# TiVo Posts $4.13 Million Loss as Viewers Drop Service



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- TiVo Inc., the pioneer of digital- video recorders, reported a fiscal first-quarter loss as subscribers dropped the service.

The loss of $4.13 million, or 4 cents a share, compared with a profit of $3.62 million, or 4 cents, a year earlier, the Alviso, California-based company said today in a statement. Sales fell 9.7 percent to $54.9 million in the period ended April 30, beating the $53.8 million average of six analysts estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0Ax4o1KEeP8&refer=us


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

That's too bad...


----------



## MeStinkBAD (Jul 16, 2003)

They beat the estimate. That's good. It's no surprise they lost some cash in this economic environment. Everyone's loosing money.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

MeStinkBAD said:


> They beat the estimate. That's good. It's no surprise they lost some cash in this economic environment. Everyone's loosing money.


Tivo always beat estimates. From the day of IPO so called "analysts" are always predicting bigger loses. To be fair, they have been predicting bigger loses for absolute majority of dot.com for years. Economic environment has nothing to do with TiVo loses - TiVo lost money in best of times as well. The troubling part is not the loses - last quarter TiVo sold only 37K subs in 3 months and lost 67K for net loss of 30K subs. For a year TiVo lost 104K subs.
Considering that less than a million subs are paying recurring fees, it is a very large percentage.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

All the people that are complaining about the new ADs now on the TiVo system should read this thread as i hope the ADs bring TiVo money, that can only help us, the customers of TiVo, as it will keep TiVo in business that much longer or make them stronger. As long as I am not forced to watch the ADs or order a pizza once a month, TiVo (from my point of view ) can put all the ADs on they want.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lessd said:


> All the people that are complaining about the new ADs now on the TiVo system should read this thread as i hope the ADs bring TiVo money, that can only help us, the customers of TiVo, as it will keep TiVo in business that much longer or make them stronger. As long as I am not forced to watch the ADs or order a pizza once a month, TiVo (from my point of view ) can put all the ADs on they want.


they'll argue that the 104k that lest all did it because of ads- even though we see plenty of posts about people leaving and there's not a plethora of posts about leaving becasue of ads....


----------



## shadowplay (Mar 12, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> they'll argue that the 104k that lest all did it because of ads- even though we see plenty of posts about people leaving and there's not a plethora of posts about leaving becasue of ads....


True, but I don't recommend Tivo like I used to. The pause ads are easy enough to get rid of with a decent remote but they still annoy me...


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

lessd said:


> All the people that are complaining about the new ADs now on the TiVo system should read this thread as i hope the ADs bring TiVo money, that can only help us, the customers of TiVo, as it will keep TiVo in business that much longer or make them stronger. As long as I am not forced to watch the ADs or order a pizza once a month, TiVo (from my point of view ) can put all the ADs on they want.


There is no line item in SEC report on income from ads. That means that income from ads ( if any) is not material enough to report. All the income from ads projections are based on wishful thinking and designed to give Wall Street a hope for the light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

I just listened to the quarterly conference call.

Most of the TiVo subscription losses can still be attributed to the expected decline in the old DirecTV TiVo STB's. I believe the new DirecTV DVR's will be the beginning of subscriber gains starting in the beginning of the 2010 period.

It's important to remember that TiVo has been undergoing a multi-year transformation from a largely "anti-cable" DVR box to the cable UI and soon cable-based DVR alternative. In other words switching from a business to consumer model to largely a business to business model. These changes started with the Comcast TiVo UI upgrade and now moving to a cable DVR alternative within the cable industry. From small cable companies that will use TiVo as it's primary DVR to Comcast which appears ready to literally OFFER TiVo DVR's as an alternative to their largely inferior (by industry standards) in-house DVR packages. This mixed with Motorola's practical financial and competitive meltdown gives a cash rich TiVo alternative the advantage of a reliable, proven DVR system ready to go once VOD integration is completed. Smaller cable companies can use TiVo as a quick and easy upgrade for competition with larger competition offerings in the VOD arena as well as a DVR that is actually superior and well known in the market place.

TiVo is no longer fighting cable, but is attempting to take over a large segment of the cable DVR industry. All this can be achieved while having the cable partners do most of the marketing FOR TiVo.

This mixed with advertising on the DVR's to the "Start||Stop" ratings metering is the beginning of a more long-term income strategy that does not rely only on subscriber subscription income.

If TiVo has a good go with DirecTV again, continues the gains with the TiVo UI upgrades that eventually become simply direct cable TiVo DVR sales instead and can begin a solid run of TiVo only cable franchises means TiVo is on the cusp of a full 2010 into 2011 and 2012 rebound on a large-scale proportion that will shock many of the nay-sayers who declared TiVo dead years ago and have not been paying attention to TiVo's spread of income sources and more direct cable services.

Assuming all of this works.

2010 will definitely be the year that things come together and each income stream starts to show profit....or it will not.

I am optimistic for TiVo, the business model looks pretty good. However, many things could go wrong. But a weak economy and a worried shrinking cable base will probably in TiVo's best interest since they are the easy answer will be more appealing for cable companies and cable can focus on cost management, lower-structure investment and push for slower subscription losses instead of trying to fix/upgrade their aging DVR hardware and software.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> they'll argue that the 104k that lest all did it because of ads


I cannot imagine that they would: They're not idiots.


----------



## net114 (Dec 29, 2000)

samo said:


> All the income from ads projections are based on wishful thinking and designed to give Wall Street a hope for the light at the end of the tunnel.


I'm not saying your wrong, because I don't know myself, but just wondering where are you getting your facts to back up this statement? Or is this supposition on your part as a possible reason the ad revenue is not mentioned?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Generally, businesses don't reveal their motivations. It rather defeats the whole purpose of crafting a message, if you then go on to tell the people you're delivering that message to how you colored the message to bring about a certain type of desired response from them.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> . Economic environment has nothing to do with TiVo loses - TiVo lost money in best of times as well. The troubling part is not the loses - last quarter TiVo sold only 37K subs in 3 months and lost 67K for net loss of 30K subs. For a year TiVo lost 104K subs.
> Considering that less than a million subs are paying recurring fees, it is a very large percentage.


and is a larger percentage than normal because of the economic conditions. If I had lost my job and needed to tighten my budget then cable and TiVo subs are the first up on the chopping block of extraneous expenses.

And nowhere in that article did a statement from Roger's trumpet direct ad revenue and I have not seen that anywhere else. Not sure where you keep coming up with this TiVo inc. hype for ad revenue.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

net114 said:


> I'm not saying your wrong, because I don't know myself, but just wondering where are you getting your facts to back up this statement? Or is this supposition on your part as a possible reason the ad revenue is not mentioned?


Ad revenue is not yet "material"; TiVo has promised to start breaking it out once it becomes significant (see the transcript for the conference call yesterday).

As I've said before, IMO the current ad program on the standalone TiVos is just a pilot program to show feasibility and possibilities to the major cable and satellite systems. TiVo doesn't expect to get much revenue from the current program, but they want to convince the cable systems that there is potential revenue there, if the cable companies will partner with TiVo.

TiVo's efforts in this vein are obviously bearing fruit. I regard the major news from the announcements yesterday to be that Comcast will feature the TiVo tru2way (probably the Series 4) as *THE* primary Comcast DVR in an upcoming pilot market. If TiVo can become Comcast's default DVR, then sub numbers will clearly increase greatly and the TiVo ad possibilities will become valuable to advertisers, and thus to TiVo (and Comcast).


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Not good news. Cable supplied DVRs are better then tivo is some areas and tivo is better in other. One of tivo's advantages is drive expansion. Many cable DVRs have an eSATA port, just not active.

I question how many customers are willing to pay a premium price for a premium DVR. 

Consider a non-geek customer. Cable DVRs have no issues with cable cards, SDV dongles and don't generally require a phone or network connection. One bill. The cable company supports and services the box.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Does the subscriber count include Motorola boxes with the TiVo software installed?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

deandashl said:


> It's important to remember that TiVo has been undergoing a multi-year transformation from a largely "anti-cable" DVR box to the cable UI and soon cable-based DVR alternative. In other words switching from a business to consumer model to largely a business to business model.


Your comments are pretty much spot-on. It's worth mentioning though that it's less of a "switch" than an expansion or change in focus. TiVo sees the future of the retail box as a convergence device for digital content and they see their owned subscriptions as an opportunity to for development and innovation.

They'd like to maintain that pool and even grow it, but they saw last year that the subscriber acquisition costs associated with competing with cable DVRs on a head-to-head basis were not sustainable. So they made a concious decision to cut their SAC and accept a certain amount of subscriber loss as a result.

The view was that once the digital media aspect of the retail offering became a compelling marketing point they'd be on better competitive footing. It seems like they're reaching that point so it will be interesting to see if they'll spend a little more on marketing and be able to stop the owned subscriber bleed.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

morac said:


> Does the subscriber count include Motorola boxes with the TiVo software installed?


The Comcast Motorola boxes are included in the "MSO/Broadcaster" owned numbers. They're included with subs from DirecTV, Seven, and Cablevision Mexico. Any adds in those areas have been more than offset by losses from DirecTV so it's hard to say just how many adds they're getting from Comcast.

The loss of MSO subs was lower than in recent quarters, so either they're starting to get some adds on the cable side or they're getting down to the diehards on DirecTV.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

nrc said:


> The loss of MSO subs was lower than in recent quarters, so either they're starting to get some adds on the cable side or they're getting down to the diehards on DirecTV.


If you look at the numbers, DirecTV dropped subs as percentage of total left are about constant. That tells me that most of the DirecTV dropped subs are due to hardware failure. So attrition rate should be consistent with the hard drive failure rates.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

bicker said:


> I cannot imagine that they would: They're not idiots.


They're not?? IMO, they are....


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

lew said:


> Cable supplied DVRs are better then tivo is some areas and tivo is better in other.


As someone who had a Comcast DVR for 4 years and now a TiVo for 2 months that statement mystifies me.

I'm trying to find how my Comcast DVR was better and I can't find it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

There are several advantages the cable company DVRs have. The most notable, and typically the overriding consideration for many consumers, is that they have little or no up-front cost. Another consideration for many is that they support the cable company's On Demand service.


----------



## Bernie (May 22, 2002)

bicker said:


> There are several advantages the cable company DVRs have. The most notable, and typically the overriding consideration for many consumers, is that they have little or no up-front cost. Another consideration for many is that they support the cable company's On Demand service.


Plus, it's one less component in your entertainment center.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Bernie said:


> Plus, it's one less component in your entertainment center.


how so? I have a TiVo HD in my entertainment center.
With it I can stream Netflix and download movies and record all the channels I get.

I rip DVDs to my PC in the home office and use PyTiVo to watch them on the TiVo HD with the full TiVo interface and no surprises from a dirty or scratched disc.

The only part not accessible is PPV/VOD but with TiVo to record shows and Netflix to get shows I have no actual need for it. A series 4 will actually have to sell me on other features for me to want to upgrade when a sereis 4 comes out.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

deandashl said:


> As someone who had a Comcast DVR for 4 years and now a TiVo for 2 months that statement mystifies me.
> 
> I'm trying to find how my Comcast DVR was better and I can't find it.


I have a TivoHD and a Verizon DVR. The Verizon DVR had no upfront cost and (promotional pricing) a monthly price that's not much more then the cost of two cable cards. Verizon is responsible for any repairs. The Verizon box can access FilOS extensive VoD offerings, many of which are free. Selecting a program to record is faster with my Verizon box. It uses some kind of predictive text algorithm which works well. Typing Plain will bring up In Plain Sight as an example. I change the default settings for SP (first run only for example). The box uses MoCA to communicate with the internet. I don't have to worry about a modem, a wireless adapter or wireless settings.

I'm not familar with the Comcast DVR but for many customers no upfront cost, one bill, one party to contact for service lower monthly costs, availability of VoD....outweight tivo's advantages.

edited to add This is a tivo community. Obviously most of the posters are willing to pay a premium price for extra features. Many other customers prefer the simple solution.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lew said:


> I have a TivoHD and a Verizon DVR. The Verizon DVR had no upfront cost and (promotional pricing) a monthly price that's not much more then the cost of two cable cards. Verizon is responsible for any repairs. The Verizon box can access FilOS extensive VoD offerings, many of which are free. Selecting a program to record is faster with my Verizon box. It uses some kind of predictive text algorithm which works well. Typing Plain will bring up In Plain Sight as an example. I change the default settings for SP (first run only for example). The box uses MoCA to communicate with the internet. I don't have to worry about a modem, a wireless adapter or wireless settings.
> 
> I'm not familar with the Comcast DVR but for many customers no upfront cost, one bill, one party to contact for service lower monthly costs, availability of VoD....outweight tivo's advantages.
> 
> edited to add This is a tivo community. Obviously most of the posters are willing to pay a premium price for extra features. Many other customers prefer the simple solution.


This is a big problem for TiVo that will be hard to solve as a stand-alone-box, my less technical friends will not touch TiVo for the reasons you just gave. What keeps me and my family using TiVo is the bigger drive one can put into the unit and MRV, if both those options had not been present I would not be using TiVo for my DVR.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lessd said:


> This is a big problem for TiVo that will be hard to solve as a stand-alone-box, my less technical friends will not touch TiVo for the reasons you just gave. What keeps me and my family using TiVo is the bigger drive one can put into the unit and MRV, if both those options had not been present I would not be using TiVo for my DVR.


it will be hard to solve on Verizon which is not like a normal cable company.

TiVo however is deep in various negotiations/designs for bring PPV/VOD to the TiVo DVR to address the needs of the very type of people you point out.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

In my case, I have Time Warner cable, and I think it's cheaper for me to use TiVo than a Time Warner DVR. The DVR at TW has a monthly cost, plus I think their DVR requires digital cable, whereas I have analog. Digital costs more per month, plus there's the DVR cost per month. Since I have liftimed TiVos, I have no monthly cost, though admittedly there's an implicit monthly cost when amortized out for the life of my devices. I've had them enough years though, that I think I'm cheaper off with TiVo.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

timckelley said:


> In my case, I have Time Warner cable, and I think it's cheaper for me to use TiVo than a Time Warner DVR. The DVR at TW has a monthly cost, plus I think their DVR requires digital cable, whereas I have analog. Digital costs more per month, plus there's the DVR cost per month. Since I have liftimed TiVos, I have no monthly cost, though admittedly there's an implicit monthly cost when amortized out for the life of my devices. I've had them enough years though, that I think I'm cheaper off with TiVo.


An increasing number of cable systems are reducing the number of, or are eliminating all, analog stations. A tivo S3 and cable card (rental fee) are required for those customers.

You already paid for LS, it makes sense for you to keep your tivo but an honest cost comparison can't assume a zero cost for tivo service.


----------



## Bernie (May 22, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> how so? I have a TiVo HD in my entertainment center.
> With it I can stream Netflix and download movies and record all the channels I get.
> 
> What I meant was one less *box* in the entertainment center. Based solely on the assumption that the Cable box would have Tivo built in. Right now I have a Tivo box (lifetime subs) and a cable HD box.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Bernie said:


> What I meant was one less *box* in the entertainment center. Based solely on the assumption that the Cable box would have Tivo built in. Right now I have a Tivo box (lifetime subs) and a cable HD box.


an older series 2 i presume?

a series 3/tivohd would be a single HD box.

or are you saying you need a second cable company provided box to get vod?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Bernie said:


> ZeoTiVo said:
> 
> 
> > how so? I have a TiVo HD in my entertainment center.
> ...


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

bicker said:


> There are several advantages the cable company DVRs have. The most notable, and typically the overriding consideration for many consumers, is that they have little or no up-front cost. Another consideration for many is that they support the cable company's On Demand service.


Dealing with a single provider could be another advantage (no finger-pointing) as well as free replacement if it breaks.
Regardless of the major reason, cable companies DVRs outsell TiVo by the order of magnitude. It would take a marketing genius to explain to consumers why should they go with TiVo. Incompetent marketing department that TiVo has just doesn't cut it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> Dealing with a single provider could be another advantage (no finger-pointing) as well as free replacement if it breaks.


Yes, and if that is an overriding factor to someone then frankly nothing is going to override that.


----------



## ndhaack (Nov 26, 2006)

i have used directv, dish, att uverse, and comcast dvrs in the past and for my family and I the Tivo interface, while starting to feel slow and look a little dated, is still tops. 

The comcast dvr is a nightmare. The directv and dish offerings are not too bad, but lack a lot of features compared to tivo. uverse is OK, but there 4 dvrs thing is a little misleading. Its really just one with 3 that can access it.

Anyway, just saying, i cannot understand why someone would leave tivo, unless there are underlying financial considerations in this economy in particular that would drive the decision.

I have a couple of friends who have eschewed all for-pay tv services and are strictly over-the-air.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

deandashl said:


> It's important to remember that TiVo has been undergoing a multi-year transformation from a largely "anti-cable" DVR box to the cable UI and soon cable-based DVR alternative. In other words switching from a business to consumer model to largely a business to business model. These changes started with the Comcast TiVo UI upgrade and now moving to a cable DVR alternative within the cable industry.


Which means to me, like Echostar and a few other companies have announced, that the Tru2Way TiVo is likely going to be directly marketed to MSOs, not end consumers. Isn't the whole point of these standards that customers buy these boxes and use them?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The government can "intend" the standards any way they wish, but that is not going to force end-customers to buy what the government intends for them to buy. If the end-customers prefer the leasing arrangement, as evidenced by their purchasing behaviors, then there is little the government can do to get customers to satisfy the expectation that the government's intention placed on customers.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

lew said:


> Not good news. Cable supplied DVRs are better then tivo is some areas and tivo is better in other. One of tivo's advantages is drive expansion. Many cable DVRs have an eSATA port, just not active.
> 
> I question how many customers are willing to pay a premium price for a premium DVR.


I think this is the big question. I suspect you are right a lot will not. Some TiVo holdovers will likely want to switch on DirecTV when TiVo goes back, but the average consumer is not going to switch. The HR2x boxes work very well and are being improved upon all the time. I personally would have no interest in paying more to get a TiVo unless it provided something I had to have.

I am still waiting for the day TiVo shows me it is run by competent people. I think the fact that TiVo is still in business today is solely a testament to the underlying technology they established way back when. The people running the company (which ever group it might be), have continually done everything they can think of to destroy TiVo. TiVo should be a monster success with massive cash reserves and a stranglehold on the DVR market as the interface people want and desire.

Instead they are continually slipping while we have people clinging to hope that they can storm the cable market and reclaim past glory with DirecTv, but all at premium prices.

I was a TiVo zealot for many years. I still have a closet stacked with half a dozen Tivos. As a consumer though, I just don't care any more about their products. To get me interested they would have to be able to reach me and convince me that their product is worth the extra money paid to them. From past experience I was always screwed with my tivos. I always ended up paying more and getting less. This all goes to the incompetent management. I have no confidence in them providing more for less or even more for the same, or even the same for more.

TiVo had one of the greatest opportunities and openings to become a huge force in the history of American Businesses. You just don't see many perfect storms where everything was set up for one company to go from nothing to massive. The only way for them to have blown it was to shoot off everyone of their own toes one by one. Miraculously they seem to have accomplished the impossible. Now they have no toes.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Personally, I went from cable DVR to Tivo. Why? Well, it wasn't that hard to figure out why:

Firstly, when I DVR something, I want to be able to actually *own* the content (ie: store it somewhere else). I don't know of a single cable DVR that looks out for their customers in that fashion.

Secondly, it's less money. Around here, DVR boxes go for $15-$20 / month, and that's not counting the "digital" packages. Yeah, it's a bit of an upfront investment (I think I paid around $100 for my series2 and $200 for my TivoHD), but if you pay yearly, it's still a hell of a discount. Even with 2 dvr's, I'm averaging less than I would with one through my cable company.

Thirdly, it's a way for me to bite back @ my local company. These idiots don't know their head from a hole in the ground, are constantly keeping things down for hours on end, and sometimes days. Sure, I know, it's only $10-$20/month, but why should I pay that to the cable provider when they just don't want to do crap for me but raise rates?

As well, Tivo does so much more than just DVR any more. When I had 2 TV's, it was easy to get tivos networked with the pc and share files from all three between the TV's. Media storage? Sure. Video rentals? Sure. I have *yet* to see a cable DVR that can compete with Tivo's capabilities. The only thing THEY have going for them is the damned On Demand and PPV events, 1/2 of which I can call in and order.


----------



## hc130radio (Sep 16, 2004)

shadowplay said:


> True, but I don't recommend Tivo like I used to. The pause ads are easy enough to get rid of with a decent remote but they still annoy me...


I could care less about the pause ads, or any ads for that fact. The basic function of recording, rewinding, and fast forwarding and watching TV whenever I want still has me as a Tivo customer until those basic functions no longer exist.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Exactly!

I love hearing people complain about some ridiculous pause ads. It's like they've got nothing to do with their life but whine about the smallest little thing.

As long as my DVR's still function properly, I will remain a subscriber. Hell, I've gone from one to two devices in < 3 years, and still pay for service on both. Forget the pause ads, they blend in well, and they're easily ignored. Who *cares*, really?


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

I would like to see *MORE* TiVo ads. I actually look at some of them.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

I thought the tivo for direct tv was incompatible with tivo for cable or over the air. I seem to recall reading that on the box.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

marksman said:


> I have no confidence in them providing more for less or even more for the same, or even the same for more.
> 
> TiVo had one of the greatest opportunities and openings to become a huge force in the history of American Businesses. You just don't see many perfect storms where everything was set up for one company to go from nothing to massive. The only way for them to have blown it was to shoot off everyone of their own toes one by one. Miraculously they seem to have accomplished the impossible. Now they have no toes.


Anecdotal evidence, but true story. 10 years ago I was one of first people to get TiVo. Every time my friends visited me I showed them my new toy - 14 hr S1 TiVo. But I could never convince any of them to buy one. They just couldn't get over the fact that they had to pay monthly for what they considered VCR replacement.
Go forward 10 years. All of my friends have some kind of DVR. I'm the only one who has TiVo (I still have 2 R10s).
Somehow cable and satellite companies convinced my friends to get DVRs, but none of them got sold on TiVo in 10 years. And after 10 years of using TiVo, I'm not convinced that I will ever buy another one. They would have to come up with a minor miracle and do something great and different for the new DirecTivo (and ads is not what I'm looking forward for) to convince me to buy another unit.


----------



## spocko (Feb 4, 2009)

I agree with twhiting9275. I don't see Tivo as being a "premium priced" product unless you put all DVRs into that category. All DVRs are expensive to own. For many years I suffered with a VCR because I wasn't willing to pay that cost. Once I came to terms with that cost and decided that I wanted a DVR, Tivo was a no-brainer for me:

- Long term, Tivo costs less than DVR rental from Comcast.
- Tivo does more. The Netflix support, wishlist recording, and the ability to transfer movies to/from the Tivo are huge benefits for me. 
- Tivo works better.

I think the main reason cableco DVRs are so much more popular than Tivo are:

- Cableco DVRs are painless to order/install. Tivo takes more thought and effort to setup.
- Many people are averse to the up-front cost of Tivo.
- Tivo doesn't do cable-supplied VOD/PPV.
- People don't know how Tivo is better and different. People don't know that Tivo can save them money. Poor marketing is to blame.

Not much Tivo can do about the first 3 points right now. They certainly could address the poor marketing, but apparently they don't want to. In the earnings call they actually sound quite proud of themselves for NOT investing in marketing. I don't get that. It makes me wonder if they are thinking about eliminating retail sales and just going through the MSOs. That would be a shame in my opinion.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The reality is that your fourth point isn't completely accurate; many people do know that TiVo is different, but they don't consider it better or worth the extra money. They are not wrong in their conclusion -- they simply have different priorities. And that's why TiVo didn't become the iPhone of television: Because, no matter how much we favor what it offers, *a lot of people simply don't*.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

shwru980r said:


> I thought the tivo for direct tv was incompatible with tivo for cable or over the air. I seem to recall reading that on the box.


It is not compatible with cable or OTA (excepting the HR10 which can receive and record OTA but only with DirecTV service). What did you read in this thread that made you ask this?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

bicker said:


> The reality is that your fourth point isn't completely accurate; many people do know that TiVo is different, but they don't consider it better or worth the extra money. They are not wrong in their conclusion -- they simply have different priorities. And that's why TiVo didn't become the iPhone of television: Because, no matter how much we favor what it offers, *a lot of people simply don't*.


You stated the problem correctly, for myself it's MRV that got me to replace my families VCRs, if MRV did not happen with TiVo (or any DVR) I think that we would still be using the VCR as that had MRV (just move the tape to another VCR in another room) For me I have no interest in most of the new features that TiVo has given us after MRV.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16555005#post16555005


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> The reality is that your fourth point isn't completely accurate; many people do know that TiVo is different, but they don't consider it better or worth the extra money. They are not wrong in their conclusion -- they simply have different priorities.


Some of them are wrong. Their conclusions are based on ignorance, incomplete information, and assumptions. If you put a TiVo in their home today then in a week they'd be asking why they didn't do this years ago. We see that here all the time.

The problem is that when you have cheap, convenient cable company DVRs that "some of them" doesn't represent a high enough percentage of households to justify the money that TiVo was spending not long ago. $300 per subscriber is just too much with only a one year commitment.

But Internet content is changing the game again. People are buying Roku and Apple TV boxes in addition to their cable boxes. This coming Holiday season would be perfect timing for TiVo to let people know that one box can deliver more than of all those boxes put together and for less money.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> Some of them are wrong. Their conclusions are based on ignorance, incomplete information, and assumptions.


And your conclusions about them *aren't?*



nrc said:


> If you put a TiVo in their home today then in a week they'd be asking why they didn't do this years ago. We see that here all the time.


Some, maybe, but we also see some people here who clearly have buyers' remorse, and if they hadn't put a few hundred dollars into this venture, would have ditched and gone back to what they were doing before.

I'm not saying it is 50/50, but you cannot know which of the folks fall into which category, so the only defensible assertion is that which accepts the word of anyone who claims to be unaffected by their lack of TiVo.


----------



## SpiritualPoet (Jan 14, 2007)

For consumers where neatness and space matters, it's just a matter of time when people can subscribe to off site program storage; i.e., no box. The customers simply point an infrared or RF contoller to their satelite receiver or to their cable box, press a few buttons, and all functionality occurs as with a TiVo box to the television receiver, aside from there being no additional box at all. The higher the customer's monthly bill, the more remote storage capacity (in tiers of course). Hmmm. Could this really happen? Who's to disagree?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

marksman said:


> TiVo had one of the greatest opportunities and openings to become a huge force in the history of American Businesses. You just don't see many perfect storms where everything was set up for one company to go from nothing to massive.


how so? the majority of households still do not have a DVR at all and for those that do many just indeed wanted a VCR replacement and never saw it as some media convergence oppurtunity. So they got the DVR from the cable company as the buy in for that was very low.

I would not call it a perfect storm at all but a long uphill struggle that TiVo actually had little chance of breaking through until DVRs were in most households and bulk of users started thinking more about features as value versus just record stuff for as cheap as possible.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> And your conclusions about them *aren't?*


Not in regard to the choice of TiVo or my cable company's DVR. With regard to other topics, yes. But my omniscience or lack of same isn't the point.

You implied that the fact that a consumer makes a choice means that it's always the right choice. That's not always the case. Sometimes people are just plain wrong because they're working on incomplete or incorrect information or assumptions.



> Some, maybe, but we also see some people here who clearly have buyers' remorse, and if they hadn't put a few hundred dollars into this venture, would have ditched and gone back to what they were doing before.
> 
> I'm not saying it is 50/50, but you cannot know which of the folks fall into which category, so the only defensible assertion is that which accepts the word of anyone who claims to be unaffected by their lack of TiVo.


You're not following the argument. I pointed out that some of them are indeed wrong. Whether or not some of them try TiVo and find that they were right, some non-zero number try TiVo and find that they were wrong. Others may never try TiVo and yet if they did they would find that they were wrong.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nrc said:


> Not in regard to the choice of TiVo or my cable company's DVR.


I asked how your conclusions about the people who prefer cable company DVRs are anything other than are based on ignorance, incomplete information, and assumptions. And I think you know that.



nrc said:


> But my omniscience or lack of same isn't the point.


You made it so when you made your generalization about the people who preferred cable company DVRs.



nrc said:


> You implied that the fact that a consumer makes a choice means that it's *always *the right choice.


No I didn't. Stop being lazy. Instead of arguing against *something I didn't say*, why not engage the discussion with intellectual honesty, and acknowledge what *I actually did say*?

What I said was that *many *people do know that TiVo is different, but they don't consider it better or worth the extra money. They are not wrong in their conclusion -- they simply have different priorities.



nrc said:


> That's not always the case.


No one said it was. You were arguing about something easy to argue against instead of the message you were actually replying to.



nrc said:


> You're not following the argument.


No, I'm rejecting the absolutism you're wallowing in. Big difference.


----------



## tivohaydon (Mar 24, 2001)

An interesting discussion - I was with DirecTV and had four TiVos on my account for 8 years (started with the DSR6000). I enjoyed them, hacked them for MRV and was happy. With the move to HD programming those same TiVos started becoming dinosaurs. (Not that DirecTV's SD programming was ever something to write home about, but the TiVo service kept me with them.)

I looked at my options and usage and discovered:
- I'd have to pay a crazy amount of money for HD TiVos to replace what I have
- Ads upset me - I did not buy an expensive single purpose computer, pay a monthly fee just to own an ad delivery service courtesy of TiVo
- 90% of the programs I record were on the major networks, I was paying ~$100 a month for two shows and CNN

I replaced TiVo with a Vista Media Center computer. I can record four programs at once on a single computer and get HD (not recompressed) content FOR FREE using an antenna (remember those?).

- $1200/yr savings from cable/satellite.
- $??/yr savings from TiVo (if I went HD)
- No stinking ads to deal with.
- Reliable RF remote control.
- It sleeps and powers down when not recording!
- Good DVR features (the recorded program listing is *****e though)
- Great picture quality and sound (bit-perfect)
- Automatic commercial skipping if you desire
- Those two shows I used to pay $100 a month for? I can watch them on Hulu using the same media center PC.
- I can stream CNN from their web site using the media center PC.
- Still have MRV like features - huzzah
- Can burn a downconverted DVD of any program complete with a menu
- Have access to all of the same streaming media that TiVo has been advertising

In the future I'll only go back to TiVo if I need a DVR that works on cable and the monthly cost is cheaper than the provider's DVR. TiVo have simply lost their way from providing the best viewing experience.

Of course, I'm a bit more technically minded than most so I can get all this running smoothly - but this stuff is getting EASIER to set up.


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

I choose to ignore those that bicker.

The verb says it all. Plenty of damaged souls over at AVSForums (and at least 12 other forums that involve Comcast) over that one.

I HIGHLY recommend ignoring that endless corporate circle to nowhere.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

bicker said:


> I asked how your conclusions about the people who prefer cable company DVRs are anything other than are based on ignorance, incomplete information, and assumptions. And I think you know that.
> 
> You made it so when you made your generalization about the people who preferred cable company DVRs.


I said from the start "Some of them are wrong." Clearly I'm not making a generalization about all of them. Next.



> No I didn't. Stop being lazy. Instead of arguing against *something I didn't say*, why not engage the discussion with intellectual honesty, and acknowledge what *I actually did say*?
> 
> What I said was that *many *people do know that TiVo is different, but they don't consider it better or worth the extra money. They are not wrong in their conclusion -- they simply have different priorities.


You either write poorly or you're trying to reconstruct what you said. It's two sentences. In the second sentence you say "They are not wrong." Who are not wrong? Many people? No, normal parsing of what you wrote is that "they" refers to the group that you identified in your previous sentence: the many people do know that TiVo is different, but don't consider it better or worth the money. If you weren't referring to all of them you would have (or should have) written "most of them are not wrong" or "some of them are right." But who would argue with that?

You'll save yourself a lot of bolding if you learn to just say "that wasn't what I meant" or "sorry, I was wrong". It stings a little but it doesn't look as ridiculous as attacking the person who corrects you or arguing that people's choices are infallible.

Either you understand this or you don't. I'm not wasting any more effort explaining it to you.


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

SpiritualPoet said:


> For consumers where neatness and space matters, it's just a matter of time when people can subscribe to off site program storage; i.e., no box. The customers simply point an infrared or RF contoller to their satelite receiver or to their cable box, press a few buttons, and all functionality occurs as with a TiVo box to the television receiver, aside from there being no additional box at all. The higher the customer's monthly bill, the more remote storage capacity (in tiers of course). Hmmm. Could this really happen? Who's to disagree?


It happening. Like Today. Yeah today.
From Reuters:
Solicitor-General sides with Cablevision on DVR

* Solicitor-General supports Cablevision DVR ruling

* Cablevision to start on remote DVR in summer

NEW YORK, May 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Solicitor General has sided with Cablevision Systems Corp (CVC.N) in the cable operator's long-running dispute with several program-makers over the roll-out of its network-based video recorder.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan on Friday denied plaintiffs including Time Warner Inc's (TWX.N), News Corp (NWSA.O), CBS Corp (CBS.N) and Walt Disney Co (DIS.N), their petition for a Supreme Court hearing.

The media companies have argued that Cablevision's proposed service -- which, like TiVo Inc's (TIVO.O), would allow viewers to record any program on TV -- would infringe the copyrights of the movies and television programs they produce. They had been hoping to overturn a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York which would allow Cablevision subscribers to record and play back programs on the remote system based within Cablevision's own cable plant.

Cablevision is already making plans to move ahead with a summer trial of the so-called remote-storage DVRs. The cable company is keen on launching the new service which it believes could eventually save it millions of dollars required to buy and install thousands of physical DVR boxes for customers every year.

Other cable operators like Time Warner Cable Inc (TWC.N) and Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) are keeping a close eye on the case which could also save them tens of millions of dollars in capital spending. Cable set top boxes and DVR boxes take the biggest share of most cable companies' capital expenditure.

"We're obviously pleased with the Solicitor General's recommendation and continue to believe in the legality of remote-storage DVRs, as validated by the unanimous Second Circuit decision," the company said in prepared statement.

Cablevision, which serves over 3 million customers in the New York metropolitan area, first announced the plans for the RS-DVR in 2006.

(Reporting by Yinka Adegoke; Editing by Richard Chang)


----------



## spocko (Feb 4, 2009)

bicker said:


> The reality is that your fourth point isn't completely accurate; many people do know that TiVo is different, but they don't consider it better or worth the extra money.


We disagree on that point. I think the majority of people don't really understand how Tivo is different than other DVRs. I've met plenty of people who call any DVR a "Tivo". You're right that they don't consider Tivo better, because they don't understand or just don't care about the things that make Tivo better.

On the subject of cost, I'm getting tired of hearing so many people say that Tivo is "extra money" or "more expensive". The fact is that for many people it isn't. Comparing monthly fees for me, a Comcast DVR is $17/mo + taxes, while Tivo is $13/mo. If you pay the Tivo fees as yearly or lifetime, the effective monthly cost is even lower. Yes Tivo requires you to put some money down up front, but the reward is that the recurring fees are lower. Over the long haul, Tivo costs less. There are probably lots of people who don't understand this either. You should not be one of them.


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> how so? the majority of households still do not have a DVR at all and for those that do many just indeed wanted a VCR replacement and never saw it as some media convergence oppurtunity. So they got the DVR from the cable company as the buy in for that was very low.
> 
> I would not call it a perfect storm at all but a long uphill struggle that TiVo actually had little chance of breaking through until DVRs were in most households and bulk of users started thinking more about features as value versus just record stuff for as cheap as possible.


I work in the video games Industry. One of the stats Sony liked to throw around in the 90's was that the Original Playstation had the same household penetration as the VCR at a faster rate. Off the top of my head I think it was 25% of the time. To clarify if it took the VCR 16 years to reach 1 half of American households the Playstation did it in 4 years. (the numbers are not 16 and 4 but the ratio is correct).
In the industry when we all saw the Tivo at that first CES we thought OMG, this is what people have been waiting for. So I have to disagree and say it WAS a perfect storm. The market was ready for the product. DVD was in full swing at the time had one major flaw. You could not record tv (at least not for less than $2000). Tivo had major opportunity and they let it slip away. They let everyone catch up. Think about it. The technology was ALREADY superior to the alternative(VCR's and DVD's). The Tivo you have today is pretty much the same basic components.
Disk Drive
Interface
Tuner
Yep, the drives have gotten faster, bigger, quieter. There are things like cable cards to we don't have to use those infrared blasters anyone, it's networked now, blah, blah blah.
But the basics to be a giants was always there.
They just could never figure out how to tell the masses. It was really frustrating to go to electronic conventions and see the Tivo sign with the "Pause live TV banner". Yes people would gather around and think that was interesting but when they heard the cost. Well a lot less people were interested. Only the hard core people like us who took a long look and said.....wait a minute. This doesn't pause live tv. IT REPLACES MY VCR. With a perfect copy, that doesn't require tapes, it knows when the show is on, what time it starts and ends, and allows me to time shift. Yes the first time I heard that phrase was on a Tivo message board back in the day. The execs at Tivo did not have clue how to market this thing. Time shafting became the new buzz on the "interwebs" Yet Tivo kept telling people to buy this $500 device to pause live tv.
It reminds me a lot of Apple in the early days. They could not figure out how to tell people that they had a better product. Apple pretty much remained a niche company until they built the ipod and reintroduced America to Apple. Sadly Tivo has shown no indication that they are capable of this kind of comeback.


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

spocko said:


> We disagree on that point. I think the majority of people don't really understand how Tivo is different than other DVRs. I've met plenty of people who call any DVR a "Tivo". You're right that they don't consider Tivo better, because they don't understand or just don't care about the things that make Tivo better.
> 
> On the subject of cost, I'm getting tired of hearing so many people say that Tivo is "extra money" or "more expensive". The fact is that for many people it isn't. Comparing monthly fees for me, a Comcast DVR is $17/mo + taxes, while Tivo is $13/mo. If you pay the Tivo fees as yearly or lifetime, the effective monthly cost is even lower. Yes Tivo requires you to put some money down up front, but the reward is that the recurring fees are lower. Over the long haul, Tivo costs less. There are probably lots of people who don't understand this either. You should not be one of them.


Wrong. I used to have stand alone Tivo and a Comcast DVR at the same time.
(I wanted to get all the HD possible and back in those days there were a lot of HD channels only available on one or the other)
I ran the numbers with yearly and with lifetime. Here is what you are missing. You never have to replace the Comcast box. Every year I would call them and ask "do you have a new box" Every two years (on average) they would have a new model from Motorola. I would bring my old box in (so they do not charge me from a house visit), give them my old box and walk out with a new box. And yes it was STILL inferior to a Tivo.
With my Tivo, way, way, way before I would break even, it would be time for a new box.
So no, even though the monthly fee is less, the cable DVR is cheaper. I am not the first person to point this out. Many people have posted the details of the numbers (this is important because cable fees differ arround the country), and it never works out in Tivo's favor
UNLESS
....you decide. You know what, this series 1 is perfectly fine. I'm not upgrading. Then yes the numbers will tilt in Tivo's favor after 3 or 4 years. A lot longer for me in Seattle because Comcast only charges me $10 for a DVR.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

deandashl said:


> I HIGHLY recommend ignoring that endless corporate circle to nowhere.


Some people choose to actually deal with reality rather than ignoring it.



nrc said:


> I said from the start "Some of them are wrong." Clearly I'm not making a generalization about all of them.


And I said from the start, "many people do know that TiVo is different" not all. Clearly I'm not making a generalization.

Next.



nrc said:


> You either write poorly or you're trying to reconstruct what you said. It's two sentences. In the second sentence you say "They are not wrong." Who are not wrong? Many people?


Where did you learn to read? Of course the second sentence in a paragraph applies to the context of the first sentence. Why the heck would you think that they are unrelated thoughts... and even if you did think that (I think that you're lying about having been confused in that way), why didn't you mention your perceived lack of consistency between the two sentences before you replied to them.

You read what you wanted to reply to, instead of what was there. There's nothing wrong with my writing, other than I post things you don't like, and I don't make it easy for you to pick apart on the basis of being too imprecise.



nrc said:


> No, normal parsing of what you wrote is that "they" refers to the group that you identified in your previous sentence: the many people do know that TiVo is different, but don't consider it better or worth the money.


So now you are acknowledging you were wrong. Okay, apology accepted.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

spocko said:


> We disagree on that point. I think the majority of people don't really understand how Tivo is different than other DVRs.


Still leaving many people who do.



spocko said:


> On the subject of cost, I'm getting tired of hearing so many people say that Tivo is "extra money" or "more expensive".


I'm quick to point out that it averages a 2 1/2 year break-even, but that still puts people behind the eight ball for 2 1/2 years, and it also means that they need to come up with the purchase price up-front. There are a lot of people out there for whom putting that much money on the line for something like this is never going to be the right decision.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

seattlewendell said:


> In the industry when we all saw the Tivo at that first CES we thought OMG, this is what people have been waiting for. So I have to disagree and say it WAS a perfect storm. The market was ready for the product. DVD was in full swing at the time had one major flaw. You could not record tv (at least not for less than $2000).


yet DVD players that can not record are in every home the same as VCRs were at one time. Both devices had high penetration because people could acquire movies through rental or buying and just insert them and play. Majority of people never used the VCR to record or at most set it to tape some one thing they were going to miss otherwise.

You and I were like OMG, that is what I have been waiting for but most people just don't regard TV in that way even today. The majority or people still just watch TV when it is on. I am puzzled as to why people do that even when they can get a DVR from the cable company but they still have that behavior. Go figure.

So sure "pause live TV" does not even begin to explain how a DVR benefits the user but for most people that seems to be their only issue. Gosh, wish I could pause Desperate Housewives while I get that phone call. 
In part I think the iPod explains it - younger people could get an iPod and use it, but they had no influence on the adults to change up the TV system with a DVR.

anyhow I briefly thought like you did, that lots of people would be all over a DVR but soon realized it was my own thought process of wanting one and there was no storm of demand from the public at large for such a beast.

The rate of use in a household for a DVR is climbing now. In some number of years DVRs might finally get a place equal to the PC or iPod in the number of households that have one


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

seattlewendell said:


> With my Tivo, way, way, way before I would break even, it would be time for a new box.
> So no, even though the monthly fee is less, the cable DVR is cheaper. I am not the first person to point this out. Many people have posted the details of the numbers (this is important because cable fees differ arround the country), and it never works out in Tivo's favor
> UNLESS
> ....you decide. You know what, this series 1 is perfectly fine. I'm not upgrading.


Never is a bit strong - though I agree you can't be cutting edge with a single TiVo and have it work out favorably (but you can't be cutting edge with the cable DVR, period).

I've spent ~$1450 on my current main TiVo sub which has been continuously subscribed and used since year 2000 ($150 S1 + $200 lifetime + $100 disk + $700 S3 + $200 lifetime transfer + $100 warranty replacement shipping (2x49)). It's conservatively worth $350 now. That works out to just over $10 per month which I think is a bit less than the local Comcast charges would average out to (currently $16.25 per month including remote, originally about $7.10 per month). You factor in the aggravation of contact with the cable company, and the TiVo is a clear winner!

My S2's with lifetime have been even more worthwhile, since I use them for 2-3 years (cutting edge for me) and then give them to relatives who are still happily using them (well, one recently defected to cable for HD). But it's much harder to value them.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

PP hit it right, a lot of people consider a DVR as a VCR replacement. Cable DVRs work fine. An increasing number of cable systems are setting the no copy flag on an increasing number of channels. Features like MRV and TTG are becoming less valuable. People on TCF are "pro tivo" and are more likely to self-repair a failing hard drive then the general public. Posters on TCF don't understand how many people prefer the simplicity of the one phone call for support solution provided by the cable supplied DVR.

I'm tired of posters who refuse to accept the fact that tivo is generally more expensive. Almost all new TV sets are HD and an increasing number of cable systems are moving more stations to digital only. Only the S3 units make sense for new purchase, for the vast majority of customers. Tivo cost is $13/month. Assume $3/month for a M card. Your saving is now $1 month. Purchase a tivo, charge it to a credit card and pay $1 every month. You'll never pay off your tivo purchase. Make no allowance for interest your break-even point will be around 200 months.

Tivo only makes sense if a customer thinks the extra features of tivo is worth paying extra.

MSD may provide savings if a customer is looking for multiple DVRs.



spocko said:


> We disagree on that point. I think the majority of people don't really understand how Tivo is different than other DVRs. I've met plenty of people who call any DVR a "Tivo". You're right that they don't consider Tivo better, because they don't understand or just don't care about the things that make Tivo better.
> 
> On the subject of cost, I'm getting tired of hearing so many people say that Tivo is "extra money" or "more expensive". The fact is that for many people it isn't. Comparing monthly fees for me, a Comcast DVR is $17/mo + taxes, while Tivo is $13/mo. If you pay the Tivo fees as yearly or lifetime, the effective monthly cost is even lower. Yes Tivo requires you to put some money down up front, but the reward is that the recurring fees are lower. Over the long haul, Tivo costs less. There are probably lots of people who don't understand this either. You should not be one of them.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Some people, like me, don't use cable cards, so that monthly cost isn't there. Plus, the $13 / month can be decreased by going lifetime. Also, I bought one of my lifetimed TiVos used (already lifetimed by original owner), so good deals can be had that way as well.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

spocko said:


> ...I think the majority of people don't really understand how Tivo is different than other DVRs. I've met plenty of people who call any DVR a "Tivo". You're right that they don't consider Tivo better, because they don't understand or just don't care about the things that make Tivo better.


Many people, myself included, don't care about many of the things that make Tivo better. They want a DVR, not 'more than a DVR'.

The two things I really care about that TiVo offers and Comcast doesn't is rock solid reliability and the ability to record a program from an external source via analog ch. 3.



> On the subject of cost, I'm getting tired of hearing so many people say that Tivo is "extra money" or "more expensive". The fact is that for many people it isn't. Comparing monthly fees for me, a Comcast DVR is $17/mo + taxes, while Tivo is $13/mo. If you pay the Tivo fees as yearly or lifetime, the effective monthly cost is even lower. Yes Tivo requires you to put some money down up front, but the reward is that the recurring fees are lower. Over the long haul, Tivo costs less. There are probably lots of people who don't understand this either. You should not be one of them.


A HDTiVo with 160GB costs $200+ upfront and then is marginally cheaper but requires at least a one year commitment plus maintenance. (For me Comcast's DVR with 120GB would cost $16. monthly + tax with no commitment at all.)


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

seattlewendell said:


> ...Time shafting became the new buzz on the "interwebs" Yet Tivo kept telling people to buy this $500 device to pause live tv.


Five hundred bucks to replace a VCR and DVD player? Y'really think that pitch woulda' sold?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Many of us started with DTivo. $5-$6 per month included service for all units on our account. My memory is lifetime service wound up covering all units on our account. Tivo wasn't responsible to supply guide data or support. The rumor is tivo got paid around $1 per month.

SA pricing is dramatically different. Service cost is more expensive, is per DVR and current tivo solution requires the additional cost of renting a cable card. I don't know how much money tivo saves when a customer connects via broadband vs dial up. I wonder if tivo could profitably offer a larger MSD discount but only to customers who connect via broadband. 

Some cable systems are ready to roll out DVR solutions that don't require any hardware at the customers site. 

Increasing number of channels have the copy bit set. TTG and MRV is becoming less useful.

Tivo is facing an uphill battle.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> An increasing number of cable systems are setting the no copy flag on an increasing number of channels.


some cable companies have done this on a regional basis - and some have been made to back off the illegal parts. However I think you need to supply some facts to back up the statement of an increasing number are doing this - that I am not seeing anecdotally even.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> some cable companies have done this on a regional basis - and some have been made to back off the illegal parts. However I think you need to supply some facts to back up the statement of an increasing number are doing this - that I am not seeing anecdotally even.


Only anecdotal evidence. An increasing number of posters are complaining about premium channels such as HBO having the copy bit set.
This is becoming an issue as systems are reducing the number of analog stations. AFAIK HBO analog has no such restrictions.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say the copy bit is becoming an increasing issue with MRV and TTG. The customer doesn't care if the bit is just being set or if they issue is going from analog to digital.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> Only anecdotal evidence. An increasing number of posters are complaining about premium channels such as HBO having the copy bit set.


not much evidence then, an increasing number of posters are complaining about an increasing number of things


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I suspect you're just seeing the same people complaining about it more often and more vociferously each time. :rotfl:


----------



## Bernie (May 22, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> an older series 2 i presume?
> 
> a series 3/tivohd would be a single HD box.
> 
> or are you saying you need a second cable company provided box to get vod?


Yes


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

twhiting9275 said:


> Firstly, when I DVR something, I want to be able to actually *own* the content (ie: store it somewhere else). I don't know of a single cable DVR that looks out for their customers in that fashion.


To pick nits:
In no situation, would a home TV viewer *own* the content they receive. They (as in you and I) only receive it with a limited viewing license. Only the creators of the content *own* it.

I do note your point that a TiVo is more liberal WRT to keeping recordings than a provider DVR.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> not much evidence then, an increasing number of posters are complaining about an increasing number of things


A few years ago the number channels with copy protection issues was zero. Looks like another system is going to start using copy protect.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7276638#post7276638


----------



## spocko (Feb 4, 2009)

lew said:


> People on TCF are "pro tivo" and are more likely to self-repair a failing hard drive then the general public. Posters on TCF don't understand how many people prefer the simplicity of the one phone call for support solution provided by the cable supplied DVR.


I understand these points, and I freely admit that these are advantages of cable supplied DVR. A single phone call and no hassle to order/install a cable DVR is also a biggie.



lew said:


> I'm tired of posters who refuse to accept the fact that tivo is generally more expensive.


The generalizations are what bother me. The fact is that for some people Tivo is more expensive, for other people it is not. It all depends on the timeframe that you consider and your local cable company costs. Personally, my breakeven point for Tivo HD + lifetime is under 3 years. Your 200 month payback period is an extreme example that doesn't apply to most people.

All I'm asking here is for people to acknowledge that Tivo is not always more expensive. And let's leave it at that, so we can try to keep this thread on topic.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

spocko said:


> All I'm asking here is for people to acknowledge that Tivo is not always more expensive. And let's leave it at that, so we can try to keep this thread on topic.


Sorry but tivo is virtually always more expensive *if an honest comparison is made * for a current system used by HD customers. That means a S3 series unit, with cable cards. An honest comparison includes an allowance for tivo repair costs and includes an interest adjustment for any pre-paid service. Do you have a lifetime unit that's more then 3 years old? Tivo is now charging $199 to transfer LS to a refurbished replacement unit. This fee is in addition to the $149 charge for the refurbished unit. Posters on TCF are likely to do their own repair but an honest comparion assumes a cable DVR gets serviced by the cable company and a "regular" tivo customer will turn to tivo for service.

Tivo might come out ahead if a customer is looking to purchase multiple units with MSD discounts.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

ZeoTiVo said:


> some cable companies have done this on a regional basis - and some have been made to back off the illegal parts. However I think you need to supply some facts to back up the statement of an increasing number are doing this - that I am not seeing anecdotally even.


Seems like a poll in the S3 area might be worthwhile to see just how widespread the problem is. I'll leave it for someone more familiar with the problem to construct. My carrier doesn't copy protect anything that I receive (knock wood).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

seattlewendell said:


> Wrong. I used to have stand alone Tivo and a Comcast DVR at the same time.
> (I wanted to get all the HD possible and back in those days there were a lot of HD channels only available on one or the other)
> I ran the numbers with yearly and with lifetime. Here is what you are missing. You never have to replace the Comcast box. Every year I would call them and ask "do you have a new box" Every two years (on average) they would have a new model from Motorola. I would bring my old box in (so they do not charge me from a house visit), give them my old box and walk out with a new box. And yes it was STILL inferior to a Tivo.
> With my Tivo, way, way, way before I would break even, it would be time for a new box.
> ...


absolutes like "never works out" are just about *NEVER *right.

So every year you get a new 160gb moto DVR- big whoop. What have they added to the dvr over the years? MRV? Have they activated that esata port yet? Can you get audio or video off your network or the internet? So basically your argument is that because you will never have reair or replacement costs that it is cheaper. That is not the case for EVERYONE. many tivo's last plenty long. Most all (obviously not every- remember absolutes dont work) tivo's last 3 or 4 years. Even assuming that time frame and factoring the cost of money they boxe's are plenty less than 10bucks a month. Add in service and that gives you a true cost in perpetuity- even assuming you need to replace the tivo every 3-4 years (if someone had a series 1 then it would be about 8-10 years old at this point likely) in SOME CASES FOR SURE that is cheaper than the cable company's charge. Not always. Not never. Sometimes.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lew said:


> Sorry but tivo is virtually always more expensive *if an honest comparison is made * for a current system used by HD customers. That means a S3 series unit, with cable cards. An honest comparison includes an allowance for tivo repair costs and includes an interest adjustment for any pre-paid service. Do you have a lifetime unit that's more then 3 years old? Tivo is now charging $199 to transfer LS to a refurbished replacement unit. This fee is in addition to the $149 charge for the refurbished unit. Posters on TCF are likely to do their own repair but an honest comparion assumes a cable DVR gets serviced by the cable company and a "regular" tivo customer will turn to tivo for service.
> 
> Tivo might come out ahead if a customer is looking to purchase multiple units with MSD discounts.


I believe Multiple units are the situations when it's most likely to tilt in tivo's favor due to the MSD discounts.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

lew said:


> PP hit it right, a lot of people consider a DVR as a VCR replacement. Cable DVRs work fine.


Except when they don't.

I know someone who has a Comcast DVR and every now and then for no reason what-so-ever it will stop recording until he restarts it. He also has complained to me that the conflict management on the thing is horrendous and frequently the wrong show will record.

He's currently contemplating getting a TiVo, but the up front costs are keeping him from purchasing one. In the past I would have told him TiVo was worth the upfront cost. While I did recommend TiVo, I warned him about a number of caveats that in the past did not exists, such as network related lock ups (Netflix for example), tuner loss issues, SDV, etc.



lew said:


> Tivo might come out ahead if a customer is looking to purchase multiple units with MSD discounts.


TiVo definitely comes out ahead in the case of multiple DVRs. While TiVo gives discounts for multiple DVRs, cable companies actually charge a lot more a 2nd DVR. If I remember correctly, Comcast charges around $24/month for a 2nd DVR and won't even rent a 3rd DVR.

This may be a non-issue, once cable companies start deploying "Network DVRs".



nrc said:


> Seems like a poll in the S3 area might be worthwhile to see just how widespread the problem is. I'll leave it for someone more familiar with the problem to construct. My carrier doesn't copy protect anything that I receive (knock wood).


Comcast (in my area) protects all premium channels as well a the "free" movie channels included in the digital packages (Encore, etc). In the past all channels other than locals were protected, but that was changed about 2 years ago.


----------



## spocko (Feb 4, 2009)

lew said:


> Sorry but tivo is virtually always more expensive *if an honest comparison is made * for a current system used by HD customers.


I disagree. Yes Tivo is often more expensive, but not "virtually always more expensive". There are too many variables. You can't backup a blanket statement like that.



lew said:


> That means a S3 series unit, with cable cards. An honest comparison includes an allowance for tivo repair costs and includes an interest adjustment for any pre-paid service.


Those are reasonable, although as you noted people willing to find other repair options can reduce those costs. A Tivo box also has some probability of surviving for a reasonable lifetime without failure, so that needs to be considered when estimating repair costs. And if an "honest" comparison accounts for these things, then it should also account for things like taxes on cable DVR rental, the fact that cable fees have a history of frequent increases, and that a Tivo box usually has some retained value.

It is a simple fact that in some cases a Tivo HD + cablecard + Tivo service can have a total cost that is equal to or less than the total cost of cable supplied HD DVR rental over a period of 3-4 years. You might argue that this only applies to an insignificant number of people, but neither you or I have that data.

To bring this back around to the original topic, we were discussing reasons for Tivo's relatively slow adoption rate. Cost or perception of cost is certainly a barrier for many people, particularly up-front cost. But I think the bottom line is that cable DVR is the "easy" choice regardless of cost, so Tivo is understandably having a hard time competing with that amongst the general population. Tivo has to differentiate and promote their product to motivate adoption.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

spocko said:


> I disagree. Yes Tivo is often more expensive, but not "virtually always more expensive". There are too many variables. You can't backup a blanket statement like that.
> 
> Those are reasonable, although as you noted people willing to find other repair options can reduce those costs. A Tivo box also has some probability of surviving for a reasonable lifetime without failure, so that needs to be considered when estimating repair costs. And if an "honest" comparison accounts for these things, then it should also account for things like taxes on cable DVR rental, the fact that cable fees have a history of frequent increases, and that a Tivo box usually has some retained value.
> 
> ...


as an example to show that Spocko is correct that 3-4 years is realistic for some:

Based on my Comcast system (look it up if you like Raritan township NJ 08822). For simplicity lets say I have 2 HDTV's that need DVR's

A Comcast rental DVR costs 15.95/month
A cablecard costs 1/month
So you have to get the price of the tivo down to 14.95/box to break even. 
Or if you need two then 2 boxes from tivo for 29.90

2 tivohd's - currently they are 241 each at amazon. Lifetime on the first tivo at 399 and the second at 299. = 241+241+399+299 = 1180 for 2 boxes with lifetime.

1180 total cost divided by 29.90 a month if one were to rent from Comcast means a 39 and a half months pay back period.

It would be a couple more months payback for a single box. A month or two less for someone who went whole hog and bought three tivo HD's. It's not insane to think that most Tivo's last 40 or so months.

Not a slam dunk AT ALL that tivo will be cheaper but it's not insane that it's more expensive either. It's certainly could be too much effort for someone who isn't pro-tivo to be bothered to figure out and put out that much money up front for over 3 years and commit to tivo for so long. But lets stop with the 'its never ever ever going to be cheaper for tivo' nonsense. It may not currently be cheap enough for the average bear to bother to try and figure out- and that is probably very true. But it's not millions of dollars more for to go with a tivo. And for some portion of the population it could be cheaper to go with tivo.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Put the $1180 on a credit card. Ignoring minimum payment issues pay $30/month. What's a fair credit card interest rate to include? 15&#37; 30% That's a fair comparison. Now figure out how many months until you break even.

Taking the money of savings? Some allowance has to be made for lost investment income.

A person purchasing two tivos have to make an adjustment for at least one unit breaking. Tivo is charging $350 to service, and transfer LS,for a unit that's more then 3 years old. A customer who's not willing to do his own repair may be better off pre-paying for three year service. Repair cost is $49.

Will comcast rent you two cable cards @$1 each? I thought (most Comcast systems) only let you rent one cc at that price. Is that a typical price rental price in most systems?

Sorry but this is an example of what I consider to be a less then honest comparison.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lew said:


> Put the $1180 on a credit card. Ignoring minimum payment issues pay $30/month. What's a fair credit card interest rate to include? 15% 30% That's a fair comparison. Now figure out how many months until you break even.
> 
> Taking the money of savings? Some allowance has to be made for lost investment income.
> 
> ...


The resale value of a TiVo with Lifetime Service has to also be taken into account, and most people can't earn 15% or more on their money (unless they gave it to a Bernie Madoff type of investment) and anybody that has no other option but to put a TiVo on a 15% to 30% credit card (that they can't pay in full each month) should not purchase a TiVo in the first place.
By selling each generation of LT TiVos I have gotten, starting with my first Series 1 ($200 cost of lifetime) I have gotten about $310 net on each, so my cost of ownership has, up to now, been very low. 
I think TiVo problem is just the convenience of the cable system DVR, its a no hassle option for most non technical people, and i don't have any answer as to how TiVo can change that except to be the DVR that the cable system installs in your home.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> 15% 30% That's a fair comparison.
> 
> A person purchasing two tivos have to make an adjustment for at least one unit breaking.


15 to 30%? that is not fair but ludicrous.

I have had 7 TiVo DVRs over 4 years time. One had my own swapped hard drive go completely belly up. if people are pinching pennies then it is easy enough to figure out how to put in a new drive or just bypass TiVo and get your own larger drive from a 3rd party place.
Another one, series 2 DT went belly up because lightening fried the USB and etehrnet ports. TiVo offered to send me another DT free of charge.

so sure we can invent scenarios in which TiVo is more expensive and others can pare things down to have TiVo less exepensive.

in all of this though TiVo is not significantly different than employing cable company DVR when all is said and done for the actual life of the boxes. Perhaps if you pay 800$ retail for S3 right off the first production run you are in a true premium scenario. otherwise you really should just think about the features you really want and weigh the other pros and cons.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

spocko said:


> The generalizations are what bother me. The fact is that for some people Tivo is more expensive, for other people it is not.


I guess I'm one of the few where I think Tivo is less expensive. Since I watch OTA only and have no desire for cable and the extra bill that comes with it.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

This OTA seems really attractive, $wise, and I would give serious consideration to it, but I can think of two cable channels I'd hate to lose: the Comedy Channel, and the Sci Fi channel. The former because of SouthPark, and the latter because of all the movies they carry.

OTOH, I guess a NetFlix subscription would provide lots of movies for probably a lot cheaper than the $56.75 / month I'm paying to Time Warner Cable.

Can OTA be picked up by a TiVo HD? (I also have 2 S2's in the house as well.)

I guess I'd have to pass this idea by my wife, since she makes heavy use of putting things on her To Do List. I have a feeling she wouldn't like giving up cable.


----------



## spocko (Feb 4, 2009)

lew said:


> Sorry but this is an example of what I consider to be a less then honest comparison.


It's funny that you keep talking about "honest" comparisons, when you are the only person in this thread citing ridiculous examples to back up your position. Your credit card scenario and your 200-month break even period are not "honest" examples.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

> Put the $1180 on a credit card. Ignoring minimum payment issues pay $30/month. What's a fair credit card interest rate to include? 15% 30% That's a fair comparison. Now figure out how many months until you break even.
> 
> Taking the money of savings? Some allowance has to be made for lost investment income.


OMG! To you and all other people trying to justify if TiVo cost less or more over lifetime of the unit - you are missing a big picture.
For absolute majority of people who can afford to have DVR and pay-TV service it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFRENCE if they are going to be $100 ahead 3-4 years from now. That is not and should not be determining factor.
For the most people paying $200 upfront for something that they can get for free without a commitment of any kind is a deterrent, but not the life changing decision. And all the nonsense that TiVo is better and people just don't know it doesn't fly either. In 2008 278,000 customers who had SA TiVo for at least a year cancelled the service. That is not negligible number and you can not ignore it. First quarter of this year 37,000 people bought TiVo and 67,000 cancelled the service. You can not dismiss it to uneducated consumers.
The major factor why people do not buy TiVo is that all the bells and whistles that TiVo has are not wanted by general public. Plain and simple.
I know that common sentiment on this board is that cable DVRs are horrible, but numbers don't lie. Cable DVRs outsell TiVo by order of magnitude and people are moving from TiVo to cable DVRs.
Whatever the reasons are, people prefer cable DVRs to TiVo.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Denial is a common tactic used to confront compelling evidence that one's preferred reality is not the prevailing reality.


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

samo said:


> OMG! To you and all other people trying to justify if TiVo cost less or more over lifetime of the unit - you are missing a big picture.
> For absolute majority of people who can afford to have DVR and pay-TV service it makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFRENCE if they are going to be $100 ahead 3-4 years from now. That is not and should not be determining factor.
> For the most people paying $200 upfront for something that they can get for free without a commitment of any kind is a deterrent, but not the life changing decision. And all the nonsense that TiVo is better and people just don't know it doesn't fly either. In 2008 278,000 customers who had SA TiVo for at least a year cancelled the service. That is not negligible number and you can not ignore it. First quarter of this year 37,000 people bought TiVo and 67,000 cancelled the service. You can not dismiss it to uneducated consumers.
> The major factor why people do not buy TiVo is that all the bells and whistles that TiVo has are not wanted by general public. Plain and simple.
> ...


WoW!

Most people have never seen a TiVo. And MANY think TiVo IS more expensive because that's what everyone TELLS them.

You cannot PREFER something if you don't know about the alternative.

VAST majority of people who have had a TiVo AND a cable DVR (like me) easily prefer the TiVo (like me).

And, yes, TiVo IS cheaper AND better.


----------



## net114 (Dec 29, 2000)

Maybe Tivo should just follow the cable companies examples - you can buy the box for $199, or you can "have" the box for "free" and you can pay an extra $9.99 a month on your subscription. I guarantee you there are a lot of impulse buyers who would snag a "free" Tivo box...a lot of people really don't want to pay up front, and think there is less pain with a monthly payment. 

Wait, don't the satellite companies already do this? They offer four "free" boxes (non DVR) if you sign up for 2 years or whatever?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

spocko said:


> It's funny that you keep talking about "honest" comparisons, when you are the only person in this thread citing ridiculous examples to back up your position. Your credit card scenario and your 200-month break even period are not "honest" examples.


Agreed. Comcast keeps jacking up the DVR rental fee every year and lew is ignoring the resale value of a lifetimed Tivo HD, so there's no 'honest comparison' to be had when you aren't facing the facts.

Over 3 years, on Comcast in the ATL, a Tivo HD will be cheaper than renting a DVR, no matter what kind of Tivo sub you get. But if you go lifetime, it will be WAY cheaper if you factor in resale.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

net114 said:


> Maybe Tivo should just follow the cable companies examples - you can buy the box for $199, or you can "have" the box for "free" and you can pay an extra $9.99 a month on your subscription. I guarantee you there are a lot of impulse buyers who would snag a "free" Tivo box...a lot of people really don't want to pay up front, and think there is less pain with a monthly payment.


And there are a lot of people who will strongly complain about the monthly charge and won't buy a TiVo.

TiVo tried this for a year; you evidently missed it (2005?). A free TiVo with a monthly charge of $21.00 or so for the first year. Deals with the major retailers (Best buy was advertising free TiVos every week for months). It didn't come close to working. TiVo took a large financial charge as they had built many more S2's than they could sell (at the end of the period, the HD switchover also contributed greatly); they are still haven't gotten rid of them all even now!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lew said:


> Put the $1180 on a credit card. Ignoring minimum payment issues pay $30/month. What's a fair credit card interest rate to include? 15% 30% That's a fair comparison. Now figure out how many months until you break even.


Lew- I'm sorry you dont know how to manage your money to have naything in savings but some of us do and dont pay 15-30% interest. Granted many might but again an HONEST analysis shows that sometimes it works out.



lew said:


> Taking the money of savings? Some allowance has to be made for lost investment income.


So Let me get this straight you invest the money that you borrowed from your credit card at 30%? That's impressive. How's that work out for you? Net loss each and every year?

Since I realize I can't have my cake and eat it too (earn interest and borrow money at once) then you are correct- I might have to take the 1200 out of a money market account. Seeing as how I know how to manage my money I'm getting a whooping 2.2% at my money market instead of the national average of 1.43% (see bankrate.com) so that's about another 50-60 bucks- so I'll let you add 2-3 months to the equation. We're still under 4 years.



lew said:


> A person purchasing two tivos have to make an adjustment for at least one unit breaking. Tivo is charging $350 to service, and transfer LS,for a unit that's more then 3 years old. A customer who's not willing to do his own repair may be better off pre-paying for three year service. Repair cost is $49.


that's ridiculous. I've owned no fewer than 10 tivos, S1, S1 directive, s2 dt, s2 dvd-r, s2 directivo, hdirectiv, and s3. I sold of the 5 directivos at various times so i can't say that they are still running- but they were fine when i sold them all at 2-4 years time. Of the 5 I still own- only the original S1 has died (at 7 plus years- hard drive went and I don't need it so never bother to change it), An ATT S2 (the very first S2 model every made) activated 12/2002- so 6+ years still kicking. A pioneer 810 activated 10/2003 is running fine at 5+ years. And I have 2 S3's from 9/2006 doing fine at 32 months. I also have a DT in the closet that worked fine last i used it but maybe it heard your story about how all the tivos die early and it died in it's sleep= that means at best one of my 10 tivo's died in the 3-4 years you imply half will die.

So how you figure at least one unit will break in 3-4 years? THAT IS DISHONEST. sure plenty will in fact break in 3-4 years. and if that happens those people will lose money, but the typical tivo will not.



lew said:


> Will comcast rent you two cable cards @$1 each? I thought (most Comcast systems) only let you rent one cc at that price. Is that a typical price rental price in most systems?
> .


yes every day of the week comcast will rent as many cards as you want for their price. In fact the FCC has threatened cable in the past not to make teh cabelcard rental fee an unreasonable barrier to 3rd party devices. as such the typical cable card thoughout the US is 2 bucks or less. You are apparently confused that if you require TWO s-cards in your tivo because you have an S3 and not a TiVoHD then the second card in the device is FREE. The price DOES VARY per headend though. I believe i am actually lucky with the buck. I think typical is 2 bucks. I have no idea if the DVR fee I have at my location is average either. But the point is there are places where these prices exist. So again SOME people can break even in 3-4 years. Certainly not all. Maybe not even most (I have no idea) but the only HONEST discussion is that some places it isn't a bath to buy a tivo.



lew said:


> Sorry but this is an example of what I consider to be a less then honest comparison.


I agree your example with ridiculous interest rates, saying you would earn interest on money that you apparently have to borrow from your credit card company, and declaring that 50% of tivo's die in 3-4 years is a completely dishonest load of bunk and I'm glad you pointed that out.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

timckelley said:


> This OTA seems really attractive, $wise, and I would give serious consideration to it, but I can think of two cable channels I'd hate to lose: the Comedy Channel, and the Sci Fi channel. The former because of SouthPark, and the latter because of all the movies they carry.
> 
> OTOH, I guess a NetFlix subscription would provide lots of movies for probably a lot cheaper than the $56.75 / month I'm paying to Time Warner Cable.
> 
> ...


TIvo HD can get OTA in many places (depends on the particulars of your location compared to the broadcast antennas)

Southpark is available on the internet but i don't know if it's on netflix or amazon or anything else like that. But worth looking into if there are only 2 shows you want on cable.

the only thing that keeps me is the regional sports network and the crazy cheap triple play pricing comcast keeps throwing my way.


----------



## michael new (Jan 13, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> And there are a lot of people who will strongly complain about the monthly charge and won't buy a TiVo.


I can attest to this, I tried to sell a few Tivos at a garage sale the last few weeks, and all I heard is " isnt there a monthly charge?" and I explained to them what Tivo was all about and none of them purchased the Tivos.

But on the otherside of that you pay a monthly fee for cable dvr too so I dont really see the differance.

I can say when I first purchased Tivo I had basic cable and could not fathom paying for a service I can do with a vcr, after a friend told me more about Tivo I purchased one, and three weeks later had three I loved it so much. When the DTV switch took place I immediately called Tivo to upgrade at a great price just to relieve the hassle of the cable box. So therefore I understand the upfront cost but still think Tivo is better than cable dvr hands down.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

michael new said:


> I can say when I first purchased Tivo I had basic cable and could not fathom paying for a service I can do with a vcr


I was already heavily using a VCR for time switching before I bought a TiVo, and had a feeling I'd like the TiVo better.

Hassles with the VCR I had:

I had to be very aware of which shows are in at which time, so the correct tape was in the VCR at the correct time
If the tape hit the end in the middle of recording a show, I lost the end of that show
When I watched a show, it was a pain to fast forward / rewind through the various eps to find the ep I wanted to watch
When done, it was a pain to carefully position the tape at the end of the last ep recorded
The video quality wasn't very good
I needed to label all my tapes to keep track of which was which.

TiVo seemed perfect for me in automating the above, not to mention the extra features it has that a VCR simply doesn't offer. (Searching for new shows by category, etc, Suggestions, etc)


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

net114 said:


> Maybe Tivo should just follow the cable companies examples - you can buy the box for $199, or you can "have" the box for "free" and you can pay an extra $9.99 a month on your subscription. I guarantee you there are a lot of impulse buyers who would snag a "free" Tivo box...a lot of people really don't want to pay up front, and think there is less pain with a monthly payment.
> 
> Wait, don't the satellite companies already do this? They offer four "free" boxes (non DVR) if you sign up for 2 years or whatever?


TiVo tried that a few years ago. It didn't last, and was convoluted.
It was something like $19.95/month for a one year commitment on an 80 Hr Series 2 single tuner. You could pay one time fees to upgrade to dual tuners, 180Hr, or HD models. The only remnant of that experiment was 1/2/3 year serviced prepay.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

michael new said:


> I can attest to this, I tried to sell a few Tivos at a garage sale the last few weeks, and all I heard is " isnt there a monthly charge?" and I explained to them what Tivo was all about and none of them purchased the Tivos.
> 
> But on the otherside of that you pay a monthly fee for cable dvr too so I dont really see the differance.[\QUOTE]
> 
> I think the big difference is that a cable DVR rolls into an existing bill. Most people will forget they are billing charged separately for DVR after a couple of months. With Tivo (if you are paying monthly), you see that charge month after month on your credit card.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TriBruin said:


> I think the big difference is that a cable DVR rolls into an existing bill. Most people will forget they are billing charged separately for DVR after a couple of months. With Tivo (if you are paying monthly), you see that charge month after month on your credit card.


also the commitment is an annoyance. I hate commitments. If the product is good then I'll keep it. I've been with tivo for like 7+ years and don't see any reason to change anytime soon. If they come out with a way to get VOD too then I'm good for years to come. But the mere thought of having to sign up for a year or whatever to get another box does annoy me. Now i know that for me TiVo is worth the extra but without knowing that for sure not ever having used it I don't know that i would be bothered to sign up and try even with the ability to get out in 30 days. To me that's probably just too much hassle. I'd likely go get teh cable POS knowing that i can just drop it back at their office anytime I've "had enough".


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

samo said:


> The major factor why people do not buy TiVo is that all the bells and whistles that TiVo has are not wanted by general public. Plain and simple.


Oh, no. Please don't say that. Surely the ability to order Domino's pizza right from his TV is worth at least $10/mo to Joe Sixpack. And the ability to push a button to get "more information" about shows he has paused must easily be worth at least another $10/mo to Joe.

So, right there, I can see why Joe Sixpack would want to pay $20/mo just for those two features. Am I right?

For the sarcasm impaired, the point I'm trying to make is that some "bells and whistles" actually *subtract* from the value of a TiVo.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> For the sarcasm impaired, the point I'm trying to make is that some "bells and whistles" actually *subtract* from the value of a TiVo.


I actually find that the "more information" feature does add value. I find it very useful. The fact that TiVo used it as an excuse to create another ad banner is a different matter.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

nrc said:


> I actually find that the "more information" feature does add value. I find it very useful. The fact that TiVo used it as an excuse to create another ad banner is a different matter.


That...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> For the sarcasm impaired, the point I'm trying to make is that some "bells and whistles" actually *subtract* from the value of a TiVo.


just because a feature will not make people shell out more money per month does not mean it does not add to their perceived value. I ignore the ad part but have used the ever present more info part twice now to figure out what other shows a person was in and so forth. I wish it came up for the netflix movies, ads and all, as a matter of fact.

Also the pizza and ad parts are not meant to appeal to consumers as a reason to pay a larger monthly sub. They are meant to appeal to MSOs that see added revenue potential in using TiVo for their DVRs they lease out.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> There are several advantages the cable company DVRs have. The most notable, and typically the overriding consideration for many consumers, is that they have little or no up-front cost. Another consideration for many is that they support the cable company's On Demand service.


Yes, and several others, which for some consumers are even more important. Many people prefer the inherent lack of obsolescence and maintenance responsibility that goes along with a leased device. If your leased DVR fails or you just want the newest model - call up the CATV company and schedule a truck roll or go to the service center to pick up a new model yourself. There may be a charge, but it's much less than the cost of a new DVR.

There's also definitely something to be said for having a single responsible technical provider. When the same company owns the headend, the cable lines, and the terminal equipment, there is no one else at whom they may point the finger when something goes wrong. Not so when the customer owns the DVR (or cable modem, or whatever). I own not only the DVRs, but also my cable modem and my phone adapter. Almost invariably when I call in a trouble, be it phone, internet, or DVR, the two or more companies involved reflexively start foisting off the responsibility to the other parties.

It's also worth something to many consumers to have only one monthly bill. Unless one opts for a lifetime subscription, one has to pay both a CATV bill and a TiVo bill every month.

There are certainly quite a few reasons why someone might prefer a leased DVR to a purchased one, and with some of them I even relate, but for me the overriding capabilities and features lie with the purchased DVR by a very, very wide margin.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> For the sarcasm impaired, the point I'm trying to make is that some "bells and whistles" actually *subtract* from the value of a TiVo.





ZeoTiVo said:


> just because a feature will not make people shell out more money per month does not mean it does not add to their perceived value.


Both points are well taken. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as it were.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Also the pizza and ad parts are not meant to appeal to consumers as a reason to pay a larger monthly sub. They are meant to appeal to MSOs that see added revenue potential in using TiVo for their DVRs they lease out.


Yeah, maybe. Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion the intent is experimental, to see what falls out of the bag. From the way this thing was rolled out to the way it is being marketed, it smells to me like a fishing expedition.


----------



## michael new (Jan 13, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> also the commitment is an annoyance. I hate commitments. If the product is good then I'll keep it. I've been with tivo for like 7+ years and don't see any reason to change anytime soon. If they come out with a way to get VOD too then I'm good for years to come. But the mere thought of having to sign up for a year or whatever to get another box does annoy me. Now i know that for me TiVo is worth the extra but without knowing that for sure not ever having used it I don't know that i would be bothered to sign up and try even with the ability to get out in 30 days. To me that's probably just too much hassle. I'd likely go get teh cable POS knowing that i can just drop it back at their office anytime I've "had enough".


I agree...but if youve got a cell phone you sign a commitment with them too.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Yeah, maybe. Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion the intent is experimental, to see what falls out of the bag. From the way this thing was rolled out to the way it is being marketed, it smells to me like a fishing expedition.


well sure, this is new territory for both TiVo and the MSOs. Lots of different approaches tried and they see which ones work and which ones don't. An MSO might decide to keep a clean menu and just do the pause and delete screen ads.

Another MSO might have nothing on the interface at all and then sell ads with billboards at extra cost. Note that an MSO could decide you can only FF ads and no more 30 sec. skip. It would be their box and not TiVo nor yours if the MSOs decide to buy/make the boxes and then lease them to you.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

michael new said:


> I agree...but if youve got a cell phone you sign a commitment with them too.


funny but i was actually going to write how verizon pisses me off too in my original threat but thought it wasn't relevant. But to expand on that- I've had verizon wireless for years and years- just not going to change- but it totally pisses me off that I get commitments from them when i perform certain actions. So again, love the service, hate the policy, and all it does is get under my skin because I'm not going anywhere.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> funny but i was actually going to write how verizon pisses me off too in my original threat


a little Freudian slip there at the end


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> a little Freudian slip there at the end


laughing. perhaps...


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

michael new said:


> I agree...but if youve got a cell phone you sign a commitment with them too.


Well, no. Which, together with the fact that for an infrequent cell phone user like me it is less expensive, is why I use a prepaid phone.


----------



## djones18 (Jan 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Yes, and several others, which for some consumers are even more important. Many people prefer the inherent lack of obsolescence and maintenance responsibility that goes along with a leased device. If your leased DVR fails or you just want the newest model - call up the CATV company and schedule a truck roll or go to the service center to pick up a new model yourself. There may be a charge, but it's much less than the cost of a new DVR.
> 
> There's also definitely something to be said for having a single responsible technical provider. When the same company owns the headend, the cable lines, and the terminal equipment, there is no one else at whom they may point the finger when something goes wrong. Not so when the customer owns the DVR (or cable modem, or whatever). I own not only the DVRs, but also my cable modem and my phone adapter. Almost invariably when I call in a trouble, be it phone, internet, or DVR, the two or more companies involved reflexively start foisting off the responsibility to the other parties.
> 
> ...


I agree, especially regarding maintenance responsibilities and having a single provider responsible for equipment and support...more so during the cable industry transition to SDV. These, among many other factors described in this thread, may be deterring potential TiVo customers.

In my case, in northern Virginia, I have a leased two year old Cox HD DVR in one room and a five month old TiVo HD in another.

The Cox HD DVR failed to operate twice in two years. First time, Cox techs troubleshot from the headend and fixed the problem. Second time they determined a replacement was needed. I picked up a new unit, quickly connected it, and it has operated normally since. Zero dollar cost, low aggravation factor, low user maintenance responsibility.

The TiVo HD has been a challenge. TiVo HD, Cox M-Card, and Cox Tuning Adapter required user intervention at least 7 times in five months to maintain operation (not untypical). TiVo tech support and Cox tech support assistance achieved solutions...requiring several hours of customer hands-on involvement. Zero dollar cost, medium aggravation factor, significant user maintenance responsibility.

I won't give up my TiVo HD because of the "overriding features and capabilities" you point to. Nor will I replace my leased Cox HD DVR, at this time, because I believe the TiVo HD, cablecard, tuning adapter combination is a marginal technical solution. I'm in a wait-and-see mode. I'm a consumer who falls into both categories you describe.


----------

