these ancient peoples were really onto something there. Too bad they didn't know what they were nibbling around the edges of.

Of course the future suggestions-like function (currently partially implemented by some consumers for their own use), will be magnitudes more comprehensive and discriminating, integrating not just what has been previously viewed, but all aspects of what the consumer can be measured as preferring: what he reads, browses, buys, posts, expresses opinions about, avoids, etc. And of course "suggested" material will not be Tivo-ed or recorded or downloaded or anything so brute force. Just linked, and those links cross-referenced and massaged and prioritized in a hundred ways, and presented to the consumer in a pyramid of layers starting with a simple tip.

Consumers of course will add to their system's knowledge of their interests by being able to input stuff they've heard about.

So, since theOP started a very nice speculative thread looking forward to a potential device that doesn't yet exist, what he calls the mini, I took a moment to look ahead a little more intensely.

If you are seeing this (and I'm really sorry you didn't notice up front that I advised you to ignore the message, as I did about the previous message you so virulently attacked me for), you may stop ignoring this message NOW.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

How about a Tivo streaming app on the AppleTV if Apple every allows apps 

Or a channel on the Roku?


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

I think the top priority should be to enable streaming from Tivo to Tivo for customers who already own multiple Tivos and have had MRV crippled by the copy protection flag.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> I think the top priority should be to enable streaming from Tivo to Tivo for customers who already own multiple Tivos and have had MRV crippled by the copy protection flag.


yep


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> I think the top priority should be to enable streaming from Tivo to Tivo for customers who already own multiple Tivos and have had MRV crippled by the copy protection flag.


TiVo will need to develop streaming for their new DirecTV DVR if it is going to be expected to work with DirecTV's whole home DVR ecosystem which does MRV by streaming as protected DLNA servers and clients.

TiVo is getting paid by a cable company to develop streaming MRV to their non-DVR set top boxes so that whichever cable company this is can offer a whole home DVR solution.

I suspect that once they get one or the other of those working and deployed they could back port it to their standalone line of DVRs.

Whether this will really happen this way or not, is anyone's guess.


----------



## jhilla (May 13, 2011)

The Moxi HD DVR and Moxi Mate® are no longer available for purchase. The best of the Moxi features have been added to the ARRIS Moxi Gateway and Moxi Player, components of the ARRIS Whole Home Solution. The Moxi Gateway is a full-featured &#8220;triple play platform&#8221; available only through cable service providers. 

This means Tivo has full power, competition is stepping back. Sage was purchased by Google recently most likely to expand GoogleTV 3.0


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jhilla said:


> The Moxi ...


You just posted into a thread that is almost 2 years old. Not sure what you wanted to do but the other stuff in the thread is so outdated it is irrelevant.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

This bump _did_ let me look back at the first post in this thread. I do find it a little interesting that TiVo actually is releasing a Tivo Mini that does the streaming from the Premiere that deandashl was talking about in his second paragraph.

He missed on some of the other items, but guessed right on the name and the core functionality. Not bad for a two year old guess


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Seems like he got most of it right to me. From what I remember the Mini is suppose to support the same apps as a regular TiVo, which means Netflix and Hulu should work. Amazon is still download only with TiVo so that probably wont since the Mini will, presumably, be diskless. But if they ever add Amazon streaming then it should work.

Dan


----------



## Neil 420 (Apr 20, 2004)

I don't know how big the market will be, but one of the reasons I'm leaving DirecTV is the lack of a multi-room Tivo. If I go with cable, I would have to invest in four Premiers and then throw it all away if I decide that I want to go back to DirecTV. That's why I'm leaning towards U-verse. I can easily walk away at anytime. When I leave, I'll still have their cat5e wired to all my TVs. 

If Tivo had the mini, and I could just swap out the one Premier and use the minis with a DirecTV or even OTA Premier, I would feel a lot better about the investment. I really think the mini with a lifetime subscription should cost less than a Premier with lifetime, but it would still be interesting if it cost about the same.


----------



## Neil 420 (Apr 20, 2004)

Ignore my previous post. 

It just realized that Tivo won't even let me stream from a DirecTivo to a Premier, so I don't see why they would allow me to stream from a DirecTivo to a mini. Doesn't make any sense.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

Jonathan_S said:


> Not bad for a two year old guess


Maybe he can post his prediction for the Super Bowl. I could use winning a bet for a change.


----------



## bluecar2 (Sep 25, 2011)

LifeIsABeach said:


> Maybe he can post his prediction for the Super Bowl. I could use winning a bet for a change.


No need for a crystal ball. The Green Bay Packers will win. :up:


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

jhilla said:


> The Moxi HD DVR and Moxi Mate® are no longer available for purchase. The best of the Moxi features have been added to the ARRIS Moxi Gateway and Moxi Player, components of the ARRIS Whole Home Solution. The Moxi Gateway is a full-featured triple play platform available only through cable service providers.
> 
> This means Tivo has full power, competition is stepping back. Sage was purchased by Google recently most likely to expand GoogleTV 3.0


Hello, Rip Van Winkle!


----------



## Leon WIlkinson (Feb 13, 2000)

deandashl might be working for TiVo now...


----------



## klramp (Mar 2, 2005)

Neil 420 said:


> Ignore my previous post.
> 
> It just realized that Tivo won't even let me stream from a DirecTivo to a Premier, so I don't see why they would allow me to stream from a DirecTivo to a mini. Doesn't make any sense.


I would not blame TIVO, blame DirecTV. They require a "dumbed down" Tivo box. Their current boxes are pretty good, I found them pretty acceptable and worked well with streaming. But they want to control their content and not turn that over to anybody else, including Tivo.

I just recently left them because of rain fade. Their new dishes are just crap and fade during light and medium rain.


----------



## philhu (Apr 11, 2001)

smbaker said:


> I think it'd be great, in fact it's exactly what I'm looking for. Unfortunately:
> 
> 1) The Premiere isn't even finished yet, and work on the HDUI is painfully slow. When would the 'Tivo Mini' and streaming support be done? 2012? 2014? Will there still be cable TV then?


This is a major point......The Premiere came out years ago. The UI still isn't finished. The dual core is still turned off, making the HDUI slow as crap.

How many programmers/developers does it take to fix the already released system and code?

And based upon that, how can we be sure the mini or stream will get the priority to fix the code in them? It seems that Tivo has a real rear of programmers and code. They seem to like to release products and forget the problems associated with the code.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

You are uninformed. Dual core has been enabled for nearly all of 2012. New features were added at that time, though the HDUI was not completed, we did get some HD goodness.

My personal guess is that the premiere is processor speed contrained, and that a full HD UI could have been put in earlier, but that would have made the speed worse. So, the stepped in process is done to minimize the slowness we would have giped about even more so the screens could be further optimized.

My UI is just fine, works at the same speed as my HD unit.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We're getting an update in the next few weeks that will have more HDUI screens. I think I saw a post somewhere that said the ToDo List, Recording History, and SP manager will be HD now. There may have been more but I can't remember.

With those screens in HD you would only ever drop over to the SDUI for options. The options area is pretty big, so I could see it taking them a while to get that ported over to the HDUI.

I think the lull in development was mainly during their trial with Dish. As soon as that was over they seemed to start focusing on development again. I don't know if it was a finical restraint or just the focus of the company being off, but I'm glad to see them back to actually working on things again.

Dan


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I think the lull in development was mainly during their trial with Dish. As soon as that was over they seemed to start focusing on development again. I don't know if it was a finical restraint or just the focus of the company being off, but I'm glad to see them back to actually working on things again.
> 
> Dan


Well I am guessing if it hadn't gone TiVo's way they would be in liquidation mode. Not only did they get the large settlement from Dish most everyone else seems to be doing some type of out of court settlement with them. So I would say they focused on the right thing.

As far as the UI is concerned I care about functionality. How it looks is next to irrelevant to me as long as it is fast, intuitive, and gets what I want done with the least amount of my effort possible.

While the HDUI has some nice features the SDUI is still an excellent UI and if all I had was the SDUI I wouldn care. But then I spend my time watching TV and not the UI. The way some people act around here one would believe bought a TiVo to watch the UI not TV.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> As far as the UI is concerned I care about functionality. How it looks is next to irrelevant to me as long as it is fast, intuitive, and gets what I want done with the least amount of my effort possible.


I agree. Both the SDUI and the HDUI are pathetically screen wasteful. I could not possibly care less about graphics, let alone whether the screen is pretty or not. Slogging through several thousand video selections eight at a time is an exercise in extreme frustration. The inability to jump around in the list helps not at all. That is why, when Jeff Bernardis was developing vidmgr, the very first two features I requested were the ability to increase the number of displayed titles and the ability to jump through every folder list in 10% increments. Although even vidmgr displays far fewer titles on each page than I would like, at least 14 is a lot better than 8.



atmuscarella said:


> But then I spend my time watching TV and not the UI. The way some people act around here one would believe bought a TiVo to watch the UI not TV.


Agreed. I select the video I want and press <Play> That's pretty much the extent of my use of the UI.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I think the lull in development was mainly during their trial with Dish.


I think you might be right. Of course it could just be coincidence, but it makes some sense they might be linked.



Dan203 said:


> As soon as that was over they seemed to start focusing on development again. I don't know if it was a finical restraint or just the focus of the company being off, but I'm glad to see them back to actually working on things again.


It may have just been caution. I can uderstand their not wanting to push forward toward a technical horizon until they were sure what their financial horizon might be. Not only might it be unwise to spend resources on development they might hold dear at a later time, it also would be disappointing to spend resources on a path they might later have to abandon. An uncertainty of the extents of one's patent autorities would tend to impact almost every aspect of the business operations of a company like TiVo.


----------

