# D* Deleated all of the 70's channels HD logos from the HR10 now playing list



## BOBCAT (Nov 28, 2002)

The final slap in the face from D* when they removed all of the the HR10 70's HD channels. They deleted all of the 70's channels HD logos from the recorded programs in the now playing list! Those ba****ds. I'm surprised that they didn't delete the recorded programs also.


----------



## cramer (Aug 14, 2000)

That's not DTV. That's simply how the Tivo handles losing channels.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

But they could have invoked a grace period until the recordings were off the boxes. It's not like they were licking their lips at a new task for the meager space those logos took up.

That's typical Tivo arrogance. Maybe we are lucky they didn't wipe the recordings.


----------



## catfish john (Jul 14, 2004)

We have known this was coming for a long time!


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

catfish john said:


> We have known this was coming for a long time!


That does not invalidate the fact that folks were recording these channels up until the day they could not. For those recordings, it seems like it would not have taken much for Tivo to have left the icons alone for the next two weeks or so.

We knew _the channels would be going away _for a long time. We had no clue that the icons would disappear on the current recordings.


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

BOBCAT said:


> Those ba****ds.


+1


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> That does not invalidate the fact that folks were recording these channels up until the day they could not. For those recordings, it seems like it would not have taken much for Tivo to have left the icons alone for the next two weeks or so.
> 
> We knew _the channels would be going away _for a long time. We had no clue that the icons would disappear on the current recordings.


Why is losing the channel icons such a problem?


----------



## codespy (Jan 7, 2006)

Icons went away because the channels went "missing"...just the way the software is written.

I had a wishlist on autorecord and dumped those recordings into a "Folder". When I turned off autorecord, it lost the folder for those recordings and listed them individually in the NPL.....just the way the software is written.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

bengalfreak said:


> Why is losing the channel icons such a problem?


I'm curious about this also. I haven't looked at the NPL on my HR10-250 lately so I'm not sure what to expect. I know I had several movies on there that I had recorded from one of the 70's channels (HD Net, I think). Is this going to affect how they play or display?


----------



## codespy (Jan 7, 2006)

Bob_Newhart said:


> I'm curious about this also. I haven't looked at the NPL on my HR10-250 lately so I'm not sure what to expect. I know I had several movies on there that I had recorded from one of the 70's channels (HD Net, I think). Is this going to affect how they play or display?


Has no affect whatsoever. Even if deactivated. Everything plays fine. I loaded up my HR10's w/750gig drives before deactivation. They will be great DVR players for years to come.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

bengalfreak said:


> Why is losing the channel icons such a problem?


Good question. Certainly not a problem for me; I couldn't give a mouse's fart about icons.

My only observation is that deleting them immediately is just one more exhibit of Tivo arrogance in a long serial history of Tivo arrogance. Yes, Tivo, you created a very nice interface with no help from customers. Yes, you rule, and in some ways have the best DVR imaginable (just not in every way). But you are still an arrogant company, and it shows, and it hurts your product, and IMHO is a very strong reason for your weak bottom line. Now get over yourself, start listening to customers, get out of your own way with how cool you are, and start making the best DVRs once again.

Then we can talk about how cool you are.


----------



## BOBCAT (Nov 28, 2002)

Losing the channel icons isn't a problem, it is just the fact that they did it. I guess if they really wanted to piss everyone off, they could have deleted the programs also. Wouldn't have been a bit surprised if they had done so. That is just the way they work. D* wants to push their DVR's so much, that they have put the endless delay on the release of the new HD TiVo. Wouldn't be surprised if they pushed the release out until next year. seems like this is their covert plan to push all of the HR10 owners to their platform. 

And before you HR2X supporters chime in, I'll state it for you. Yes, the HR2X records, plays back, pauses, fast forwards and back and has menus. I just don't like the format. The fast forward and reverse just isn't as smooth as the TiVo, The menu structure and the view of the future programs isn't as nice. The remote control... Yes it controls the DVR, but the peanut remote is human intuitively engineered so you don't even have to look at it to run it. My dad lost his eye sight a year ago, but he still can run the TiVo with the remote and listen to his programs. A few weeks ago, the hard drive started failing, so had to bring it home and replace it. He had to use the HR20 for a week until I could get the TiVo back to him. He was on the phone with me several times a day having me talk him through the operation of the HR20. He is 90, so the memory just isn't as sharp as it was years ago. On the other hand, the TiVo peanut remote is programed into his brain, and he can run it just fine!

The bottom line is the TiVo HR10 GUI and remote are human engineered which is the big deal about it which the people that have never owned one just don't understand. If they have owned one, and like the HR20 better, they are entitled to there opinion also, and I don't criticize their choice.

So, I will patiently (or not so patiently) wait for the release of the new HD TiVo box if D* really plans to release one.

D*, PLEASE, NO MORE DELAYS.... TRY TO GET IT OUT THIS SUMMER. SURPRISE EVERYONE AND GET IT OUT SOONER THAN YOU HAVE STATED. GIVE US ALL A BREAK.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

BOBCAT said:


> Losing the channel icons isn't a problem, it is just the fact that they did it. I guess if they really wanted to piss everyone off, they could have deleted the programs also.


Why are you blaming DirecTV for something the TiVo software does?



> Wouldn't have been a bit surprised if they had done so. That is just the way they work. D* wants to push their DVR's so much, that they have put the endless delay on the release of the new HD TiVo. Wouldn't be surprised if they pushed the release out until next year. seems like this is their covert plan to push all of the HR10 owners to their platform.
> 
> D*, PLEASE, NO MORE DELAYS.... TRY TO GET IT OUT THIS SUMMER. SURPRISE EVERYONE AND GET IT OUT SOONER THAN YOU HAVE STATED. GIVE US ALL A BREAK.


Again I don't understand why you are assuming this is DirecTV delaying the product. We really don't know why it has been delayed but given TiVo's track record it shouldn't be surprising that it has been delayed so much. Just look at the Comcast TiVo box that was supposed to be out years ago.


----------



## litzdog911 (Oct 18, 2002)

I think DirecTV would LOVE to have this new Tivo HD DVR out as soon as possible. It only helps their business. The "late 2010" schedule is what's been announced by Tivo, so I assume they're in the driver's seat now.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

BOBCAT said:


> The fast forward and reverse just isn't as smooth as the TiVo
> 
> The remote control... Yes it controls the DVR, but the peanut remote is human intuitively engineered so you don't even have to look at it to run it.


And the way you make it play in slow motion is really bad - having to hold down the play button until it slows down. Can't tell you how many times I've had to rewind back again to catch the play I was trying to watch in slo-mo. Or else rewind way back and watch for a minute before I finally get to the spot I wanted to see.

I LOVE my peanut remote. I taped a small piece of velcro tape to the back side of it up towards the top so that I can tell which way is up in the dark.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Hey, BOBCAT, I pretty much agree with everything you have posted. But I am on the other side of the fence as someone who (as a Tivo-phile) embraced the HR2x platform. I agree that the peanut is inspired design (even if other Bob had to find a way to differentiate top end from bottom end) but I can assure you that the ho-hum design of the HR2x remote is something you can get used to, to the point where it is as comfortable as the peanut. It does everything the peanut does and a lot more, and not in an unintuitive way. IOW, I do not feel like I am putting up with an inferior design.

True, its not as elegant or immediately intuitive, but after a few months I am just as comfortable with the HR2x remote. Any remote can become familiar enough to operate without looking, it just takes far less time to get there with the peanut, as it is more intuitive. IOW, once familiar, any advantage vanishes.

I run two HR10's along side two HR2x's, and frankly I prefer the HR2x remote because it is RF. Just having to point the peanut is a colossal drag, when I can be two-handing a rack of barbecued ribs and with my pinky turn on CC with a couple of button presses without having to even put the ribs down (OK, I used a little license here--I might even be a vegetarian, but you get the idea). To do that with the peanut I have to point it and climb through god-knows-how-many menus--somewhere between 12-20 buttonpushes. I might as well be playing Wii tennis, as the exertion is about the same.



BOBCAT said:


> ...The fast forward and reverse just isn't as smooth as the TiVo...


 Now, if you are talking about how to access slo-mo, everyone agrees that this is the most poorly executed part of the HR2x. They have improved it, but it is still far and away the worst feature, and also a feature that Tivo (with the backdoors invoked) does very elegantly.

But FFWD and RWD on the HR2x is almost exactly the same experience on the Tivo if you are talking SD channels (other than the HR2x has a faster top speed). What makes it choppy on the HR2x is MPEG4 on HD, something the Tivo can't even do at all. It is a function of the frequency of I frames, which are 1/2 a second apart in MPEG2 and up to 6 seconds apart in MPEG4. It is not due to the hardware design as much (or at all) as it is to the limitations of MPEG4.

Now, that raises the question: "will FFWD and RWD be as choppy on the MPEG4 Tivo?" If not, I will be very impressed. I'm betting that it will be as choppy, as I think that is a hard limitation to beat with current decoder chip speeds. Someday, just not on the new DTivo as it first ships. Feel free to dig up this post to prove me wrong when the time comes, but I'm actually pretty comfortable out on this particular limb .


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

I guess I'm the only one on the face of the planet that despises the peanut remote. First thing i do when i get a new unit is track down another mx-500.


----------



## BOBCAT (Nov 28, 2002)

Bob Newhart,
I can always tell which way the TiVo remote is point because of the balance. The batteries are in the rear, so when you pick it up, you know right away if it is backwards.

TyroneShoes,
Yes, you can learn any remote with time. But because of the unique TiVo peanut remote shape, when you pick it up, it automatically indexes itself in your hand, and your fingers know where to pound on the buttons.

I don't see why Mpeg4 would be any different than Mpeg2 on FF and rev as you are at a decompressed digital stream level off of the hard drive, not at the point of Mpeg4/2 compression from the satellite. Remember that the HR20 still decodes Mpeg2 for the standard def programs. and saves them to disk as a digital stream, so you get the same digital stream of data off of the hard drive no mater what format it is from the satellite. 
The one mistake that TiVo made when the HR10 came out was the processor speed. It is 50MHZ. Boy, the HR10 was so slow on almost any function you tried to do. 
TiVo reworked the software many times until they got the speed up to where it is today. If you could go back to the very old posts from when the HR10 came out, you would read thread after thread of people complaining about how slow it was. I have no problems with the function speed of the HR10 today. I did notice way back when I put the 7200 RPM hard drive in, it helped speed up the functions quite a bit. Wonder how a 10K rpm hard drive would work?, never have tried one though as those drives generate quite a bit of heat, the box would need a higher speed fan to keep it cool, but the noise would be too high for a bedroom and the HT area.
I have no problems with the TiVo IR remote finding the box to control it. I never have to point the remote at the box, up,down,left, right, the box always gets the signal. As a mater of fact, in the bedroom, the TiVo is on the bottom shelf of the TV stand below the foot of the bed, so there is no line of sight to the box, but TiVo sees the IR just the same.
I had 4 HR10's going until the HR20's came out. I retired 2 of the HR10's and replaced them with the 20's. I found that with the RF remote setup, the HR20 didn't hear command the first time it was sent, and had to press the remote button a second time. It had to do with the HR20 polling time of the RF port. It might have had something to do with the command not being held in a buffer, and waiting for the box to poll it. The IR worked just fine, so never have gone back to RF. I'm guessing that this problem has been fixed buy now as there were a lot of complaints about this early on when the box came out.
I only fire up the HR20's when there is a movie or program that I want to record or watch, otherwise the HR10 has the day to day duty. Between HD OTA and all of the D* SD, TiVo does everything I need, so will just wait for the new box to come out. There was one thread that mentioned that there were some Mpeg4 TiVo boxes out for beta testing, but haven't heard anything lately. Hope that is true. Would have liked to have been a beta tester. Even asked D* to put me on the list, but no luck. Oh Well......


----------



## sjberra (May 16, 2005)

bengalfreak said:


> I guess I'm the only one on the face of the planet that despises the peanut remote. First thing i do when i get a new unit is track down another mx-500.


No you are not, first setup step I did with all of those remotes was throw them in the shredder. Hated them with a passion.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

My wife hated the peanut remote. I thought it was ok but I much preferred the Tivo remote that Sony put out. But all the talk about the Tivo remote being better then sliced bread always seemed like overhype to me. After I got my first *real* remote in an MX-500 I never looked back. All new remotes hit the remote graveyard box 5 seconds after it's programmed into my universal.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

BOBCAT said:


> ...I don't see why Mpeg4 would be any different than Mpeg2 on FF and rev as you are at a decompressed digital stream level off of the hard drive, not at the point of Mpeg4/2 compression from the satellite. Remember that the HR20 still decodes Mpeg2 for the standard def programs. and saves them to disk as a digital stream, so you get the same digital stream of data off of the hard drive no mater what format it is from the satellite.


Remember?, No, I think you should probably forget that, since it is pretty far from reality.

Signals arrive as analog carriers, modulated with digital information in an MPEG transport stream. It is, in the case of DTV, encoded as either MPEG2 or MPEG4. While it is frequency converted, demodulated, and demuxed prior to the HDD, *it is not decoded.* *Programs live on the HDD as encoded files, still compressed in MPEG2 or MPEG4.* Only when you play them back do they reach the MPEG decoder. If you decoded/uncompressed them to HD digital streams before they were recorded to the HDD, your HDD would fill up within mere minutes (do the math; divide your HDDs capacity by 1.485 Gb/s, and that will give you the total number of seconds of storage you will have). The order is frequency conversion, demod, demux, *record*, play back, and _then_, *decode*. _That's_ how it works.

So *shows recorded locally on your HDD as MPEG4 are read from the HDD and decoded from MPEG4 by the decoder, and shows recorded as MPEG2 are decoded from MPEG2* (actually, by the same decoder using MPEG2 mode). If you play back a program recorded on a HR2x as MPEG2, and then invoke FFWDx1, it will play back just as perfectly smoothly (30 fps) as if you had played it back on a HR10-250. Exactly the same. But if that program is MPEG4, _fuggetaboutit._ (And of course the HR10-250 can't record or play it back at all).

There are two reasons, as I said earlier. MPEG4 processing is more intensive meaning you need more processing horsepower to process it at FFWD and 30 fps than the processor is capable of, while more importantly, the GOP structure is such that there are not enough reference frames (up to 12 times fewer) available to aid that process fast enough. The end result is a 4-5 fps FFWDx1. Since the new vaporware Tivo will likely be using MPEG4 decoder chips that at the very best will be incrementally better than what is available on current DVRs, and *since the rules of MPEG4 GOP are still the rules it will have to play by, it is highly unlikely that the Tivo will do things even slightly differently in FFWD mode than the current DVRs do.*



> The one mistake that TiVo made when the HR10 came out was the processor speed. It is 50MHZ. Boy, the HR10 was so slow on almost any function you tried to do.
> TiVo reworked the software many times until they got the speed up to where it is today. If you could go back to the very old posts from when the HR10 came out, you would read thread after thread of people complaining about how slow it was. I have no problems with the function speed of the HR10 today. I did notice way back when I put the 7200 RPM hard drive in, it helped speed up the functions quite a bit. Wonder how a 10K rpm hard drive would work?


The Tivo OS was written in an era of 9 GB HDDs. DVRs were considered PVRs (for "Personal" Video Recorder) because there wasn't enough room for more than a few of one person's desired recordings, let alone an entire family's. Hundreds of SPs and WLs and recordings were completely impractical. So the OS was perfectly fast enough for its day. And that was a generation earlier than the HR10, which originally used much the same legacy OS.

But things changed. HDDs got huge. A cottage industry of startups were installing two at a time. Consequently the number of recordings, thumbs ratings, WLs, and SPs grew exponentially. And the ability to manage all of that within the OS stayed the same, meaning that the time it takes to do that, increased exponentially.

How fast the Tivo is has nothing to do with the speed of the HDD. Modern HDDs are not really much faster than those from a few years ago, yet both old and modern HDDs can handle up to 12 HD streams at once. IOW, the throughput of HDDs has always been significantly greater than the tasks bestowed on them, meaning that* the HDD is not the speed bottleneck, the OS is the bottleneck.*

What can make a sluggish Tivo faster is simply to wipe out the WLs, SPs, and thumbs ratings. Without that dragging it down, indexing speeds up tremendously. This has been proven time and time again. A new Tivo is always snappy, and gradually gets sluggish as user preferences and recordings accumulate. Wipe the HDD of all info but the recordings (or even the recordings as well) and it gets immediately, noticeably, significanlty faster. _Like new _faster. Bottom line, *installing a new HDD did not make your Tivo faster, installing a HDD with nothing on it is what made your Tivo faster.*

And there was only one, count'em, one, significant attempt to speed up the OS, which meant a significant rewrite to remove what had become the legacy bottlenecks that never were any sort of problem back when you could only record 14 hours of SD video. That was the jump from v3.1.5 to v6.0, which was so much of a rewrite, and so poorly implemented, that it ruined the so-far spotless reputation for reliability that they had enjoyed with singularity until that point. The Tivo OS, under v6.x, became just another bug-ridden DVR OS, just like every other DVR OS. It took another half a dozen up revs(none of which addressed speed) and years, _years,_ to fix, and much of what 6.x broke still remains unfixed.

None of this is theory, it is all well-documented fact, right here on the forum archives, as well as elsewhere, including numerous personal experiences.


----------



## BOBCAT (Nov 28, 2002)

I guess I stand corrected on these items.  (Do you work for TiVo?)

I was under the impression that the data was uncompressed when it was streamed on to the hard drive, but now I see why it wouldn't be. 
When I upgraded to the 7200 RPM hard drive, I dd and expanded it, so it maintained everything from the original hard drive. I did see a speed increase with this upgrade.

Sense you seem to know everything; There is one thing that I was wondering about. Is there a routine in the OS that defragments the hard drive on a regular basis?

I think that I will go and get some bandaids to put on my back from the tongue lashing that you have just given me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

bengalfreak said:


> I guess I'm the only one on the face of the planet that despises the peanut remote. First thing i do when i get a new unit is track down another mx-500.


No, you are not. The peanut remote is an abomination. I just posted yesterday on DBSTalk that every peanut I ever had goes in my remote control drawer after I program all the functions into my universals.

Who ever heard of a remote that has the select button NOT in the center of the ring of arrows? Or that the PAUSE button is the most prominent button, not the PLAY. Or that the dash button is actually the skip button and nowhere near the numbers for channel entry? Or that the previous channel key is not near the up/down channel buttons? Or that the record is not with the rest of the DVR functions like play, pause, etc?

Or that you cannot tell what is up and what is down on the stupid thing. And don't get me started on the soft, squishy buttons.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

TonyD79 said:


> No, you are not. The peanut remote is an abomination. I just posted yesterday on DBSTalk that every peanut I ever had goes in my remote control drawer after I program all the functions into my universals.
> 
> Who ever heard of a remote that has the select button NOT in the center of the ring of arrows? Or that the PAUSE button is the most prominent button, not the PLAY. Or that the dash button is actually the skip button and nowhere near the numbers for channel entry? Or that the previous channel key is not near the up/down channel buttons? Or that the record is not with the rest of the DVR functions like play, pause, etc?
> 
> Or that you cannot tell what is up and what is down on the stupid thing. And don't get me started on the soft, squishy buttons.


I don't like TiVo remote either. I can live with all the things you mentioned but "what side is up" issue I hate. Have been using Tivo remote for 10 years and still can not get used to it. I'm not talking about grabbing it in a dark - taping velcro or some tape on it can fix it. It just seems to me that most of the time when I grab it in a middle and look at it, it is upside-down.


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

The Tivo brand remote is a non issue. I have an older radio shack remote that more than does the job with the current Tivo. It also operates other devices and I can't wait to see how well the new Tivo works with it.


----------



## BOBCAT (Nov 28, 2002)

shibby191,
Like everything else, some people like the peanut, some don't. I only like sliced bread if it is weat
I didn't like the peanut remote at first, but got use to it. It has the minimum amount of buttons to get the job done. I don't care for remotes with 86 buttons that you need a 3 day school to learn to use. It is like the current cell phones, All I want is a phone with a big screen and buttons, 5 memories and a redial button. No way will you ever find one like that! All you can get it is a hand held computer connected to the net. OMG! Can't people put their brains in neutral for a short time and smell the flowers and look at the birds and think how wonderful life is for a short time during the day? There is a beautiful world out there.

If I had a lot of devices to control in the BR, would have gotten one of the popular programmable remote controls because of space limitations, but all I control is the TiVo and the Samsung UN55B8000. In the HT, the TiVo remote runs the Sony projector. Otherwise, I use the dedicated remotes for the 50pro video processor "C" band satellite receiver, EDV 9500 Beta recorder, DVD recorder, Pioneer elite Blu-ray, HR20 and Onkyo audio system. One of the reasons I like to use dedicated remotes is that there unique dedicated buttons for the device that is being controlled, and I don't care for the multi device programmable remotes that assign a button for a function for one device, and be a different function for another device. When I pick up a dedicated remote, I don't have to think about what button does what. If I had limited space, then the multi device remote would be the way to go. Space isn't a problem in my HT though, and with a holster panel, I just pick the remote needed.

Like anything else, it is all to your particular situation. Or in the contemporary lingo, "What ever works for you"! 

HT is a fun hobby, but it seems that some people feel that they need to be harsh with other posters because they don't care for their opinion. Correcting statements of facts with a is fine with me, I have always admitted my mistakes up front, but correcting them with a projected harsh post takes away the fun of the discussion. Some people need to beat up others to make themselves feel superior I guess. The last time I experienced that was in grade school. 

At times, I am not happy with what D* does like the delay in releasing the the new TiVo box, but they are still the best deal in town. Wish that they would get the new box out soon.

73 to all


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

BOBCAT said:


> shibby191,
> Like everything else, some people like the peanut, some don't.


Yep, never said anything other then that. Was simply voicing my opinion (there it is again) that my wife didn't like it and I was neutral on it.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

What's the worst remote you've ever seen? I remember years ago (at least 20) I had a universal programmable remote from Radio Shack that you programmed by holding the original remote up to it and programmed it button by button. But the worst thing was the buttons. There must have been 50 or 60 of them and almost every single one of them was the same size and shape. It looked like a Texas Instruments scientific calculator. I tried to find a picture of it on Google but couldn't. man, that remote sucked.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

BOBCAT said:


> shibby191,
> Like everything else, some people like the peanut, some don't. I only like sliced bread if it is weat
> I didn't like the peanut remote at first, but got use to it. It has the minimum amount of buttons to get the job done. I don't care for remotes with 86 buttons that you need a 3 day school to learn to use. It is like the current cell phones, All I want is a phone with a big screen and buttons, 5 memories and a redial button. No way will you ever find one like that! All you can get it is a hand held computer connected to the net. OMG! Can't people put their brains in neutral for a short time and smell the flowers and look at the birds and think how wonderful life is for a short time during the day? There is a beautiful world out there.
> 
> ...


I don't use a universal to save space. But to be quick about things and not have to pick the right remote up at the right time.

I manage my remotes so the buttons are the same for each device. Nice and clean.


----------



## fasTLane (Nov 25, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> I manage my remotes so the buttons are the same for each device. Nice and clean.


You be smart.


----------



## BOBCAT (Nov 28, 2002)

TonyD79,
There are some nice universal remotes out there. Some with a small LCD built in. Other systems have a LCD touch panel that is wired to a master controller that can be programed to run all of your devices.

Now what would be neat, would be that you would use a camera that is built in to the controller to photograph the remote that you want to clone. The picture of that remote would come up on the LCD display. Then you would program the buttons by touching the remote button on the screen, and then take your remote and push the same button and program the info into the controller.
Maybe some creative person will read this, and invent one.
With today's technology it would be doable. 
It wouldn't be cheap but would be fun to have.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

BOBCAT said:


> ...There are some nice universal remotes out there. Some with a small LCD built in. Other systems have a LCD touch panel that is wired to a master controller that can be programed to run all of your devices.
> 
> Now what would be neat, would be that you would use a camera that is built in to the controller to photograph the remote that you want to clone. The picture of that remote would come up on the LCD display. Then you would program the buttons by touching the remote button on the screen, and then take your remote and push the same button and program the info into the controller.
> Maybe some creative person will read this, and invent one.
> ...


Take a look at iPhone app Redeye remote from thinkflood.com. They are rumored to have an app for the iPad coming out soon that is eeirily almost exactly what you describe. Works over local wi-fi in your house. About $600 for an iPad and the IR dock and app--is that too cheap or too expensive (of course the iPad can be used for much more)? If too expensive, the IR controller for the iPhone is only $188 (the app is free).


----------



## BOBCAT (Nov 28, 2002)

TyroneShoes
I was going to buy an Ipad, but didn't for 2 reasons. 1) they didn't put an adjustable "kick stand" on it so it would stand up on it's own and 2) no camera so you could use it for Skype. I was really surprised that it didn't have a camera. Also, Consumers Reports tested it, and after dropping it 3 times, the screen failed.:down: 
Hopefully the second generation IPad will be a little more rugged have these features.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

BOBCAT said:


> ...Hopefully the second generation IPad will be a little more rugged have these features.


If you look carefully at the keynote address, the one Steve Jobs was holding actually had a camera on it. Also, someone opened one up and there is definitely an opening for a camera on the MB.

I am not sure why every Apple product has to be as slippery as a bar of soap. Instead of heavy powder-coated metal with nothing to grab on to, why not a light carbon-fiber case with grippy rubber or neoprene over it?

Apple product design reminds me of Frank Lloyd Wright; both come with blazing genius inspiration, but both also focus too much on form rather than function. Good thing their OS and software focusses on both. (sorry, way OT).


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> I am not sure why every Apple product has to be as slippery as a bar of soap. Instead of heavy powder-coated metal with nothing to grab on to, why not a light carbon-fiber case with grippy rubber or neoprene over it?


I imagine the companies that make aftermarket neoprene cases would gripe then. On my iPods I've always had to go out and buy these things afterward.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

Bob_Newhart said:


> I imagine the companies that make aftermarket neoprene cases would gripe then...


I imagine they would. But what does Apple care? They have no vested interest in Incipio or Speck. Buying a case to protect my iPod is essentially fixing the problem that Apple stupidly built in to it.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> I imagine they would. But what does Apple care? They have no vested interest in Incipio or Speck. Buying a case to protect my iPod is essentially fixing the problem that Apple stupidly built in to it.


Oh I agree - I wish it was included. On my iPod I had to order the neoprene case with protective lens cover and a charger for my car and a charger that plugs into the wall.

Actually, at first I ordered a cheap case through the internet, received it and it fit way too loosely, so had to order another, more expensive case that fits great. And I ordered a cheap wall charger that stopped working after a few days so I ended up buying a more expensive one from Belkin.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

Bob_Newhart said:


> Oh I agree - I wish it was included. On my iPod I had to order the neoprene case with protective lens cover and a charger for my car and a charger that plugs into the wall.


And that's why I went with a Sansa at 1/5th the cost and it included all that stuff for free. 

You just pay for the name with Apple, it's not "better".


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

shibby191 said:


> ...You just pay for the name with Apple, it's not "better".


Just keep telling yourself that, something true in some cases, although it is very far from the truth when Apple is concerned. You typically pay for the name with most companies that provide premium products. But you usually get what you pay for, and always without exception, from a company like Apple. For Apple, sorry, but your "truism" doesn't apply there, not in the least, not at all.

And sometimes, for some companies, it does. Take Sony. Although in many ways, Sony makes better products than most other companies, that is only so_* IF*_ you are buying the right product. Since the old man died (who, interestingly enough, named the company Sony because he liked the American term "sonny boy") Sony has embraced medium and low-cost lines along with their original high-end line. Before that, when you bought a Sony, you were buying high quality, regardless of the name. Now, if you buy the medium or low-end, you are definitely buying the name.

Vizio outsells Sony in FP TVs, but owning both, I am here to tell you that for real quality, go Sony. For real value and slightly-compromised quality, Vizio is the one to buy. If you want to buy for both real value and quality without paying the "name" premium, Best Buy's Insignia house brand is surprisingly under-rated.

You are buying the name when you buy Tivo, too, aren't you? But in that case it can be argued that along with the name you are buying premium quality. That can be said probably about only one other tech company, and that is Apple. If you were just buying the name, that would indicate that their products have no intrinsic value beyond the competitors', but it that were true, no one would buy them just for the name. The cream really does rise to the top, and the brand eventually benefits from that.

How would we imagine that the name "Apple" rose to a place where the name actually meant something? By providing significantly-better products in the first place, including every product in the line for many years running. That is why Tivo and Apple are successful (well, in Tivo's case, still breathing): a long, unbroken history of great products. Neither company has ever produced a clinker, or even something that just meets the level of quality of the competition; both instead regularly exceed that level, and both companies have led the way, setting the bar for everyone else. The brand name just happens to naturally gain respect over time by association due to the fact that it actually means something (that you can always be assured of getting a great, superior product).

And on the other end of the scale are companies that are premium in name only, where you truly are paying for the name and no real premium in the product_ <cough_ Monster _cough_ Bose _cough>_, and companies that had once-great names that now hawk cheapo products _ <cough_ Kodak _cough_ Westinghouse _cough>_



shibby191 said:


> ...that's why I went with a Sansa at 1/5th the cost and it included all that stuff for free...


And again, you probably got exactly what you paid for. Sansa hardly dominates the market, and that is because while utilitarian and workmanlike, that is about all you get--a product that does just the very basic in an inelegant fashion, if you are lucky enough to get a reliable one, that is. Apple _invented_ the legal music download business (along with the app business and are about to own the e-book business) by creating a full-service turnkey environment that works very elegantly and is appealing to a broad spectrum of users, which is why they have sold some 40 million iPods and well over 100 million downloads of individual songs.

Sansa appeals to a very narrow spectrum of folks: folks who either really don't understand how inferior their products are or folks that want to save money for the sake of being willing to put up with the annoyance of a half-baked system, or a little of both. You may disagree, but the numbers very obviously bear this out: they are primarily a flash memory company that snaps outsourced mp3 players around their flash memory as a throwaway side job, and they would be very lucky to ever sell 40 thousand of them (so they must be really really good ).

There is no iTunes-like interface, or thriving cottage industry of add-ons, cases and covers, plug-in boombox units, or having every major car company providing a port for them into their sound systems. And what small number of those that may exist for Sansa can be attributed to the tidal wave of the success of the iPod, in very much the same way that if there never were a Mac OS, we would still today be using the command line.


----------



## shibby191 (Dec 24, 2007)

TyroneShoes said:


> There is no iTunes-like interface, or thriving cottage industry of add-ons, cases and covers, plug-in boombox units, or having every major car company providing a port for them into their sound systems. And what small number of those that may exist for Sansa can be attributed to the tidal wave of the success of the iPod, in very much the same way that if there never were a Mac OS, we would still today be using the command line.


LOL. Wow. What a long post. A good one though.

But...Ummmm...my Sansa plays my 400 CDs ripped to MP3 collection just fine and it's a snap to add music to it. I don't need to pay triple the price just to have iTunes infect my computer and do it.  And I can *very* easily play it's music thru my car's sound system with very little effort. I'm just not a sheep like the 40 million iPod owners. I don't have to pay extra for something to do the same thing. And who needs all these add ons, I just want something to play my music. Kinda like cell phones...I just want one that makes a dang phone call for crying out loud. I don't need it to do anything else! 

Anyway, this isn't an Apple bashing thread...there are plenty of forums for that.


----------



## codespy (Jan 7, 2006)

All this talk.........does that mean my logos are coming back?


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

shibby191 said:


> ...my Sansa plays my 400 CDs ripped to MP3 collection just fine and it's a snap to add music to it. I don't need to pay triple the price just to have iTunes infect my computer and do it...


That's a pretty ironic statement, seeing as how probably the last thing that could ever possibly "infect" a computer would be iTunes. The reality is that nothing is more protected and nothing more regulated that what iTunes can send to your computer. There are 20-odd new cyber attacks on Windows every day, and one that becomes a real problem about every 6 months, which is why you have to slog your computer down with expensive, slow security and virus software. Never on a Mac. In the 27-year history of the Macintosh, it has been vulnerable to a grand total of two cyber attacks, both minor.

Whether you need it or not or whether is costs more for the premium or not is hardly the point. The point you made was that "Apple wasn't better". My response to that was "Oh but yes it is", and I gladly stand by that statement (I will admit, however, that iTunes on a PC is not quite as elegant as iTunes on a Mac; but then I think we could all guess on the first guess who's problem that is _<cough _Bill Gates _cough>_).

It may be a "snap" to use the Sansa interface, but, well, iTunes is still better. And MP3 is an aging inferior format with low quality. Apple allows AAC (much better), HE-AAC (much, much better) and Apple Lossless formats (about as better as it can get). So Apple is better there, also.

Apple makes a really great iPod, the shuffle, for about $49 with great features and great capacity. "Triple the price" is a complete fantasy. They are comparable in price when the feature level is comparable, and slightly more expensive when the feature level is a lot higher. That is the reality. If not, show me a comparison where the price is 3 times and/or the feature level is even close to comparable. You can't do it.



> ...I can *very* easily play it's music thru my car's sound system with very little effort. I'm just not a sheep like the 40 million iPod owners. I don't have to pay extra for something to do the same thing.


 Again, the entire reason you can do that is because Apple created that industry. And there are 100 "very" easy ways to do that with an iPod for every one easy way to do it with a non-'Pod.

The only "sheep" I see are those buying Windows computers. They are certainly not buying them because they are better, but iPod users are indeed buying iPods because they are better.



> And who needs all these add ons, I just want something to play my music...Anyway, this isn't an Apple bashing thread...there are plenty of forums for that...


Well, then why are you the one bashing them here? Again, whether you need add-ons or not is not the question. But since you did ask that question, the answer is that apparently millions of iPod owners do seem to need them, if the level of how well they sell is any guide. Whether you want them or not, having them available is obviously "better" than not having them available.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

TyroneShoes said:


> Neither company has ever produced a clinker, or even something that just meets the level of quality of the competition; both instead regularly exceed that level, and both companies have led the way, setting the bar for everyone else. here never were a Mac OS, we would still today be using the command line.


Wow, Apple has never had a clinker? The Apple Lisa is probably one of the biggest clinkers (clunker) of all time.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

bengalfreak said:


> Wow, Apple has never had a clinker? The Apple Lisa is probably one of the biggest clinkers (clunker) of all time.


That depends upon your definition of "clinker (clunker)". The Lisa was not commercially successful, primarily because it was expensive and ahead of its time. The cost of its parts was steep, but were parts that plummeted in price soon afterwards, so it was more a victim of bad timing than anything else. But it had the genesis of the revolutionary Mac OS, introduced the mouse and GUI into commercial computing, and was in many other ways very advanced, advancements that eventually popped up on every other computer.

Today, it is a prized collector's item, as is the Newton. The Newton wasn't successful either, if you measure success by sales volume. There were a number of Mac models that did not really sell well enough to justify them being there. And there were a number of CEOs that nearly killed the company with too many models and not enough innovation. John Sculley could sell sugar water (pepsi) but he was no Steve Jobs.

What I mean by "clinker" is a product that was either behind everyone else, did a lousier job than the competitors, or just not a good idea and ended up costing the company money and customers. Think Windows Vista. Or Windows ME. If you want to measure "clinker" by the lack of success of sales a particular product like the Lisa (which was a resounding success in several other areas), then let me amend my comment to "Apple under Steve Jobs II". There certainly were no clinkers in that era, regardless how you might define it.

But even if a particular Apple product was not a runaway sales success, it typically was always still leading the industry in design and concept, just as the Newton birthed the iPad and NeXt birthed OS X. No one ever laughed at or made fun of an Apple product, because there was at least a glimmer of vision and brilliance in every single one, regardless how it might have sold. And they all have the same common-sense approach to ergonomics, which is why Apple leads and everyone else follows. When Apple made computers beige, everyone else started making them beige. When the iMac came out in colors, just like clockwork the next year everyone came out in colors, and many imitated the iMac model of monitor-CPU in a box.

Look at every single laptop sold today; the keyboard is pushed up into the top half of the lower platform next to the display, a natural, simple idea that automatically creates wrist rests and a place for a track pad. Before the Apple PowerBook, every single laptop had the keyboard pushed down towards the user. It took the common sense and ergonomic vision of Apple to change what should have been a no-brainer for everyone else. Did the first Apple laptop that gave us that simple yet ridiculously wonderful idea sell well? I have no idea, but as is usually the case with Apple it literally and revolutionarily changed the face of portable computing, so even if it didn't sell at all, it was the exact opposite of a "clinker".

I'm not saying Apple, even Steve Jobs II Apple, can do no wrong; a perfect example is when they bought Emagic, which was one of the top music sequencing programs of all time, and basically denutted it, which killed its ability to compete, which made it all but disappear. I don't even think that acquisition helped Garage Band. I'm also still not a fan of those wide-bezel chicklet-key glossy-screened cheap-looking laptops they'e been making for the last 6 years; they are only just now beginning to make laptops comparable to the PowerBooks. I much prefer my 7-year-old PowerBook to Today's current crop from a design and ergonomic standpoint. I think iPhoto and iMovie are generally wrong-headed too, even though they are very successful products.

As far as the Lisa, it's alive and well on eBay, that is if you have about 4 grand to buy one. There are active thriving websites for collectors. But definitely not a commercial success, even if it was a very important incarnation that brought us the Macintosh, still without question the premiere personal computer 26 years later. The Lisa was like "6-Up"; that's how close it was to creating the revolution that eventually was created by the Macintosh and eventually clumsily ripped off by Bill Gates and the rest. So, hardly a "clinker". There are rumors, however, that hundreds upon hundreds of them exist in a landfill outside of Cupertino somewhere, bulldozed and covered with topsoil. So no, not a runaway sales hit. Still, not a clinker.


----------

