# Is TiVo Roamio 4K Coming Sooner Than Expected



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s870350

The above seems to indicate that the Roamio line may be due for an upgrade real soon. I have seen many posts saying it will be 2-3 years, but I doubt that now.

I'm in a quandry about the current TiVo sale and waiting for the 4K TiVo boxes.

Thoughts?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Historically TiVo releases new boxes at one of two times... Late August / early September before the new TV season starts or around the end of March which is when they have their blue moon holiday. (The release date of the first TiVo) So even if it is going to happen soon I'm betting it wont be until March/April.

And even then... Who cares? There is no 4k content. They could output 4k from Amazon and Netflix, but that's it. It'll be years before we see broadcasters doing 4k.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

Dan203 thanks for the reply. I'm thinking it's not about $K content now, but more about being ready for it later. Purchasing a new box now may mean it's "old too soon" if there's a newer series or upgraded Roamio coming in the Spring.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I really doubt the upgrade is coming that soon, but can't say for sure.

However being in the video industry I can tell you that it'll be years before we see any 4k channels to record on your 4k TiVo. The bandwidth requirements for 4k are nearly double that of HD which means it's impossible to broadcast 4k OTA and cable companies would need to dedicate an entire QAM to a single channel which will be hard when they're already running up against bandwidth limitations in their current systems. Right now 4k is a gimmick, like 3D was a couple years ago. Companies are selling TVs and devices that support it because it's the hot buzz word, but there is very little 4k content beyond demo videos so for most consumers it's a waste of money.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> I really doubt the upgrade is coming that soon, but can't say for sure.
> 
> However being in the video industry I can tell you that it'll be years before we see any 4k channels to record on your 4k TiVo. The bandwidth requirements for 4k are nearly double that of HD which means it's impossible to broadcast 4k OTA and cable companies would need to dedicate an entire QAM to a single channel which will be hard when they're already running up against bandwidth limitations in their current systems. Right now 4k is a gimmick, like 3D was a couple years ago. Companies are selling TVs and devices that support it because it's the hot buzz word, but there is very little 4k content beyond demo videos so for most consumers it's a waste of money.


Hardware always has to advance before software can. This has always been true, whether you are talking about computers, smartphones, gaming consoles, or TVs. Just because a new piece of hardware is not being utilized to its fullest extent the moment you purchase it does not make it a "gimmick". It just makes you an early adopter who is willing to spend a premium on "future-proofing".


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I could see TiVo updating the Roamio Pro to offer 4k capabilities... At least it would be a better differentiator than TFX ever was on the Series 3 line...

Useful? Not really, but it might get people to spend a few extra dollars for the premium offering.

Call it the Roamio Pro S


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> I really doubt the upgrade is coming that soon, but can't say for sure.
> 
> However being in the video industry I can tell you that it'll be years before we see any 4k channels to record on your 4k TiVo. The bandwidth requirements for 4k are nearly double that of HD which means it's impossible to broadcast 4k OTA and cable companies would need to dedicate an entire QAM to a single channel which will be hard when they're already running up against bandwidth limitations in their current systems. Right now 4k is a gimmick, like 3D was a couple years ago. Companies are selling TVs and devices that support it because it's the hot buzz word, but there is very little 4k content beyond demo videos so for most consumers it's a waste of money.


corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-partners-with-samsung-to-bring-streaming-4k-ultra-hd-content-to-the-television

Evidently, Comcast is going to use the Internet not just their cable.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

You may be right, Bradleys.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

bradleys said:


> I could see TiVo updating the Roamio Pro to offer 4k capabilities... At least it would be a better differentiator than TFX ever was on the Series 3 line...
> 
> Useful? Not really, but it might get people to spend a few extra dollars for the premium offering.
> 
> Call it the Roamio Pro S


Nah, you gotta have "4k" in the name. "Roamio Pro 4k" could work.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HKoytch said:


> corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-partners-with-samsung-to-bring-streaming-4k-ultra-hd-content-to-the-television
> 
> Evidently, Comcast is going to use the Internet not just their cable.


Which is funny because their internet is based on DOCSIS which uses QAMs to tansmit internet signals. So doing this saves them zero bandwidth. In fact if people start using the service they're just going to bog down the internet and create a different problem. Seems like a stupid solution to me.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Which is funny because their internet is based on DOCSIS which uses QAMs to tansmit internet signals. So doing this saves them zero bandwidth. In fact if people start using the service they're just going to bog down the internet and create a different problem. Seems like a stupid solution to me.


It would have the advantage of only using bandwidth when someone is actually watching the channel, but it would be no different than just using SDV. If the TWC merger goes through, TWC may actually convince Comcast to stick with SDV for 4k distribution.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Which is funny because their internet is based on DOCSIS which uses QAMs to tansmit internet signals. So doing this saves them zero bandwidth. In fact if people start using the service they're just going to bog down the internet and create a different problem. Seems like a stupid solution to me.


Maybe they can borrow some from "Netflix"


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Hardware always has to advance before software can. This has always been true, whether you are talking about computers, smartphones, gaming consoles, or TVs. Just because a new piece of hardware is not being utilized to its fullest extent the moment you purchase it does not make it a "gimmick". It just makes you an early adopter who is willing to spend a premium on "future-proofing".


Not very future proof when the standards are still in flux.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HKoytch said:


> Maybe they can borrow some from "Netflix"


I'm not talking about overall internet bandwidth I'm talking about the bandwidth from the cable company to the user. Cable TV uses a technology called QAM which is basically a way to send digital signals over coax using the same 6mhz chunks that old analog TV channels used. Cable internet uses a technology called DOCSIS which uses the same QAM signals but allows bonding of several 6mhz chunks so that you can get higher bandwidth then is provided by a single QAM. So basically the internet portion of your service is using bandwidth they could be using for TV instead. So by making the 4k service an internet streaming service they're still using QAMs. In fact because the internet is not multi-cast they'd actually be using more bandwidth by doing it this way then if they just created a 4k channel.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> I'm not talking about overall internet bandwidth I'm talking about the bandwidth from the cable company to the user. Cable TV uses a technology called QAM which is basically a way to send digital signals over coax using the same 6mhz chunks that old analog TV channels used. Cable internet uses a technology called DOCSIS which uses the same QAM signals but allows bonding of several 6mhz chunks so that you can get higher bandwidth then is provided by a single QAM. So basically the internet portion of your service is using bandwidth they could be using for TV instead. So by making the 4k service an internet streaming service they're still using QAMs. In fact because the internet is not multi-cast they'd actually be using more bandwidth by doing it this way then if they just created a 4k channel.


Seems counterintuitive from a business standpoint. There must be something else at work.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 3, 2009)

HKoytch said:


> Seems counterintuitive from a business standpoint. There must be something else at work.


currently there are no cable STB that support 4k along with HEVC decoder(what you need to help reduce bandwidth requirements). Samsung TV's support HEVC so the few people who have one and can watch a few hours a week via streaming. Comcast and Samsung can then release press releases that they support 4k content.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> So by making the 4k service an internet streaming service they're still using QAMs. In fact because the internet is not multi-cast they'd actually be using more bandwidth by doing it this way then if they just created a 4k channel.


Lots of internet hardware have supported multicast for many years now but the ISP's have generally not turned it on.

Since Comcast would control the servers, routers and modem configs, they could turn on multicast as part of their 4k offering if they wanted.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

There's going to be lots of opinions about 4k...

Mine is that I have to doubt Tivo would release a new DVR that is 3x more powerful than the current gen just for VOD/OTT apps.

Actual 4K broadcasts are likely not something that'll happen before 2020 except maybe ESPN and a few others testing it. 4K won't likely catch any real mainstream momentum until 2024-ish (10 yrs). So whatever is bought today will have plenty of years on it, IMO.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> There's going to be lots of opinions about 4k...
> 
> Mine is that I have to doubt Tivo would release a new DVR that is 3x more powerful than the current gen just for VOD/OTT apps.
> 
> Actual 4K broadcasts are likely not something that'll happen before 2020 except maybe ESPN and a few others testing it. 4K won't likely catch any real mainstream momentum until 2024-ish (10 yrs). So whatever is bought today will have plenty of years on it, IMO.


By 2020, you will probably be able to buy a 4K 65" for about $500.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> By 2020, you will probably be able to buy a 4K 65" for about $500.


You'll probably be able to buy an 8K TV by 2020.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> You'll probably be able to buy an 8K TV by 2020.


Very True, the Japanese are already working on 8k and hope to start test broadcasting it in 2016. They were already showing it at NAB this past spring.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HKoytch said:


> broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s870350
> 
> The above seems to indicate that the Roamio line may be due for an upgrade real soon. I have seen many posts saying it will be 2-3 years, but I doubt that now.
> 
> ...


Depends on how much you care about 4k I guess. Me I wouldn't worry about it because it will be priced high, 4k is going to trickle in, it will take up lots of storage, and it will be a 1st-gen model. And you need a new 4k tv.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Depends on how much you care about 4k I guess. Me I wouldn't worry about it because it will be priced high, 4k is going to trickle in, it will take up lots of storage, and it will be a 1st-gen model. And you need a new 4k tv.


My thoughts weren't as much about 4K as they were about buying a Roamio at a time when it was about to be model upgraded. I hate to buy the end generation of technology. I'm not thinking there will be much content yet.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Jeff_DML said:


> currently there are no cable STB that support 4k along with HEVC decoder(what you need to help reduce bandwidth requirements). Samsung TV's support HEVC so the few people who have one and can watch a few hours a week via streaming. Comcast and Samsung can then release press releases that they support 4k content.


That makes sense.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HKoytch said:


> My thoughts weren't as much about 4K as they were about buying a Roamio at a time when it was about to be model upgraded. I hate to buy the end generation of technology. I'm not thinking there will be much content yet.


No one can say for sure what's coming, but in the past there have been a minimum of 3 years between major hardware revisions. Based on that it is highly unlikely that they will release a completely new hardware platform like this in the spring. Especially when there is almost no consumer demand for 4k gear at this point.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

I just want to know that I'll be able to put 4 separate full HD resolution picture in picture screens up at the same time with a 4K tivo. I can see that being a heck of a lot more useful than individual channel 4K content (especially for big sports days .

They could even try a new twist on automatic commercial detection: Instead of skipping commercials, they could automatically switch the sound to one of the screens that isn't playing a commercial. Give the lawyers something to squabble about for another few years...


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

tomhorsley said:


> I just want to know that I'll be able to put 4 separate full HD resolution picture in picture screens up at the same time with a 4K tivo. I can see that being a heck of a lot more useful than individual channel 4K content (especially for big sports days .
> 
> They could even try a new twist on automatic commercial detection: Instead of skipping commercials, they could automatically switch the sound to one of the screens that isn't playing a commercial. Give the lawyers something to squabble about for another few years...


I generally hate watching sports, but I love this idea for some reason.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo has never been keen on PIP. The original DirecTiVo had a chip that was specifically designed to do PIP, decoded two streams and overlaid them all in one step, and they never turned it on. I'm pretty sure the chips in the Premiere and Roamio units have similar capabilities and they still have never turned it on. I think TiVo's stance is if you want to watch more then one thing then record the other one and watch it later.

Personally I don't understand why anyone would want to use PIP. Seems like it would be impossible to pay attention to multiple video screens at the same time and if all you wanted to do was see the score on other games there are apps/websites that you can pull up to see those.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> I really doubt the upgrade is coming that soon, but can't say for sure.
> 
> However being in the video industry I can tell you that it'll be years before we see any 4k channels to record on your 4k TiVo. The bandwidth requirements for 4k are nearly double that of HD which means it's impossible to broadcast 4k OTA and cable companies would need to dedicate an entire QAM to a single channel which will be hard when they're already running up against bandwidth limitations in their current systems. Right now 4k is a gimmick, like 3D was a couple years ago. Companies are selling TVs and devices that support it because it's the hot buzz word, but there is very little 4k content beyond demo videos so for most consumers it's a waste of money.


This.

People don't understand how the systems (cable and DBS) work and the current limitations. Fact is current systems can't even give 1080p much less 4k.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> The bandwidth requirements for 4k are nearly double that of HD which means it's impossible to broadcast 4k OTA and cable companies would need to dedicate an entire QAM to a single channel which will be hard when they're already running up against bandwidth limitations in their current systems.


Regarding OTA, it seems like the roadmap is already in place and rapidly advancing with ATSC 3.0, which should have a finalized standard by the end of next year.

Of course it will take years for compliant hardware to be developed and implemented before the first markets actually see 4K OTA broadcasts, but premium providers can't risk being beat to market by a free alternative. Even if 4k OTA is still 4+ years out, I'm sure there is plenty of pressure in the industry to be the first to market an ultra HD offering.

Aggressive roadmaps from providers translates to pressure on suppliers and partners like Tivo, so a 4k-capable Roamio being released in 2015 seems entirely possible, if not probable. All the more reason for a cheap OTA-only model to be replaced, as all cable-models would likely be 4k-ready and come at a higher price point.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It's going to take an act of congress to replace ATSC with ATSC 3.0, good luck with that. There are lot of poor people that got free converter boxes when we made the switch to all digital. They'd pretty much have to replace all those boxes, which would cost a lot of money, and I just don't think the political climate is right for something like that to get approved.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> It's going to take an act of congress to replace ATSC with ATSC 3.0, good luck with that. There are lot of poor people that got free converter boxes when we made the switch to all digital. They'd pretty much have to replace all those boxes, which would cost a lot of money, and I just don't think the political climate is right for something like that to get approved.


Good point.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

aridon said:


> This.
> 
> People don't understand how the systems (cable and DBS) work and the current limitations. Fact is current systems can't even give 1080p much less 4k.


Can't? No... they just don't because the streams are compressed to transmit more per channel.

The latest targets I've seen for next-gen transmission call for 4K 3D 120Hz at 30.2Mbps per stream. That is 4x the resolution and 4x the frame rate of a 1080p broadcast, so in theory 2D 60Hz 4K broadcast could be achieved within a single channel today, just not with multiple streams per channel.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo has never been keen on PIP. The original DirecTiVo had a chip that was specifically designed to do PIP, decoded two streams and overlaid them all in one step, and they never turned it on. I'm pretty sure the chips in the Premiere and Roamio units have similar capabilities and they still have never turned it on. I think TiVo's stance is if you want to watch more then one thing then record the other one and watch it later.
> 
> Personally I don't understand why anyone would want to use PIP. Seems like it would be impossible to pay attention to multiple video screens at the same time and if all you wanted to do was see the score on other games there are apps/websites that you can pull up to see those.


Yeah PiP is a feature that was always cool on paper, but, in practice, no one used.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

That Broadcom chip is nice, but it's ARM. Current Tivo's use MIPS.
4 transcoders, means the Stream functionality will be built in to the CPU.

They must have a lot of coding work ahead.

35mm is about 4K resolution so when people say there's no 4K content, are they ignoring all the movies?
Also if they're publicly displaying it, doesn't that mean it's coming out sooner than later?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo has never been keen on PIP. The original DirecTiVo had a chip that was specifically designed to do PIP, decoded two streams and overlaid them all in one step, and they never turned it on. I'm pretty sure the chips in the Premiere and Roamio units have similar capabilities and they still have never turned it on. I think TiVo's stance is if you want to watch more then one thing then record the other one and watch it later. Personally I don't understand why anyone would want to use PIP. Seems like it would be impossible to pay attention to multiple video screens at the same time and if all you wanted to do was see the score on other games there are apps/websites that you can pull up to see those.





trip1eX said:


> Yeah PiP is a feature that was always cool on paper, but, in practice, no one used.


I beg to differ. That's the single biggest thing I miss from my DirecTV HR34 Genie. Every Sunday I sit wishing I could have the Genie again with the PiP side by side feature where I could put my main game (Eagles!!!) in the bigger window on the left with sound and the NFL Red Zone on the smaller right one to see all the live scores of the other games. I used this on my 2.35:1 116" wide projection screen and zoom them to fill it from side to side. It's like having an 80" HDTV showing the main game and a 60" with the NFL RZ on it! VERY sweet!!! 8)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> Regarding OTA, it seems like the roadmap is already in place and rapidly advancing with ATSC 3.0, which should have a finalized standard by the end of next year.
> 
> Of course it will take years for compliant hardware to be developed and implemented before the first markets actually see 4K OTA broadcasts, but premium providers can't risk being beat to market by a free alternative. Even if 4k OTA is still 4+ years out, I'm sure there is plenty of pressure in the industry to be the first to market an ultra HD offering.
> 
> Aggressive roadmaps from providers translates to pressure on suppliers and partners like Tivo, so a 4k-capable Roamio being released in 2015 seems entirely possible, if not probable. All the more reason for a cheap OTA-only model to be replaced, as all cable-models would likely be 4k-ready and come at a higher price point.


Even if the standard is approved and new OTA tuners have the ability to decoded H.265 4K streams there is no evidenance OTA stations are going to upgrade their broadcast equipment and actually broadcast in 4K. This is copied from wikipedia:

H.264/MPEG-4 AVC

In July 2008, ATSC was updated to support the ITU-T H.264 video codec. The new standard is split in two parts:

A/72 part 1: Video System Characteristics of AVC in the ATSC Digital Television System[10]
A/72 part 2 : AVC Video Transport Subsystem Characteristics[11]

The new standards supports 1080p at 50, 59.94 and 60 frames per second; such frame rates require H.264/AVC High Profile Level 4.2, while standard HDTV frame rates only require Levels 3.2 and 4, and SDTV frame rates require Levels 3 and 3.1.​
Which means OTA channels have the ability to broadcast full 1080p with 60 fps via H.264. How many OTA channels decided to do that? answer zero. Most OTA channels don't even use the full 19Mbs available for one channel and choose to compress the 720p or 1080i MPEG 2 streams more than they have too.

In my opinion the chance of OTA channels broadcasting in H.265 4K in the next 5 years is ZERO and only slightly higher than that in 10 years.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HKoytch said:


> My thoughts weren't as much about 4K as they were about buying a Roamio at a time when it was about to be model upgraded. I hate to buy the end generation of technology. I'm not thinking there will be much content yet.


Well the new Tivo you linked is all about 4k so that would be the reason to wait for it.

And most on this forum bought new Roamios in the year since they came out. I don't think anyone is expecting it to not do its job recording cabletv anytime soon.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> I beg to differ. That's the single biggest thing I miss from my DirecTV HR34 Genie. Every Sunday I sit wishing I could have the Genie again with the PiP side by side feature where I could put my main game (Eagles!!!) in the bigger window on the left with sound and the NFL Red Zone on the smaller right one to see all the live scores of the other games. I used this on my 2.35:1 116" wide projection screen and zoom them to fill it from side to side. It's like having an 80" HDTV showing the main game and a 60" with the NFL RZ on it! VERY sweet!!! 8)


*except for the few who will post that they actually use PIP.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

telemark said:


> 35mm is about 4K resolution so when people say there's no 4K content, are they ignoring all the movies?


Most people who say that there is no 4K content are really saying that there is currently no (or very few) methods of delivering 4K content to consumers' 4K devices.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Even if the standard is approved and new OTA tuners have the ability to decoded H.265 4K streams there is no evidenance OTA stations are going to upgrade their broadcast equipment and actually broadcast in 4K.... OTA channels have the ability to broadcast full 1080p with 60 fps via H.264. How many OTA channels decided to do that?


You have a good point, but I think the competitive landscape might have changed somewhat in a few key ways:

First, EDTVs were all the rage at the time many of those strategic bandwidth allocation decisions were made. 4k TVs are already here (and being pushed hard because of how quickly profit margins on LED displays eroded).

Second, 480P was a significant upgrade over prior broadcast quality, and 720P/1080I was viewed as excellent because 1080P (blu-ray) wasn't widely known by most consumers. There is already demand for higher quality content.

Third, people have seen the crap that is being aired on those subchannels now.

So if one network affiliate in a major market opts for a 4k format, the others will be forced to follow or lose market share. The price of 4k cameras has plummeted, and the upgrade would likely be cheaper than their original HD upgrade.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah PiP is a feature that was always cool on paper, but, in practice, no one used.


I used PIP all the time, before I got my first TiVo. It was really useful while commercials were playing or I was channel surfing and I didn't want to miss what I was watching, and I felt its loss when I started using TiVo; but then I realized that TiVo pretty much eliminated any need for PIP. I was no tempted to watch something else while commercials were on because I could skip over it. I no longer had any desire to channel surf once my TiVo was full of good things to watch and I could fast-forward over boring stuff. Eventually I came to agree with TiVo that PIP is obsolete in a recorded world.

I can see how it would have utility for a sports fan who wants to keep track of everything at once in real-time; but that's not me.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> I used PIP all the time, before I got my first TiVo. It was really useful while commercials were playing or I was channel surfing and I didn't want to miss what I was watching, and I felt its loss when I started using TiVo; but then I realized that TiVo pretty much eliminated any need for PIP. I was no tempted to watch something else while commercials were on because I could skip over it. I no longer had any desire to channel surf once my TiVo was full of good things to watch and I could fast-forward over boring stuff. Eventually I came to agree with TiVo that PIP is obsolete in a recorded world.
> 
> I can see how it would have utility for a sports fan who wants to keep track of everything at once in real-time; but that's not me.


I can see how a feature will have its fans no matter how unpopular. But I think it sat dormant on 90+% of tvs.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Not to get too far off topic, but I believe it was just implemented wrong where the secondary picture would have to be something like your antenna/cable RF input and most if not all people were using STBs, negating the feature. At least with the Sony SXRD and other TVs I've owned with the feature.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> You have a good point, but I think the competitive landscape might have changed somewhat in a few key ways:
> 
> First, EDTVs were all the rage at the time many of those strategic bandwidth allocation decisions were made. 4k TVs are already here (and being pushed hard because of how quickly profit margins on LED displays eroded).
> 
> ...


I actually hope you are correct. I expect to be buying a new TV in about 5+/- years and I expect it be an OLED 4K TV and of course would love lots of native 4K content to be available. Seeings that I am OTA only I would also love to have 4K broadcast by then.

But lets be honest, the spec isn't set yet. After that devices with OTA tuners have to be built that can decode signals sent via the new spec (effectively H.265 streams) and then the broadcasters have to decide to broadcast using it. Based on the past 5 years seems like a short time frame for that to happen.

I can actually see it happening faster for some premium cable channels like HBO the cable company can built new STBs just for customers who have 4K TVs and will pay extra for 4K premium channels and continue as is for the rest.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Personal opinion: the prospects for UHD and the future of IP based delivery of all TV are intertwined. QAM has reach its limits. It it pretty clear that all cable systems will move to IP based delivery eventually. AT&T is already doing it with UVerse and took all the lumps associated with being first, and trying to use DSL as a medium. Verizon, Dish Network and possibly Sony are all preparing IPTV offerings. IMHO, I think that makes way more sense as a delivery technology than trying to squeeze UHD content into a QAM. We will see some UHD content via OTT apps, and maybe a demo channel, but anything approaching live (linear) UHD is unlikely to show up until IPTV.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

I keep on going back to the fact that Broadcom is ramping up production of new chips specifically for TiVo. That spells hardware change after they deplete the existing TiVo inventory; hence, the big push on getting people to buy now.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

All the linked press release stated is that TiVo has selected the Broadcom chip to power some future UHD device. Typically, this kind of processor selection predates release of the device by 18 to 24 months. They still need to redesign the mainboard to accommodate the new CPU, manufacture the boards and assemble the units. So, I wouldn't expect to see a new UHD TiVo before mid-2016 at the earliest (which would be about 3 years after the Roamio introduction, so that fits TiVo's historic pattern).


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HKoytch said:


> I keep on going back to the fact that Broadcom is ramping up production of new chips specifically for TiVo. That spells hardware change after they deplete the existing TiVo inventory; hence, the big push on getting people to buy now.


What's this big push to buy now? 

And the Broadcom chips are all about 4k according to your link.

If anything comes out in 6 months I think it will be almost entirely about 4k. I can't see anything magical happening because it's all tied to recording cable tv where change happens slowly.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

Diana Collins said:


> I wouldn't expect to see a new UHD TiVo before mid-2016 at the earliest (which would be about 3 years after the Roamio introduction, so that fits TiVo's historic pattern).


Didn't the premiere get a subtle mid-cycle overhaul with larger drives and more tuners a year or two after its initial launch?

I would think the addition of 4k-ready as a feature would be a relatively meaningless at launch, likely overshadowed by something more immediately marketable like additional tuners.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

dcline414 said:


> Didn't the premiere get a subtle mid-cycle overhaul with larger drives and more tuners a year or two after its initial launch?
> 
> I would think the addition of 4k-ready as a feature would be a relatively meaningless at launch, likely overshadowed by something more immediately marketable like additional tuners.


Meaningless? I couldn't agree more. However, is it anymore meaningless than THX certification was in the S3 line? The lemmings want, what the lemmings want! 

You are not going to get more tuners... If they didn't add a second cable card and 12 tuners to the Mega, they will never add more tuners to the Roamio line.

Frankly, unless you have several Mini's that are consistently being used at the same time - 6 tuners is going to meet the needs of 99% of TiVo customers.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

Diana Collins said:


> All the linked press release stated is that TiVo has selected the Broadcom chip to power some future UHD device. Typically, this kind of processor selection predates release of the device by 18 to 24 months. They still need to redesign the mainboard to accommodate the new CPU, manufacture the boards and assemble the units. So, I wouldn't expect to see a new UHD TiVo before mid-2016 at the earliest (which would be about 3 years after the Roamio introduction, so that fits TiVo's historic pattern).


Diana, I appreciate your perspective. Makes me think ...


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> What's this big push to buy now?
> 
> And the Broadcom chips are all about 4k according to your link.
> 
> If anything comes out in 6 months I think it will be almost entirely about 4k. I can't see anything magical happening because it's all tied to recording cable tv where change happens slowly.


TiVo is offering deals to upgraders right now through October. Save up to $255 on Roamio + Lifetime Service.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HKoytch said:


> broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s870350
> 
> The above seems to indicate that the Roamio line may be due for an upgrade real soon. I have seen many posts saying it will be 2-3 years, but I doubt that now.
> 
> ...


I skipped the original Series 3 and got TiVo HD DVRs. Then I skipped the premiere DVRs and bought my first Roamio.

So I get skipping a model to wait for more functionality, but in my case I was holding out for something more prevalent (streaming) and the fact the Premiere line was kind of clunky out of the gate.

so what model do you have now and what features if any will the roamio provide you now? It is clear that OTA or cable channel 4K content will not be prevalent for some years to come and likely a streaming device or a TV with 4K ability will be your better entry point than the DVR.

Also I feel in a position to skip the first shot at 4K and wait for TiVo to put out the SECOND model capable of 4K and get a better value.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I skipped the original Series 3 and got TiVo HD DVRs. Then I skipped the premiere DVRs and bought my first Roamio.
> 
> So I get skipping a model to wait for more functionality, but in my case I was holding out for something more prevalent (streaming) and the fact the Premiere line was kind of clunky out of the gate.
> 
> ...


I have a Premiere XL2 and need to un two Minis now. Can't do that without an upgrade.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HKoytch said:


> I have a Premiere XL2 and need to un two Minis now. Can't do that without an upgrade.


so it buy a TiVo roamio and two minis now
or buy 2 more DVRs to work where you want to put the minis?

or wait and use a TiVo stream or whatever.

are different people watching at the other two places that would give a full DVR more benefit?

if it was me and and just a few people watched so that the Roamio plus with 6 tuners covered it all - I would upgrade to roamio and the two minis now and then plan next to get a TV capable of 4K directly next


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so it buy a TiVo roamio and two minis now
> or buy 2 more DVRs to work where you want to put the minis?
> 
> or wait and use a TiVo stream or whatever.
> ...


Definitely need independence provided by the Mini. I may just upgrade to add the Roamio Pro.


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

You all know how 3D never caught on because of the stupid glasses?

If 4K ends up foisting "required" hardware upgrade on people, IT WILL FAIL.

People, want an upgrade path that is easy. The man on the street wants to walk into WalMart buy what he sees on the shelf and then have the idiot from Comcast come and hook up the cable company's DVR offering.

We are the outliers and whatever TiVo offers will have to be incremental.


----------



## HKoytch (Oct 13, 2014)

Thanks to all who commented. I just ordered a Roamio Pro and two Minis.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

There are already a few 4K TV models for $1,000.
There are GoPro cameras that record in 4k for about $400.

Verizon Fios, I would say has plenty of bandwidth.
Some OTT providers already offer content.

These are all signs 4k is going to be the next standard and have one of the smoother adoptions paths.

Between TelCo, Cable, Satellite, OTA, and Fiber over-builds... you don't need everyone to adopt it. It's enough if one in each market does. And everyone supports it by default anyway over IP.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

I have no doubt that 4K/UHD TVs will be the standard design for flat panels within 3 years or so. though I'd wait until next year before I bought one, since the standards needed for true UHD have only just (with the last 3 months) been ratified. Buying the current crop of UHD sets is like buying a 720p/1080i set 10 years ago. The "true HD" (1080p) sets took over.

UHD content presents greater challenges. You can't fit a UHD stream (even with h.265) into an OTA channel. That will require ATSC 3 to be adopted, which will take at least 10 years, if ever. Cable systems won't have room for linear UHD unless they start eliminating all SD channels, both analog AND digital. Even then, a UHD channel will consume an entire QAM. OTT applications like Netflix and Hulu, since they have no download option will require that you have at least a 30 megabit/second broadband connection to provide enough bandwidth for UHD (the US average just reached 10 Mbps this year). The only universally available source for UHD for the next few years will be BluRay disks.

Even with regard to TVs, the uptake of UHD is not going to be even close to HD's rate of acceptance. Remember that the conversion from NTSC to ATSC was also happening and (rightly or wrongly) everyone believed they had to have digital TVs ASAP. A lot of those first generation sets have already been replaced by 1080p TVs and then larger 1080p Smart, 3D capable, sets. People who want to buy a new TV and want the latest tech will buy UHD.  Those that want to save money will buy the dwindling number of 1080p sets. That's the way it will be for the next 4 or 5 years. By the end of the decade average broadband speeds will increase, QAMs will be replaced by IP delivery, and the UHD floodgates will start to open.

So if you are buying a long term item like a TV it makes sense to buy UHD (once the devices all have HDMI 2.0 and support the deep color profiles). But for items with a 3 to 5 year lifespan (like a DVR) there is no real reason to wait for UHD - you will replace the unit before there is much reason to use it with UHD.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

telemark said:


> There are already a few 4K TV models for $1,000.
> There are GoPro cameras that record in 4k for about $400.
> 
> Verizon Fios, I would say has plenty of bandwidth.
> ...


The new Vizio UHD line was released recently. The prices range between $1k for a 50" set to $2.6K for a 70" set. And they are supposed to work with Neflix and Amazon UHD content too. So prices are really coming down. I was considering a smaller Vizio UHD set for a secondary viewing location, until I realized that they don't have 3D capability in their UHD TVs.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

It's about streaming 4K, not linear services.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> The new Vizio UHD line was released recently. The prices range between $1k for a 50" set to $2.6K for a 70" set. And they are supposed to work with Neflix and Amazon UHD content too. So prices are really coming down. I was considering a smaller Vizio UHD set for a secondary viewing location, until I realized that they don't have 3D capability in their UHD TVs.


3D won't be around long for TV, manufacturers are dropping it, because it doesn't sell, and even people that have them don't utilize 3D very much if at all. Companies like Panasonic and Vizio are not very interested in 3D anymoe.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

4k is going to have it a lot tougher than HD did.

HD not only had the better picture but the customer was buying a much bigger screen that was at worst a few inches thin, could be hung on the wall and take up no space and used less power than the power gulping, space hogging 200lb CRT behemoth of a heater that they had in their living room.

And even then many customers couldn't tell if they were watching SD or HD on their new tv or whether the picture was stretched to make everyone look fat or not.

Enter 4k and I can just see customers getting that screen home and saying you know I don't notice a difference especially if they don't get a much bigger screen. If you replace a 50" with a 4k 50" I'm not sure there will be a difference from 8-10' away. And if there is a little better difference, the customer still might say wtf!??!? I paid $1200 for a slightly clearer pic?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Completely agree. Most of the problems we have with HD today are due to sh*tty over compression, not the resolution. A 1080i picture with decent bitrate looks fantastic. If they could convert to H.264 and maybe bump up to full 1080p/60 people would have nothing to complain about with HD unless they're sitting 3' away from the screen. Jumping to 4k, and all the extra bandwidth that entails end to end seems like a terrible idea to me.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 3, 2009)

Dan203 said:


> Completely agree. Most of the problems we have with HD today are due to sh*tty over compression, not the resolution. A 1080i picture with decent bitrate looks fantastic. If they could convert to H.264 and maybe bump up to full 1080p/60 people would have nothing to complain about with HD unless they're sitting 3' away from the screen. Jumping to 4k, and all the extra bandwidth that entails end to end seems like a terrible idea to me.


1080p H264 doesnt sound sexy and will not sell new TVs and STB. With that said I am looking forward to it, more useful then 3d.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Jeff_DML said:


> 1080p H264 doesnt sound sexy and will not sell new TVs and STB. With that said I am looking forward to it, more useful then 3d.


They can just call it UltraHD. Or if that is reserved for 4k they can call it Super HD.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HD+

Cause everything is better with a plus after it.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

That's what my Nook HD+ said!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I believe Vudu's "HDX" is 1080p via H.264 while "HD" is only 720p.

In any event I pretty much agree with Dan, at this point 4K is really nothing but a way to help market higher priced TVs.

That said I also believe 4K is here to stay and where TV manufactures are going. Right now you can still buy top tier 1080p sets and unless you really are buying a huge TV and having it setup properly 4K really doesn't matter. However that will change over time as the price of 4K comes down and manufactures stop making top tier 1080p sets. At that point if you want a top TV you will have to buy a 4K set.

On the content side it really doesn't look good for 4K anytime soon: 

OTA broadcast - my guess is at least 10 years out
Cable - my guess is it will stay none to very limited for 5-10 years
Satellite: Same as cable but they could move faster for PPV type stuff
Streaming: Here now but limited and requires more bandwidth than what most people will have anytime soon.
solid media: This is the best chance for lots of high quality 4K content but consumers don't seem to want to deal with solid media so I am not sure where this goes.

I would be really bummed if I had to buy a TV now. We are in a transition phase again. I have always liked the picture on Plasma TVs better than LCDs. Put Plasma is out and OLED will still need another 5+/- years to get the price to a point I would want to pay. If I had to buy a TV now I guess I would buy a cheaper mid level LCD and plan on trashing it in 5+/- years to buy an OLED 4K TV.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I believe Vudu's "HDX" is 1080p via H.264 while "HD" is only 720p.
> 
> In any event I pretty much agree with Dan, at this point 4K is really nothing but a way to help market higher priced TVs.
> 
> ...


DirecTV already plans to offer a Linear UHD channel late next year. They are launching two satellites which will become operational in 2015. Assuming there are no issues with them, they plan on having a UHD channel next year which will use the new satellites.. Prior to that they will be offering UHD content through downloads. So not 5 to 10 years. At least their plan is to offer it much sooner than that.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Just one more comment on 4K content. While I don't think streaming 4K content is going to work well for lots of people, if Vudu and/or Amazon moved to streaming option that allowed downloading on various devices (like a new 4K ready TiVo or a 4K Amazon Fire TV with a larger storage) then delivery of 4K content via the Internet could move really fast.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> DirecTV already plans to offer a Linear UHD channel late next year. They are launching two satellites which will become operational in 2015. Assuming there are no issues with them, they plan on having a UHD channel next year which will use the new satellites.. Prior to that they will be offering UHD content through downloads. So not 5 to 10 years. At least their plan is to offer it much sooner than that.


Well without knowing what you just confirmed that is what I actually thought could happen with both cable and Satellite - limited higher cost 4K channels (posted that someplace around here) and as you can see with my second post downloadable 4K content is also a place I think we could see 4K content really fast.

If good quality native 4K content does become fairly widely available that can change the case for smaller (50-65") 4K TVs with excellent pictures because even if you can not see the increase resolution the picture should be better than on a 1080p with poorer quality content sources.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

4k is undetectable by the human eye at typical viewing distances unless you have a screen 80" (same pixel density as a 1080p 40" tv) or larger. Most people will buy a 4k tv thinking they have the latest and greatest something special, brag to their friends, then sit on their couch at the same distance with their compressed cable tv and not realize they've wasted their money on a gimmick.

I'm stocking up on 1080p plasma tvs before they disappear. OLED can beat plasma in black levels but for a long time will still be inferior when it comes to color accuracy, motion handling, viewing angles, and price.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ej42137 said:


> I used PIP all the time, before I got my first TiVo.


I used PIP all the time, even WITH my Tivos.

I *still* use PIP, but far far less than I used to. I still use my Toshiba XS32 as my main "switcher" for inputs, though I also have PS3 & Roamio on separate HDMI inputs.

While I mainly download to computer and use VLC nowadays, sometimes for some things, I still just dub them to the XS32's hard drive and watch there faster than real time.. and use PIP to look at the Tivo output for something else.. Admittedly far less often than I used to, but I have been using it in the past few days fairly frequently.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> DirecTV already plans to offer a Linear UHD channel late next year. They are launching two satellites which will become operational in 2015. Assuming there are no issues with them, they plan on having a UHD channel next year which will use the new satellites.. Prior to that they will be offering UHD content through downloads. So not 5 to 10 years. At least their plan is to offer it much sooner than that.


Source?

All DirecTV has committed to is providing "some" 4k content next year. A lot of people have jumped to the conclusion that they will use RDBS to deliver 4K linear content. However, until there are realtime h.265 encoders you won't see any linear channels unless they (DirecTV) can just pass through a 4K source. It is far more likely that DirecTV will just offer some PPVs in 4K


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> Source?
> 
> All DirecTV has committed to is providing "some" 4k content next year. A lot of people have jumped to the conclusion that they will use RDBS to deliver 4K linear content. However, until there are realtime h.265 encoders you won't see any linear channels unless they (DirecTV) can just pass through a 4K source. It is far more likely that DirecTV will just offer some PPVs in 4K


The other thing is all these companies can cheat their way to 4k, for starters at least, anyway right?

What is really holding back any provider from calling a channel 4k? Is there any legal bar or hurdle they have to cross to not be sued for saying this channel or PPV show is 4k?


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Well, probably not sued, but customers sure would have a right to complain loudly. There is no doubt that DirecTV will have the capacity to transmit UHD when the new DirecTV-14 satellite is launched (12/4/2014) and becomes operational (probably about 4 months later). If they want to deliver UHD at that time, the only real option will be to use MPEG-4. This will mean dedicating a transponder to a single channel. This sounds a lot like what they did with HD...transmitting a handful of channels in MPEG-2 and then switching to MPEG-4 later.

Everyone seems to be assuming they will use RDBS for this, but there are challenges in designing a LNB that can receive both "standard" Ka (needed for the HD channels) as well as RDBS from the same slot. So, even if they can transmit a live UHD channel, they will still need to bring new STBs and new LNBs to market.

Personally, I expect that they will not use RDBS for this, at least not yet. Rather, they can use one of their regular Ka transponders. That way, all they need is a set top box that can output UHD. No one has reported a regulatory filing for a new STB yet, so I'd guess live UHD from DirecTV is more likely a second half of the year offering - at best.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)




----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Right now 4k is a gimmick, like 3D was a couple years ago.


4k is not a gimmick. 4K is here to stay, and 4K is going to come a lot faster than HD. That being said, you are correct that there's no bandwidth available for linear 4K, so at least for the first couple of years, it will be disc or streaming only.



trip1eX said:


> Yeah PiP is a feature that was always cool on paper, but, in practice, no one used.


I used it a long time ago. Kind of annoying to lose a chunk of the screen. Now, when there are multiple games on, I just use an iPad, a laptop, and my TV to watch multiples games at once. 



Diana Collins said:


> By the end of the decade average broadband speeds will increase, QAMs will be replaced by IP delivery, and the UHD floodgates will start to open.


LOL. QAM's aren't going anywhere given the deployed base of equipment. The big question, when Comcast gobbles up TWC is how they handle SDV. If they Comcast-ize the TWC systems, those systems will lose 70+ HDs, unless they do it concurrently with H.264 conversion for HD, but then they will be absolutely out of bandwidth, as 200 HD's and 300mbps internet will be pushing the upper limits for an 860mhz system.

If UHD comes along in broadcast, then that will force Comcast's hand on SDV. Hopefully it works better than the mess that TWC created, however.

With small nodes and SDV, there are basically no limits on system capacity.



Dan203 said:


> Completely agree. Most of the problems we have with HD today are due to sh*tty over compression, not the resolution. A 1080i picture with decent bitrate looks fantastic.


Exactly. No need even to go to 1080p. 1080i60 at a good bitrate looks really, really good.



Diana Collins said:


> However, until there are realtime h.265 encoders you won't see any linear channels unless they (DirecTV) can just pass through a 4K source. It is far more likely that DirecTV will just offer some PPVs in 4K


They'll have a whopping... 1 channel. Yeah, MPEG-4 would work just fine for that.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/

aka, a gimmick. That doesn't mean it isn't here to stay.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

series5orpremier said:


> http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
> 
> aka, a gimmick. That doesn't mean it isn't here to stay.


Even by those charts, it isn't a "gimmick" if you would just sit closer to the TV.

I remember when I was just a wee lad watching Saturday morning cartoons (do those even exist anymore?), and I would sit on the floor about 3 feet away from the old 26" CRT. I was thoroughly enjoying myself watching Bugs Bunny when all of a sudden my mother walks through the room and yells, "Don't sit so close to the TV, you will go blind!" With a heavy heart, I would move myself further back and sit on the sofa. Alas, if only I hadn't been shamed at such an early age for doing what seemed so very natural to me at the time, then I probably wouldn't feel so guilty about sitting closer to the TV today.

Embrace your inner child and sit closer to the TV, then when you get 4K you will be ready.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Very few people will sit close enough to an affordable 4K TV today for any length of time, to make it worthwhile. Tv's today last a long time, and sales of LED TVs have dropped, because so many people have already purchased them in the last couple of years, so the manufacturers had to come up with a new way to generate sales by convincing people to drop some money on a new product, hence 4K. Buying something that your eye can't resolve, unless you sit right on top of the set, doesn't make sense, but if the Jones have it, then then their next door neighbor has to have it too. 4K projectors on the other hand are useful because you can size the picture with the proper lense and throw distance, so that you can actually benefit from the 4K (providing you can find content for it.) On a common size picture of around 65" at a typical home viewing distance of say 10 feet, 4K makes as much sense as buying an audio system that has a frequency response from 10-40,000 hz. You ear can't hear much of that either.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Yes, the future of 4K for me is with a projector, not a TV.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
> 
> aka, a gimmick. That doesn't mean it isn't here to stay.


That article is idiotic. If you look at the chart in the article, you will see that if you sit the THX-recommended distance from the TV (which would be around 7' for a 70" TV, you will get the benefit of 2160p. The problem is that a lot of people don't understand the right screen size for the viewing distance. Even my coworkers, who are all engineers like me, are clueless, they mock the guidelines because they just don't get it.



series5orpremier said:


> Yes, the future of 4K for me is with a projector, not a TV.


This is quite true. I hope semi-reasonable 4K projectors come out. You can see the benefit of 4K today on the 70" Vizio P Series for $2499, but the real "WOW" factor is going to be when you're looking at a 100"+ projection screen with 4K content.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> 4K makes as much sense as buying an audio system that has a frequency response from 10-40,000 hz. You ear can't hear much of that either.


You might not be able to hear 10Hz, but you would probably be able to feel it. On the high end, your dog would be able to hear up to 40,000Hz. So like 4K, it's not completely useless.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Bigg said:


> If you look at the chart in the article, you will see that if you sit the THX-recommended distance from the TV (which would be around 7' for a 70" TV, you will get the benefit of 2160p.


In that case you get maybe half the benefit, perhaps being able to resolve 1600 lines, but by no means do you get the full benefit. I also can picture 90% of the population not knowing and/or even not willing to sit that close for various reasons. Many people complain of being disoriented with dizziness or eye strain as an excuse for increasing their viewing distance.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

series5orpremier said:


> In that case you get maybe half the benefit, perhaps being able to resolve 1600 lines, but by no means do you get the full benefit. I also can picture 90% of the population not knowing and/or even not willing to sit that close for various reasons. Many people complain of being disoriented with dizziness or eye strain as an excuse for increasing their viewing distance.


Plus we know there will lots of shenanigans where the content won't be "4k" even if it says "4k."

And it isn't just about detecting a difference, but will the difference be worth it to the consumer? A lot of people just won't care even if they can tell a difference. IT won't be worth it for them to get a new tv. Nor pay any extra that might be asked of cable/satellite/etc to provide a high res content.

IT's not like the choice will be between crap and awesome. It's going to more like between good and pretty good.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

I suspect it is a "gimmick" for TV watching (though I still think it would be wonderful for showing 4 sports events at once in PIP), but it is definitely not a gimmick for computers. I bought my very own UHD monitor for use at work simply because the more pixels I can get on the screen the better .

And if we get cheaper UHD resolution DLP projectors, just think of the really high resolution 3D printers people will be able to build with them .


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

This is all déjà vu all over again. I feel like I'm back at the turn of the century discussing why HD isn't worth it, 480p and DVD is way good enough, haha!



Bigg said:


> ........Exactly. No need even to go to 1080p. 1080i60 at a good bitrate looks really, really good. .........


Yeah, until there's any fast motion, like with sports such as football, hockey, basketball etc., unless you happen to have a really good deinterlacer.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> You might not be able to hear 10Hz, but you would probably be able to feel it. On the high end, your dog would be able to hear up to 40,000Hz. So like 4K, it's not completely useless.


Only if the dog deems the content important.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

HarperVision said:


> This is all déjà vu all over again. I feel like I'm back at the turn of the century discussing why HD isn't worth it, 480p and DVD is way good enough, haha!


This is nothing like HD vs. 480p. It's further down the resolution road where there are actual biophysical limitations. 4K has some benefit if the content is there and you understand how to watch it with screen sizes and viewing distances, but there really is such a thing as diminishing returns. Don't even talk to me about going from 4K to 8K.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

series5orpremier said:


> This is nothing like HD vs. 480p. It's further down the resolution road where there are actual biophysical limitations. 4K has some benefit if the content is there and you understand how to watch it with screen sizes and viewing distances, but there really is such a thing as diminishing returns. Don't even talk to me about going from 4K to 8K.


Diminishing returns is the real issue with 4K HDTV, like the internet when it first started using the phone lines at 9600 baud, took 3 minutes to download a picture, than when the speed of my internet went way up so a the same picture downloaded in .25 sec I did not care if the picture download time than dropped again (as the internet speed went up some more) to .125 sec as both were good enough. The big difference is that most people will not spend the money for a top grade 1080P HDTV, but now if they purchase a 4K HDTV they will get the advantage of a top end 1080P HDTV.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I'd be happy if the content providers would just send us all their channels in 1080p. We're not even using all the capability of our 1080p sets except when watching blu rays. What's to stop content providers from calling 1440p (hey, it's 4X the resolution of 720p) or 1620p 4K and charging a premium for it? Hardly anyone would be able to tell the difference.

I'd rather TV manufacturers spend effort on other aspects of picture quality, like motion handling.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> In that case you get maybe half the benefit, perhaps being able to resolve 1600 lines, but by no means do you get the full benefit. I also can picture 90% of the population not knowing and/or even not willing to sit that close for various reasons. Many people complain of being disoriented with dizziness or eye strain as an excuse for increasing their viewing distance.


Most of the population is stupid. Many people are using TV speakers or soundbars, and sitting way more than the correct distance away from their TV. People seem to be fine with movies, so TV at a similar size/distance ratio shouldn't be an issue.

And you'd be darn close to seeing the full benefit of 2160p at 7' with a 70" TV. It's getting even trickier to balance distance in a setup for cable, streaming/Blu-ray and 4K, since the quality of the various content sources is so different.



HarperVision said:


> This is all déjà vu all over again. I feel like I'm back at the turn of the century discussing why HD isn't worth it, 480p and DVD is way good enough, haha!
> 
> 
> > 2160p is totally worth it over 1080i/p. I just don't see much of any difference between 1080i and 1080p.
> ...


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

series5orpremier said:


> This is nothing like HD vs. 480p. It's further down the resolution road where there are actual biophysical limitations. 4K has some benefit if the content is there and you understand how to watch it with screen sizes and viewing distances, but there really is such a thing as diminishing returns. Don't even talk to me about going from 4K to 8K.


It is everything like that, and the exact same things are being said as to why we should or shouldn't upgrade. I'm not talking the science of it, I'm talking the arguments people are making pro or con.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

lessd said:


> Diminishing returns is the real issue with 4K HDTV, like the internet when it first started using the phone lines at 9600 baud, took 3 minutes to download a picture, than when the speed of my internet went way up so a the same picture downloaded in .25 sec I did not care if the picture download time than dropped again (as the internet speed went up some more) to .125 sec as both were good enough.


Exactly. AT some point people stop caring because it is good enough. Megapixels in cameras comes to mind.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> It is everything like that, and the exact same things are being said as to why we should or shouldn't upgrade. I'm not talking the science of it, I'm talking the arguments people are making pro or con.


except the upgrade to HD meant getting a flat screen and dumping your huge 200 lb CRT. 4k doesn't have that going for it.

To me that's the big difference.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> except the upgrade to HD meant getting a flat screen and dumping your huge 200 lb CRT. 4k doesn't have that going for it. To me that's the big difference.


True, but I'm talking picture quality arguments, like "you have to sit x feet away to see the difference, have to have this size screen, yada yada yada"


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Manufacturers are trying to recreate the magic and profit of the HDTV transition - unfortunately, 4K just isn't going to do that... People are not going to dump their working HD flat screen for a 4K TV en mass, the way they did during the "HD Revolution"

Today you would be hard pressed to purchase a 720p TV, and I do believe that in a few years 4K will be the standard. That said, content is still going to be spotty and if Netflix is any example - sold at a premium. (Most cable channels are still 720p)

Netflix hikes subscription price for 4K TV owners


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Moving from non HD Tv to HD is a mega step in quality. Going from 2K to 4K is miniscule in comparison, and I work with several 2K and 4K displays of different sizes, all the time. If one has money to burn, then getting a 4K might impress your neighbors, and then again, it might not.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> True, but I'm talking picture quality arguments, like "you have to sit x feet away to see the difference, have to have this size screen, yada yada yada"


yep, and on this forum that is a significant group of people that truly know and care about such things. For the average consumer - it is what kind of TVs are available in my price range when they need a TV. or else it was indeed, really need a flat screen TV in this room to arrange things like I want.

then for a few weeks all that becomes somewhat part of the buying decision as they read up on current TV technology and decide which one to buy.

then they arrange the room as they like and sit where the couch ended up versus finding the exact sweet spot. and they like the new TV since it is inevitably better than the old one and after a few months they even forget that and the TV is just fine


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

bradleys said:


> Manufacturers are trying to recreate the magic and profit of the HDTV transition - unfortunately, 4K just isn't going to do that... People are not going to dump their working HD flat screen for a 4K TV en mass, the way they did during the "HD Revolution"
> 
> Today you would be hard pressed to purchase a 720p TV, and I do believe that in a few years 4K will be the standard. That said, content is still going to be spotty and if Netflix is any example - sold at a premium. (Most cable channels are still 720p)
> 
> Netflix hikes subscription price for 4K TV owners


There are a couple of major network OTA channels where I live that still broadcast in 720 P.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Captainbob said:


> There are a couple of major network OTA channels where I live that still braodcast in 720 P.


Yeah, ABC and FOX, or if you're lucky enough like me to be in an area where they take your nice 1080i broadcasts and down-convert them to 720p and cram two of them into one ATSC/8-VSB channel with a translator/repeater, using only about 8.5Mbps for each.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

As of now most of what we see on our 1080p HDTV is far from the best 1080p could give us, BD will give the best 1080p picture, than (for 1080i) OTA (not all networks) and maybe some satellite transmissions, cable comes in next, Comcast does a good job with the networks and HBO, but many other HD ch are compressed such that you can't even get the best 1080i picture your new HDTV could give. It comes down to bragging rights as in I got a 4K HDTV, when if you spent less than the cost of the 4K HDTV and purchased the best 1080P HDTV (same size) you may get as good a picture, but when people see a 1080P HDTV (same size) for $1500 or $3200 most go for the $1500 set as the scalier does not have any rating to look at, for most people 1080p is 1080p, what the difference except the screen size.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

bradleys said:


> Manufacturers are trying to recreate the magic and profit of the HDTV transition - unfortunately, 4K just isn't going to do that... People are not going to dump their working HD flat screen for a 4K TV en mass, the way they did during the "HD Revolution"
> 
> Today you would be hard pressed to purchase a 720p TV, and I do believe that in a few years 4K will be the standard. That said, content is still going to be spotty and if Netflix is any example - sold at a premium. (Most cable channels are still 720p)
> 
> Netflix hikes subscription price for 4K TV owners


Most channels are 1080i. A minority of channels are using 720P.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Most channels are 1080i. A minority of channels are using 720P.


I don't know anything about cable but for OTA in my area there are more 720p channels than 1080i ones:

ABC = 720p
CW = 720p
Fox = 720p
Ion TV = 720p
CBS = 1080i
NBC = 1080i
PBS = 1080i


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I don't know anything about cable but for OTA in my area there are more 720p channels than 1080i ones:
> 
> ABC = 720p
> CW = 720p
> ...


Locals are a tiny proportion of channels. On my local Comcast system, which has about 70 HD's, it's about 70/30 1080i/720p. Not sure how it stacks up on Comcast systems with ~120HD's, or U-Verse/FIOS/TWC where they are around ~200HD's.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

720P is the minority when all cable channels are taken into account.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

But ESPN, which is the most popular channel on cable, uses 720p. And they do so specifically because progressive video is better for sports. Sure deinterlacers have gotten better over the years, but even Bigg, who is a big proponent of 1080i, admitted that he still sees artifacts sometimes. The producers at ESPN don't want that, ever. So for now they're using 720p and maybe someday they'll convert to 1080p when the cable systems start transmitting in H.264 and they can cram the station into the same bandwidth. But I seriously doubt they will ever start doing 1080i.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

If you just watch the NFL you will see a huge difference in picture quality on the same channel even. LIke Fox yesterday the nationally televised Cowboys vs Giants game looked a lot better than the locally televised Vikings vs Bills game. I can only guess the national game has a bigger budget and gets the better cameras etc.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> If you just watch the NFL you will see a huge difference in picture quality on the same channel even. LIke Fox yesterday the nationally televised Cowboys vs Giants game looked a lot better than the locally televised Vikings vs Bills game. I can only guess the national game has a bigger budget and gets the better cameras etc.


I know years ago during the HD conversion I heard Fox didn't have enough HD cameras and the lesser games were using 480p ones and that signal was being up converted to 720p for the broadcast. The major games, I think the top two or three, used HD cams. I remember easily noticing the difference and being pretty pissed at their "faux HD" when they were advertising it as HD.

I'm not sure where they're at with that now. I'm no longer in broadcast TV anymore and haven't kept up with that insider type stuff. Although I thought I've noticed some that still didn't really look as good as their "Game of the Week" like yesterday's Cowboys vs Giants game.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> But ESPN, which is the most popular channel on cable, uses 720p. And they do so specifically because progressive video is better for sports. Sure deinterlacers have gotten better over the years, but even Bigg, who is a big proponent of 1080i, admitted that he still sees artifacts sometimes. The producers at ESPN don't want that, ever. So for now they're using 720p and maybe someday they'll convert to 1080p when the cable systems start transmitting in H.264 and they can cram the station into the same bandwidth. But I seriously doubt they will ever start doing 1080i.


Yes, there are occasional artifacts on 1080i if you look really closely, and yes, ESPN does get every last drop of quality they can out of 720p, but the fact of the matter is that the overall experience of a well produced 1080i feed will still blow even the best 720p feed (ESPN) out of the water any day of the week, due to much increased sharpness, and more of an immersive "HD" feel. ESPN in 1080i would be *incredible*, as they would get the absolute most out of 1080i that's possible.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Well according to the head hauncho I saw speak they are not even considering that. They do not like interlaced video at all. So unless cable starts letting them use 1080p then I'm guessing you're going to be stuck with 720p until ESPN 4k comes along.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Well according to the head hauncho I saw speak they are not even considering that. They do not like interlaced video at all. So unless cable starts letting them use 1080p then I'm guessing you're going to be stuck with 720p until ESPN 4k comes along.


That's alright, their video still looks good, it's just unfortunate that they won't use the highest quality format currently available. Even when ESPN 4K comes around, most of what I watch will still be 720p because it's on ESPN2 or ESPNU (which I currently only get in 480i, but that's a Comcast non-rebuild system issue, not ESPN's).


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

Anyone seeing Tivo licensing their technology to TV companies? I don't see why people would want to have a separate unit when Tivo can be built into the TV. Everything should be merge to the TV system. TV companies has been less successful at doing this, so Tivo should be able to position themselves into this market. I think both party should benefit from this. Is current OS differences preventing this from happening? Anyone have technical or knowledge on this and see this happening in the near future? Thanks.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

CT71812229 said:


> Anyone seeing Tivo licensing their technology to TV companies? I don't see why people would want to have a separate unit when Tivo can be built into the TV. Everything should be merge to the TV system. TV companies has been less successful at doing this, so Tivo should be able to position themselves into this market. I think both party should benefit from this. Is current OS differences preventing this from happening? Anyone have technical or knowledge on this and see this happening in the near future? Thanks.


At last years CES TiVo showed the equivalent of a TiVo Mini running on other devices (Roku or Amazon Fire or similar, maybe just some generic Android device, as I recall). I would suspect that the TiVo Roamio Platform will eventually include the TiVo Mini functionality as an app on such devices, and the Roamio or its successor will become something you can attach to your home network in your utility closet and then utilize via such apps or the TiVo mini device itself. I would expect most TV-based/OTT-based app platforms wouldn't be all that hard to support once they've done the work for any of them.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

dswallow said:


> At last years CES TiVo showed the equivalent of a TiVo Mini running on other devices (Roku or Amazon Fire or similar, maybe just some generic Android device, as I recall). I would suspect that the TiVo Roamio Platform will eventually include the TiVo Mini functionality as an app on such devices, and the Roamio or its successor will become something you can attach to your home network in your utility closet and then utilize via such apps or the TiVo mini device itself. I would expect most TV-based/OTT-based app platforms wouldn't be all that hard to support once they've done the work for any of them.


It will be interesting to see what the final approach is on these extender apps really will be. My guess is they will not be "equivalent" to the mini, but more based on the Android app (stream based). And that is a significant difference - including no live TV and less smooth trick play.

This approach could also bring the benifit of OOH functionality.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

So the app on the smart phone and the mini can be use to control the TIVO from anywhere? I can see then selling the TiVo Mega with the 24TB of storage in a hot-swappable RAID-5 arrangement if that is the case. With this ability the TIVO can definitely get a bigger chunk of the DVR market if they can price it right. What's the though on that? How soon can they get an app that can do this? I am still using the Series 3. Is there anything that would allow me to control and view my TiVo from anywhere?

I think TIVO has not been successful because of its pricing strategy. I think TIVO should concentrate on gaining more market share by pricing perhaps to below $300 for a three year basic option with one Mini included and increase it for 5 year plan and more storage for higher pricing. Perhaps Cloud storage is the way to go?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

CT71812229 said:


> So the app on the smart phone and the mini can be use to control the TIVO from anywhere? I can see then selling the TiVo Mega with the 24TB of storage in a hot-swappable RAID-5 arrangement if that is the case. With this ability the TIVO can definitely get a bigger chunk of the DVR market if they can price it right. What's the though on that? How soon can they get an app that can do this? I am still using the Series 3. * Is there anything that would allow me to control and view my TiVo from anywhere?* I think TIVO has not been successful because of its pricing strategy. I think TIVO should concentrate on gaining more market share by pricing perhaps to below $300 for a three year basic option with one Mini included and increase it for 5 year plan and more storage for higher pricing. Perhaps Cloud storage is the way to go?


Yes, as Slingbox.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

CT71812229 said:


> So the app on the smart phone and the mini can be use to control the TIVO from anywhere?


No. The phone / tablet app does not control a tivo it consumes services from your tivo. It DOES NOT work like the slingbox - thus no live TV.



> I can see then selling the TiVo Mega with the 24TB of storage in a hot-swappable RAID-5 arrangement if that is the case. With this ability the TIVO can definitely get a bigger chunk of the DVR market if they can price it right. What's the though on that? How soon can they get an app that can do this? I am still using the Series 3. Is there anything that would allow me to control and view my TiVo from anywhere?


The tivo phone / tablet app does allow you to access content from your tivo both locally and away from home (for non protected content). It is stream based. The mini is a true extender and gives you a full featured tivo experience. The phone tablet app is functional, but definitely not the same.

The mega is a ridiculous product. If they would have added a second cable card for 12 tuners it would have made a lot of sense as a hub - as it is, it's just freakishly large storage.

And I haven't done any research, but if they are striping accross the array - hot swappable brings no value.



> I think TIVO has not been successful because of its pricing strategy. I think TIVO should concentrate on gaining more market share by pricing perhaps to below $300 for a three year basic option with one Mini included and increase it for 5 year plan and more storage for higher pricing. Perhaps Cloud storage is the way to go?


Tivo's problem in the retail market is that the MSO's offer the "path of least resistance" and I am not sure changing the pricing model would make any appreciable difference in volume. They are actually doing quite well with their MSO contracts whn affered directly via the MSO's at a premium cost.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The TiVo Mega makes no sense. They could ship a version of the Roamio Pro with 6TB, very few people have any desire for more than that (if even that).

In order to do Cloud DVR, they would have to get MSO partners involved, and any MSO partner large enough to do Cloud DVR is large enough to have their own DVR solution. Small MSOs that need something that's basically plug and play are a better bet for TiVo.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Bigg said:


> The TiVo Mega makes no sense. They could ship a version of the Roamio Pro with 6TB, very few people have any desire for more than that (if even that).
> 
> In order to do Cloud DVR, they would have to get MSO partners involved, and any MSO partner large enough to do Cloud DVR is large enough to have their own DVR solution. Small MSOs that need something that's basically plug and play are a better bet for TiVo.


What's interesting is that how Seagate's 8TB Shingled Magnetic Recording drive ($260) works seems to be almost perfect for video recording purposes in that the extra density is gained by shingling the writes, thus random writes require rewriting data that follows the area being written, too, up to the end of the band for that group. For devices continuously recording video in blocks, this is practically a benefit, not a drawback. At worst all they really need to do is utilize some sort of SD card memory for the active data, like OS files and configuration/guide information, leaving the hard drive solely to video recording.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CT71812229 said:


> Anyone seeing Tivo licensing their technology to TV companies? I don't see why people would want to have a separate unit when Tivo can be built into the TV. Everything should be merge to the TV system. TV companies has been less successful at doing this, so Tivo should be able to position themselves into this market. I think both party should benefit from this. Is current OS differences preventing this from happening? Anyone have technical or knowledge on this and see this happening in the near future? Thanks.


The industry is heading toward a network based future. By September of this year every new box/DVR leased by a cable company will be required to support DLNA CVP-2. Including TiVos leased by MSOs. DLNA CVP-2 is a protocol that allows any certified device to stream content, even protected content, directly from the host device. It also allows the host to supply a complete UI to the playback device as an HTML5 "app" to maintain a consistent user experience.

Because of this requirement I expect we'll see a LOT of CVP-2 certified TVs and OTT devices this year. And every one of them has the potential to become a TiVo Mini when TiVo gets certified.

The only possible catch is TiVo has filed for a waiver saying that their proprietary system should be good enough, and if not then they need more time to implement CVP-2. The FCC hasn't ruled on the waiver yet, but the DLNA alliance did protest during the comments period saying that TiVo's closed system should not qualify and that they've got plenty of time to implement the CVP-2 standard. I personally hope the FCC denies the waiver because it would result in a more open standard being used for multi-room viewing and give us customers more choices on which devices we use to watch TiVo.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> By September of this year every new box/DVR leased by a cable company will be required to support DLNA CVP2.
> 
> I expect we'll see a LOT of CVP-2 certified TVs and OTT devices this year. And every one of them has the potential to become a TiVo Mini when TiVo gets certified.


Not to split hairs, but a streaming app meeting the CVP-2 requiremt a is a long way from a full mini. An MRS client or a stream based client would meet the objectives with a minimal amount of functionality.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They could make the RUI as robust as they want. But you're right it doesn't have to be a full blown UI like the Mini to be compliant. However I'm hoping that their MSO partners will put pressure on them to make the RUI as robust as the Mini.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> They could make the RUI as robust as they want. But you're right it doesn't have to be a full blown UI like the Mini to be compliant. However I'm hoping that their MSO partners will put pressure on them to make the RUI as robust as the Mini.


Only if there is a way for the MSOs to collect an outlet fee for each DLNA attached device. Otherwise, they would much rather rent the customer a Mini than let them have an equivalent experience on just a Smart TV.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Only if there is a way for the MSOs to collect an outlet fee for each DLNA attached device. Otherwise, they would much rather rent the customer a Mini than let them have an equivalent experience on just a Smart TV.


DISH and DirecTV charge like $6 per virtual client.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I can't see them voluntarily giving up their rental fees. So to use another device to access some of that content it only makes sense for them to charge a fee. Not that I would like it.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

davezatz said:


> DISH and DirecTV charge like $6 per virtual client.


Yes, they do. I was really pointing out that even if you are just running a coax from a splitter to your TV, the cable companies will make sure that they charge you for the privilege. While it will be cheaper for them (no STB to supply) it will NOT be any cheaper for the consumer.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dswallow said:


> What's interesting is that how Seagate's 8TB Shingled Magnetic Recording drive ($260) works seems to be almost perfect for video recording purposes in that the extra density is gained by shingling the writes, thus random writes require rewriting data that follows the area being written, too, up to the end of the band for that group. For devices continuously recording video in blocks, this is practically a benefit, not a drawback. At worst all they really need to do is utilize some sort of SD card memory for the active data, like OS files and configuration/guide information, leaving the hard drive solely to video recording.


That's an interesting idea, I didn't even realize that technology existed, although I'm not sure TiVo needs more than 6TB at the moment. The system/guide/etc could easily be put on a small SSD, maybe 8 or 16GB that is either in some sort of mini-PCIe slot or just built into the motherboard.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Diana Collins said:


> Only if there is a way for the MSOs to collect an outlet fee for each DLNA attached device. Otherwise, they would much rather rent the customer a Mini than let them have an equivalent experience on just a Smart TV.


They have no choice. This is an FCC mandate. Verizon has filed a petition to try and get it over turned but so far the FCC has not backed down. They have pushed out the date a couple of times, but now it's approaching quickly and I don't think they're going to push it again.

AFAIK there is no way for them to collect an "outlet fee" or each DLNA device. It's basically like the Mini. You have a host device with the actual tuner(s) and the DLNA clients simply stream them to an alternate TV via your home network. There is no way for them to know that you are using a secondary TV. Especially since it's still possible for 3rd party companies, like TiVo and Silicone Dust, to create CableCARD based hosts that they have no control over.

Although I'm sure they'll still have some sort of settop box that you can rent from them and they'll try to convince the uneducated that they still need to rent one for every room.

However some of the bigger MSOs seem to be embracing this. They see it as a way to get multi-room features to compete with the Hopper and Genie for "free" without having to roll their own technology. I'm sure they'll try to game it somehow to get more money, but it "should" work out to be an advantage for the educated consumer, like those of us on this forum.

Edit: One thing that could turn this back in their favor is that long term they plan to push the DLNA part up to the head end. So basically you'd just have a network connection to your house and every device would be a DLNA CVP-2 client. If that happens then they could detect how many "tuners" you're accessing concurrently. The other thing that's not clear from what I can access about the spec is whether or not the client is required to use the RUI. If they are then it could be a problem for TiVo since it would basically become a dumb box that's just used to display the MSOs UI. This is basically what OCAP turned into, aka CableCARD 2.0, and the CE manufactures rejected it. But if the whole system converts over to this then they may not have a choice. I'm trying to get my hands on the complete CVP-2 spec so I can read it and see if there is a way for a 3rd party device to access and record the tuners without having to display the RUI. But the DLNA website is broken right now so I can't get it yet.


----------



## fyodor (Sep 19, 2006)

How exactly would this work? I thought that this was supposed to be a substitute for cablecard. Would the Tivos use cablecards for decoding and then reincode using DLNA CVP-2? I thought that the model was supposed to be a headend device and DVRS that accessed it through DLNA CVP-2? Am I misunderstanding?



Dan203 said:


> The industry is heading toward a network based future. By September of this year every new box/DVR leased by a cable company will be required to support DLNA CVP-2. Including TiVos leased by MSOs. DLNA CVP-2 is a protocol that allows any certified device to stream content, even protected content, directly from the host device. It also allows the host to supply a complete UI to the playback device as an HTML5 "app" to maintain a consistent user experience.
> 
> Because of this requirement I expect we'll see a LOT of CVP-2 certified TVs and OTT devices this year. And every one of them has the potential to become a TiVo Mini when TiVo gets certified.
> 
> The only possible catch is TiVo has filed for a waiver saying that their proprietary system should be good enough, and if not then they need more time to implement CVP-2. The FCC hasn't ruled on the waiver yet, but the DLNA alliance did protest during the comments period saying that TiVo's closed system should not qualify and that they've got plenty of time to implement the CVP-2 standard. I personally hope the FCC denies the waiver because it would result in a more open standard being used for multi-room viewing and give us customers more choices on which devices we use to watch TiVo.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The initial implementation will use a gateway device inside your home as the host. Like a DVR, DTA or even a specialized headless gateway box. So in this case it would be very similar to the TiVo/Mini setup (or Hopper/Joey, Genie, etc...) You'll have a main box connected to the cable that is authorized for your account and then any CVP-2 approved client on your network will be able to access it to stream recordings or borrow a live tuner. 

Their long term plans are to move the DLNA host upstream, so that you no longer need a gateway device inside your home. You'd simply have a network connection to the head end and it would act as the host. That's when things might get tricky. I'm not 100% sure if 3rd party devices like TiVo would be required to use the RUI to access these streams. Or if there is some sort of back end API they can use to grab a stream using their own UI. I know that the CVP-2 spec does have a recording mechanism and includes flags that are equivalent to the CCI byte used for CableCARDs, but I'm not sure how the RUI plays into it all. If 3rd party DVRs are required to use the MSO supplied RUI then what's the point?


----------



## fyodor (Sep 19, 2006)

Interesting. I've see almost no mainstream CE coverage of this. I knew that some different standards were in the works , but nothing about possible deployment.



Dan203 said:


> The initial implementation will use a gateway device inside your home as the host. Like a DVR, DTA or even a specialized headless gateway box. So in this case it would be very similar to the TiVo/Mini setup (or Hopper/Joey, Genie, etc...) You'll have a main box connected to the cable that is authorized for your account and then any CVP-2 approved client on your network will be able to access it to stream recordings or borrow a live tuner.
> 
> Their long term plans are to move the DLNA host upstream, so that you no longer need a gateway device inside your home. You'd simply have a network connection to the head end and it would act as the host. That's when things might get tricky. I'm not 100% sure if 3rd party devices like TiVo would be required to use the RUI to access these streams. Or if there is some sort of back end API they can use to grab a stream using their own UI. I know that the CVP-2 spec does have a recording mechanism and includes flags that are equivalent to the CCI byte used for CableCARDs, but I'm not sure how the RUI plays into it all. If 3rd party DVRs are required to use the MSO supplied RUI then what's the point?


----------



## falc122727 (Jan 21, 2004)

Responded to a TiVo survey today and several questions about my interest in 4K.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> I'm trying to get my hands on the complete CVP-2 spec so I can read it and see if there is a way for a 3rd party device to access and record the tuners without having to display the RUI. But the DLNA website is broken right now so I can't get it yet.


There was an intermediate spec deployed before the FCC caved and pushed the deadline back, around the time Boxee and Comcast agreed to inter-operate.

http://media2.comcast.net/anon.comc...-HDuDTA20-DLNA-CIG-I01Public-130314Issued.pdf

Best I understand, no RUI on these.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Looks like that used OCAP, which had a way for the host to download a UI to the client as java IIRC.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> AFAIK there is no way for them to collect an "outlet fee" or each DLNA device. It's basically like the Mini. You have a host device with the actual tuner(s) and the DLNA clients simply stream them to an alternate TV via your home network. There is no way for them to know that you are using a secondary TV. Especially since it's still possible for 3rd party companies, like TiVo and Silicone Dust, to create CableCARD based hosts that they have no control over.


That could be a game-changer when smart TVs can become cable box clients. The TiVo/Mini system isn't a huge threat to the MSOs, just due to low penetration.

I wonder if they will go to a model like charging for each tuner per month or something? Or does the spec require that they go to a certain number of tuners?


----------

