# TiVo Aternative



## jacbec (May 15, 2012)

Just had my semi-annual call with TiVo to ask about my ongong problems & express my dismay that they are so uninnovative, e.g., cant mirror my recordings through Apple TV, cant download recordings to my Mac, etc. Anyone have an alternative to TiVo?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

The alternative to TiVo is to rent your cable company's DVR. Good luck getting that to work with Apple products.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

That all depends on how you get your programming. I'm going to assume you have digital cable and go from there.

1. You could go with your provider's DVR, but I suspect you'll be less satisfied with that after owning a Tivo.

2. A PC running Windows 7 or 8/8.1 with Windows Media Center (WMC) and a cablecard tuner.

There are some caveats involved with a WMC PC and it may require some PC skills to set it up and maintain it. However, the current crop of hardware is much more user friendly with WMC so there are a lot fewer headaches involved than there used to be. Keep in mind that a PC with WMC is still a PC and can suffer from any PC related problems.

I've got four WMC PCs running 24/7 in my home and they are essentially trouble free. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same kind of luck with WMC PCs that I've enjoyed. My recommendation is that if you think you'd like to give it a try, invest in an inexpensive OTA tuner for a PC and try it out on an existing Win 7 or Win 8 PC to see if it suits you.

Here's an excellent source of info and tutorials for setting up WMC and other front end software on a PC:

http://assassinhtpcblog.com/


----------



## El Maestro (Nov 19, 2013)

I've been using cTivo to move recordings to my Mac media server.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=503495

It's a pretty good piece of software&#8230;I've had a few minor issues with it but it's done what I've needed it to do. I've moved about 100 episodes of TV in the last week!


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

jacbec said:


> Just had my semi-annual call with TiVo to ask about my ongong problems & express my dismay that they are so "uninnovative," e.g., can't mirror my recordings through Apple TV, can't download recordings to my Mac, etc. Anyone have an alternative to TiVo?


Yeah, check out the home media forum here and figure out how to do this stuff yourself with your Tivo (hint: pyTivoX and kmttg with some AppleTV transcoding). It's really not that difficult.


----------



## jacbec (May 15, 2012)

I have used all of these with partial success, but is it too much to ask that TiVo produce simple to use software to download TiVo recordings to Macs since they know their product (presumably)? And I don't know why mirroring doesn't work with TiVo. Prefer not to have to purchase a Slingbox. By the way, Toast is a mess now that they sold to Corel.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

What do you mean by mirroring? If you mean bypassing the use of a mini, then its likely not innovation, its revenue.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

There really aren't any options DVR wise except the cable co's box. Windows server or other third party programs take care to setup and maintain.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Yeah, check out the home media forum here and figure out how to do this stuff yourself with your Tivo (hint: pyTivoX and kmttg with some AppleTV transcoding). It's really not that difficult.


pyTivox is obsolete. Just use pyTivo.


----------



## jacbec (May 15, 2012)

Mirroring is a feature found on most Apple computers that allows you to connect your computer to a television or monitor, and enables you to view your desktop screen from the monitor or television. Using AirPlay media on an iPad e.g., TiVo can be streamed wirelessly to an Apple TV so you can watch your recordings on the big screen.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

jacbec said:


> Mirroring is a feature found on most Apple computers that allows you to connect your computer to a television or monitor, and enables you to view your desktop screen from the monitor or television. Using AirPlay media on an iPad e.g., TiVo can be streamed wirelessly to an Apple TV so you can watch your recordings on the big screen.


Sounds like what you really want is an Apple DVR. You should get one of those.


----------



## drkmstr (Nov 23, 2013)

jacbec said:


> Mirroring is a feature found on most Apple computers that allows you to connect your computer to a television or monitor, and enables you to view your desktop screen from the monitor or television. Using AirPlay media on an iPad e.g., TiVo can be streamed wirelessly to an Apple TV so you can watch your recordings on the big screen.


Why not a roku or chrome cast too? Like it or not Tivo has the mini.

Apple does not support other media boxes just Apple TV, why? They want you to purchase an Apple TV. Tivo wants you to purchase a mini.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

jacbec said:


> Mirroring is a feature found on most Apple computers that allows you to connect your computer to a television or monitor, and enables you to view your desktop screen from the monitor or television. Using AirPlay media on an iPad e.g., TiVo can be streamed wirelessly to an Apple TV so you can watch your recordings on the big screen.


Tivo cannot receive a stream from a computer [note: streambaby may be able to do this, but I have no experience with that software]. The other function you note is that is the function of the Mini. Not going to happen.


----------



## jacbec (May 15, 2012)

I'm talking about AirPlay from my iPad/iPhone. TiVo can't do that either.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

Nor do I want them to pay what it takes to do that. The box could not readily handle a price increase.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Tivo had PC downloads years before anyone else, and now the iOS playback is state of the art. But sure, there's no AppleTV support.

Comcast is reported to be in talks with Apple, but the end goal is not clear. It could make the AppleTV a client to X2, or maybe it's XOD on AppleTV, or etc...

Tablo and SimpleTV are DVR's that support AppleTV. Zatz has reviews of these.
There's also SiliconDust for the tech savvy.

They're not equal to the Tivo experience but may be good enough for some households.

Tivo supports DIAL instead of Airplay for mobile to big-screen. Tivo does not support chromecast. Chromecast does not support Airplay. AppleTV does not support Chromecast.

In other words, you can't blame Tivo for not supporting [insert random hardware]. You could equally blame AppleTV for not supporting mpeg2 video.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

jacbec said:


> Anyone have an alternative to TiVo?


For OTA there is a new beauty on the market called Tablo (www.tablotv.com) that blows all others out of the water. Fully compatible with Roku, AppleTV, PC, Mac, Android and iOS devices.

Tablo 4 Tuner DVR

If we stay OTA-only when our Tivo contract ends next month, we are definitely going the Tablo/Roku route rather than Roamio/Stream.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jacbec said:


> Just had my semi-annual call with TiVo to ask about my ongong problems & express my dismay that they are so uninnovative, e.g., cant mirror my recordings through Apple TV, cant download recordings to my Mac, etc. Anyone have an alternative to TiVo?


You can download *unencrypted* recordings to your Mac, and have been able to do for a long time.

The "official" way is unfortunately via a pay product, Toast. (If Toast were more capable in some ways than the free third party products, I'd get it.. but it isn't..)

You can also use kmttg, etc., to do it.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

dcline414 said:


> For OTA there is a new beauty on the market called Tablo (www.tablotv.com) that blows all others out of the water. Fully compatible with Roku, AppleTV, PC, Mac, Android and iOS devices.
> 
> Tablo 4 Tuner DVR


$300.

2 TB *or less* hard drives only..


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

mattack said:


> $300.
> 
> 2 TB *or less* hard drives only..


Considering that this is OTA only, the Tivo option we are comparing to is a $200 Roamio basic plus a $130 stream. The Tivo has a 500GB drive so if that is enough for you it is probably a cheaper (up front) option. If not, you're buying a drive for either DVR so that is a wash.

If you need more than 2TB (which I have to think could be increased with a firmware update at some point in the future) then the Tivo is the better way to go, albeit at a much higher price. I am surviving with the 320GB drive that came in my Premiere, so 500GB would be better but 1TB would be plenty for me. I'm don't doubt that there are some power OTA users out there (who must hoard practically everything that has ever aired on every channel) that may need more than 2TB, but I bet there aren't very many.

The idea of a DVR that comes without a drive is actually kind of neat, since the odds are that everyone is going to want different capabilities and don't want to pay for an included drive they just replace.

Now the lack of HDMI out seems very strange to me, but the presumption seems to be that their target audience already had a network media player hooked up to each TV. But the Roku interface seems very solid and is close enough to plug and play that anyone can probably handle the setup.

Regardless of its flaws, Tablo is probably the most polished competitor to Tivo right now.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

With the huge caveat that it's OTA only, of course.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

dcline414 said:


> Considering that this is OTA only, the Tivo option we are comparing to is a $200 Roamio basic plus a $130 stream. The Tivo has a 500GB drive so if that is enough for you it is probably a cheaper (up front) option. If not, you're buying a drive for either DVR so that is a wash.
> 
> If you need more than 2TB (which I have to think could be increased with a firmware update at some point in the future) then the Tivo is the better way to go, albeit at a much higher price.


Hardware cost wise, it's pretty much of a wash.

$200* for Roamio + $130 for stream + whatever for larger drive

vs.

$299 for 4-tuner Tablo + whatever for hard drive(s) + whatever for enclosure(s)

Subscription cost is a different matter.

* usually available at lower cost if you look. For instance, both Frys and B&H currently have it for $169.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

slowbiscuit said:


> With the huge caveat that it's OTA only, of course.


Yes, but before Tablo and Roamio the only options were a Premiere or 80s looking unit from Channel Master. Considering that most providers use lossy compression, the best HD quality is usually OTA. Plus you can have an unlimited number of TVs connected for only the cost of a distribution amp.

People aren't cutting the cord because we can't afford it or don't watch TV, but rather because content providers have been raising the cost without adding value in the form of quality.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Am I reading the Tablo description correctly? The only way to get the output on a TV is AirPlay to Apple TV or run it from a Roku(?), i.e., it has no output that will drive a HD TV directly?

A healthy amount of skepticism is in order here, just as it was for the ChannelMaster DVR+ released earlier this year. There is a huge thread on the AVS Forum about the DVR+ here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/42-hdtv-recorders/1481183-channel-master-dvr-owners-thread-141.html

There is a growing thread on the Tablo on the AVS Forums here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/42-hdtv-recorders/1594938-tablo-vs-tivo.html

Read, become informed, and make your own decision -- but it looks to me like the DVR+ at least is still a work in progress, and I would suspect that is true of the Tablo.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

dlfl said:


> Am I reading the Tablo description correctly? The only way to get the output on a TV is AirPlay to Apple TV or run it from a Roku(?), i.e., it has no output that will drive a HD TV directly?


Tablo (OTA)
Simple.TV (OTA)
Ceton (CableCard)
SiliconDust (Either)

Are all (home) network only. One end goal is eventually there will be SmartTV integration.

As foreign as that sounds, Comcast X1 and Tivo both talk about doing that exact thing.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> Sounds like what you really want is an Apple DVR. You should get one of those.


Those are the ones that come special delivery via Unicorn Express, right?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

unitron said:


> Those are the ones that come special delivery via Unicorn Express, right?


They ship it via iPlane.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> They ship it via iPlane.


Apple needs to get going on that concept just to compete with Amazon's drone delivery program.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Tablo is cool for the select few who only watch OTA, but for the rest of us, TiVo is top dog, and does a really, really good job at it's core functionality of being a cable DVR that's powerful, expandable, and has a great interface.

If anything, I'd like to see more work done to the core DVR functionality, not side projects like streaming out to other hardware, although there have been some huge improvements since the launch of the Mini with subsequent Mini and Premiere updates...


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Tablo is cool for the select few who only watch OTA, but for the rest of us, TiVo is top dog, and does a really, really good job at it's core functionality of being a cable DVR that's powerful, expandable, and has a great interface.
> 
> 
> > Agreed, Tivo is generally considered the best all around DVR for OTA. But the OP was asking for alternatives. Since no one specified cable or OTA, no reason to limit alternatives to one or the other. Plus when others search and find this thread, it would be useful to actually have discussion of viable alternatives with pros/cons of each.
> ...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

There really is no better alternative to TiVo unless you want to switch to Satellite. I've heard the Dish DVR is supposed to be pretty good. 

For downloading videos to my TiVo I use PyTivo and it's worked for me flawlessly for years. As far as Air Play, you can Air Play any video that is capable of being played on your Mac. Why you would want to Mirror something on your TiVo to an Apple TV when you can already see it on TV from your TiVo is a feature I don't think many would want or need.


----------



## Darichard (Dec 31, 2002)

As others have said, Windows Media Center is an alternative. There is no subscription cost, but you need to have a PC set up to use it. The available remotes for it are good but not quite the same at the TiVo remote. It's a very workable alternative (imo) if you are willing to manage a Windows PC. It won't have the reliability of a TiVo. You also need to get a tuner card. I like the SiliconDust products because it puts OTA TV signals on your network. 

I have a Intel NUC pc which is 4x4x2 inches. It's a amazing little PC. But it's still a PC rather than a TiVo. 

There is also MythTV which is more reliable than Windows Media Center (Linux vs. Windows). This also requires a PC to run Linux and can be trickier to set up. There a lot of help available, but you will likely end up typing some cryptic Unix commands to get it set up. I haven't run MythTV for any significant time, but it looks very usable. 

What you give up in reliability with Windows Media Center and MythTV you can in flexibility. Note also that I'm an OTA only guy - I have no experience doing this with a cable card.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

If you're on Apple just buy your shows through iTunes. That's 1 alternative.

WMC is another but between setting it up, tweaking it and then figuring out what file is what and encoding them so your ATV can play them....well you gotta really like hoarding recordings.

Really just buy a Mini. And a bigger hard drive for your Tivo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dcline414 said:


> Agreed, Tivo is generally considered the best all around DVR for OTA. But the OP was asking for alternatives. Since no one specified cable or OTA, no reason to limit alternatives to one or the other. Plus when others search and find this thread, it would be useful to actually have discussion of viable alternatives with pros/cons of each.


True. Discussing Simple.TV and Tablo is relevant for the OTA niche.



> Tablo seems interesting, but is definitely still rough and being developed. The earliest funders to buy in were able to purchase a 4-tuner model with 1TB internal drive (plus ability to add 2TB external) with lifetime service for $375. The value proposition today is much less impressive, but still probably cheaper than a more polished version that will likely come eventually.


Yeah, I've never used one, I've just read rave reviews, and the reviews say that Tablo is a lot better than Simple.TV.



> HDHomeRun has three models (single, dual, and triple tuner) that support either OTA or cable. There are probably other Tivo alternatives that can do certain things (like airplay mirroring) better, but likely have other drawbacks. For the more adventurous, you can build your own to meet your exact needs with a Raspberry Pi or Jynxbox.


Technically yes, but that's more of a DIY DVR system than a DVR product per se. Also, the HDHomeRun boxes are OTA -OR- CableCard, not both. The OTA ones do ClearQAM, but that's a total niche, especially since it's not available in many areas anymore.



bareyb said:


> There really is no better alternative to TiVo unless you want to switch to Satellite. I've heard the Dish DVR is supposed to be pretty good.


The Hopper is supposed to be good, but it's a lot more limited than Genie or Roamio in terms of expandability, and from what I've heard it's still no TiVo. Also, DISH's service isn't that great PQ wise, and I'm also biased against DISH, since they don't bother to compete in the NYC DMA, all of NY State, and all of CT, due to lack of sports channels. Which makes their "Haaaaaawppaaaaahhhhh!!!!" ads in a thick Lawn Guyland accent even more bizarre.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jacbec said:


> Mirroring is a feature found on most Apple computers that allows you to connect your computer to a television or monitor, and enables you to view your desktop screen from the monitor or television. Using AirPlay media on an iPad e.g., TiVo can be streamed wirelessly to an Apple TV so you can watch your recordings on the big screen.


Have you looked at the TiVo Mini? It does exactly what you want. It doesn't use AirPlay, as that's an Apple technology, but it allows you to play all of your recordings on another TV in the house via your home network.

Also if you have a Roamio Plus/Pro or a standalone TiVo stream you can watch your recordings on your iPad or iPhone. It the device is jail broken then you can use AirPlay to mirror that to your AppleTV


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

El Maestro said:


> I've been using cTivo to move recordings to my Mac media server.
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=503495
> 
> It's a pretty good piece of softwareI've had a few minor issues with it but it's done what I've needed it to do. I've moved about 100 episodes of TV in the last week!


I use this on my Mac too. Works well.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

since Moxi died there hasn't been any retail DVR other than Tivo, has there?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

b_scott said:


> since Moxi died there hasn't been any retail DVR other than Tivo, has there?


There are a few OTA ones and I think there might be one CableCARD one but they're all super basic and don't provide any advanced features a TiVo user would be use to. Other then Media Center, which has been discontinued, TiVo doesn't really have any retail competition. I think most manufacturers realize that there is really no money in DVRs, and the support hassle of dealing with CableCARDs and TAs is more then they want to deal with.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

yeah. Most J6P's are fine with Comcrap's $15 a month DVR.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

b_scott said:


> yeah. Most J6P's are fine with Comcrap's $15 a month DVR.


My sister in law records everything in SD to allow the Hard Drive hold more shows. She's not happy. And yet, she stays. It's like a bad marriage.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

bareyb said:


> My sister in law records everything in SD to allow the Hard Drive hold more shows. She's not happy. And yet, she stays. It's like a bad marriage.


Why doesn't she just offload to the PC? Oh, wait..


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> Why doesn't she just offload to the PC? Oh, wait..


Exactly. Never gonna happen. She'll just "suffer through"...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You should buy her a TiVo and show her the error of her ways.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> There are a few OTA ones and I think there might be one CableCARD one but they're all super basic and don't provide any advanced features a TiVo user would be use to. Other then Media Center, which has been discontinued, TiVo doesn't really have any retail competition. I think most manufacturers realize that there is really no money in DVRs, and the support hassle of dealing with CableCARDs and TAs is more then they want to deal with.


The only other retail DVR currently being produced that I know about is the Channel Master DVR for OTA. The retail DVR market apparently can't really sustain more than 1 company, and maybe not even that many since TiVo has never really been able to turn a profit other than through its patent litigation efforts.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Is it Channel Master? I finally saw mention of a *4 tuner* non-Tivo OTA DVR. They did mention some software issues.. oh wait, I think I actually commented in another thread about it -- it can use a max of 2 TB drive.. that was a bad thing IMHO.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mattack said:


> Is it Channel Master? I finally saw mention of a *4 tuner* non-Tivo OTA DVR. They did mention some software issues.. oh wait, I think I actually commented in another thread about it -- it can use a max of 2 TB drive.. that was a bad thing IMHO.


I believe that one is Tablo.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

mattack said:


> Is it Channel Master? I finally saw mention of a *4 tuner* non-Tivo OTA DVR. They did mention some software issues.. oh wait, I think I actually commented in another thread about it -- it can use a max of 2 TB drive.. that was a bad thing IMHO.


I believe the CM DVR+ is a dual tuner with a 1TB internal drive and support for an additional external USB drive.

The Tablo has quad tuners, and currently only supports drives up to 2TB (internal/external), but does not have an HDMI output.

There are quite a few cable card tuner network options if HDMI output isn't needed, but I think a new model from Samsung may be the only real retail alternative to Tivo currently being produced.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

dcline414 said:


> I think a new model from Samsung may be the only real retail alternative to Tivo currently being produced.


I know Samsung makes a streaming media player that has a CableCard slot and will function as a cable box, but it doesn't record.


----------



## JayBird (Jan 26, 2003)

Having used WMC on Windows 7 with a InfiniTV4 PCIe Ceton card for the past few years along side my TiVo HD, it amazes me that a huge company like Microsoft with seemingly endless resources can have so many buggy things about it compared to the refined product of TiVo. Although there are a few things I like about WMC that I wish TiVo had, all-in-all, TiVo is a vastly better DVR product overall, without all of the usual PC headaches.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

JayBird said:


> Having used WMC on Windows 7 with a InfiniTV4 PCIe Ceton card for the past few years along side my TiVo HD, it amazes me that a huge company like Microsoft with seemingly endless resources can have so many buggy things about it compared to the refined product of TiVo. Although there are a few things I like about WMC that I wish TiVo had, all-in-all, TiVo is a vastly better DVR product overall, without all of the usual PC headaches.


You have to keep in mind that Tivo was a product developed from the ground up strictly as a DVR whereas WMC was an add-on to an existing platform. As such, Microsoft had to design the software to work on a platform that wasn't specifically designed for use as a DVR. I believe that if WMC had received much wider acceptance MS would have eventually worked most of the kinks out of it. Since it hasn't, they basically gave up on it and moved onto other things. In its current state, it's not as refined as a Tivo, but it's way better than most cable company DVRs. I use it on a daily basis and easily record over 40 hours of programs per week with no problems.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

You sort of mention this, but isn't WMC effectively orphaned at this point? I thought people had been wondering if it would even be included as an option in the last couple of major MS releases...


----------



## DancyMunchkin (Jul 7, 2014)

mattack said:


> You sort of mention this, but isn't WMC effectively orphaned at this point?





mr.unnatural said:


> ...they basically gave up on it and moved onto other things.


Doesn't this phrase define 'orphaned'?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

mattack said:


> You sort of mention this, but isn't WMC effectively orphaned at this point? I thought people had been wondering if it would even be included as an option in the last couple of major MS releases...


It's been orphaned with respect to any further development. It is, however, still being offered as an add-on for Windows 8 so it's not dead by any means. I don't believe it will still be offered in the next Windows release, but we'll have to wait and see.

It will still be a viable option for as long as Microsoft provides guide data. Even if they stop providing guide data there are third party sources that will provide it for a modest fee. Chances are that something else may come along by then to supplant recording with a cablecard, rendering both current Tivos and WMC as obsolete. Streaming content via the internet seems to be the way providers are headed so current conventional methods of watching and recording TV will probably become a thing of the past.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

If they don't include MCE in Windows 9, then it will die, at the very latest, on January 10, 2023, if they even provide guide data for that long. It's sad that no one is pursuing the PC-based DVR, as in theory, it should be able to provide the best experience, with the best, most powerful hardware, but Microsoft's execution in MCE is a total mess.

Ceton was going to make a retail DVR that ran embedded Windows with Media Center, but they dropped that when M$ stopped doing anything with MCE. It's unfortunate too, as M$ of any company has the resources to develop something like that.

There are several OTA DVRs, like Simple.TV, Tablo, and more basic ones. However, TiVo and MCE are the only practical uses for Cable Cards at this point. It's unfortunate that CableCard is a system to support two particular systems, not an open market like it was intended to be. The problem is that people are too lazy to switch to something better, or are too clueless to even know that they have the right to use something else.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Bigg said:


> It's sad that no one is pursuing the PC-based DVR, as in theory, it should be able to provide the best experience, with the best, most powerful hardware, but Microsoft's execution in MCE is a total mess.


FYI, Windows Media Center isn't the only DVR app in town for a PC:

http://www.mythtv.org/
http://www.team-mediaportal.com/
http://xbmc.org/
http://www.nextpvr.com/
http://babgvant.com/blogs/andyvt/archive/2011/02/05/sagedct-public-release.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_PVR_software_packages

Several of the above DVR apps have been updated to work with cablecard tuners. The only caveat is that they will only record unflagged channels which means you cannot record any channel that is encrypted. This varies from provider to provider. SageTV is no longer available but you can still find licenses for it through various classified ads and the SageTV forum. The SageTV developer has vowed to provide support and guide data even though he sold out to Google.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> FYI, Windows Media Center isn't the only DVR app in town for a PC:
> 
> http://www.mythtv.org/
> http://www.team-mediaportal.com/
> ...


Their is still no DVR solution as simple as the one TiVo offers or the MSO itself offers.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

lessd said:


> Their is still no DVR solution as simple as the one TiVo offers or the MSO itself offers.


...nor as expensive.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> ...nor as expensive.


Oh you can build a more expensive pc dvr.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

trip1eX said:


> Oh you can build a more expensive pc dvr.


Cost is relative to the level of performance or features you wish to include. A lot of people go overboard and spend far more than they need to on a WMC PC because they think it will work better. Mostly it's just a security blanket with little or no return on investment. The truth is, once you reach a certain threshold based on the features you want, anything over and above that level is wasted. OTOH, once you get past the initial investment of a basic PC DVR, adding more hardware or features is relatively inexpensive and cost effective.



lessd said:


> Their is still no DVR solution as simple as the one TiVo offers or the MSO itself offers.


That goes without saying even though it wasn't part of the actual discussion.


----------



## heyted (Mar 4, 2012)

Bigg said:


> It's sad that no one is pursuing the PC-based DVR


MythTV is still being developed, and it is already very stable with many options and features. MythTV supports encrypted channels from a CableCard tuner. The encrypted channels must be flagged copy freely. With Comcast's Digital Starter tier in South Florida, all encrypted channels are flagged copy freely except MoviePlex. MoviePlex movies can be streamed for free as a work around.

According to the link below Silicondust is "heading in the direction" of a DVR in addition to their line of CableCard tuners and other products. It will maybe be Android based.

http://www.silicondust.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=17453


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Oh you can build a more expensive pc dvr.


You can also go dirt cheap... the Jynxbox or Raspberry Pi have great potential for build-your-own barebones DVRs.

The Jynxbox ultra HD has a no-frills solution that sounds very interestingdefinitely has all the right connectivity:


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

cablecard slot not found.......?


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

b_scott said:


> cablecard slot not found.......?


That one appears to have no tuner at all in it (holes where RF connectors would be) what kind of tuner looks optional and looks like no cablecard support at all. http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-JynxBox...FREE-JB200-Installed-USB-WiFi-HDMI-/271526550


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

cannonz said:


> That one appears to have no tuner at all in it (holes where RF connectors would be) what kind of tuner looks optional and looks like no cablecard support at all. http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-JynxBox...FREE-JB200-Installed-USB-WiFi-HDMI-/271526550


Sorry to get your hopes up, the components are still being developed and refined. I do know that the ATSC tuners can currently be bought separately and added. There are also similar cablecard components that already exist. It's just a matter of bringing together a compatible interface and software to make use of the peripherals.

But I expect that this type of computing hardware, with customizable tuners, storage, interface, etc will become the prevalent competitor to traditional Tivo boxes in the near future. It's not there yet, but soon will probably be easier to build than a WMC PC.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Doesn't Tivo have some patent for DVR's and sued almost everyone?

Samsung, Motorola and Pace already make real DVR hardware. They choose not to deal with consumers and sell to MSO's.

There are some cheap low end ATSC DVR's:
http://www.amazon.com/Mediasonic-HW-150PVR-HomeWorx-Converter-Recording/dp/B00I2ZBD1U
http://www.amazon.com/3500STBII-Multi-Function-Converter-Recording-Playback/dp/B00GOILYB6
http://www.amazon.com/Viewtv-Converter-Recording-Function-Composite/dp/B00GGVPKKC

Maybe the difference between ATSC and CableCard DVR's is telling us that CableLabs certification is no picnic.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

telemark said:


> Doesn't Tivo have some patent for DVR's and sued almost everyone?
> Samsung, Motorola and Pace already make real DVR hardware. They choose not to deal with consumers and sell to MSO's.
> Maybe the difference between ATSC and CableCard DVR's is telling us that CableLabs certification is no picnic.


I'm in agreement with all of this. It's hard enough not to unintentionally violate a TiVo patent, let alone get CableLabs certification.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

telemark said:


> Doesn't Tivo have some patent for DVR's and sued almost everyone?
> 
> Samsung, Motorola and Pace already make real DVR hardware. They choose not to deal with consumers and sell to MSO's.
> 
> ...


I recently got one of those 3500STBII's for my brother, when his zenith OTA converter died.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

nooneuknow said:


> I'm in agreement with all of this. It's hard enough not to unintentionally violate a TiVo patent, let alone get CableLabs certification.


I've read that TiVo's main patent expires in 2018. Maybe after that things will start to pick up in the retail DVR market if there is a workable replacement for CableCards at that time.


----------



## nooneuknow (Feb 5, 2011)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I've read that TiVo's main patent expires in 2018. Maybe after that things will start to pick up in the retail DVR market if there is a workable replacement for CableCards at that time.


One can only have hope that will be the case. I was actually wondering how long TiVo's market monopoly sustaining patents were good for, when I made my last post.

The flip side of this is how many people worry about TiVo going out of business, blind to anything except worries that their lifetime service TiVos might not work as long as they hoped for (infinity, for some), and what the resale value of a lifetime service TiVo will be.

To them, TiVo losing patents is a "The sky is falling!!!" event. Although, if TiVo loses it's place in many different positions, and/or there is suddenly a competitive TV DVR market, it certainly could make what lifetime sub TiVos are worth, a lot less than many are used to...

Nothing is ever just "black and white". Even my B&W laser printer prints in grayscale...


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

I think by 2018 everything will be IPTV anyway. So it'll be kind of moot.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

That's only 4 years away.

Finance limited households would still prefer "free" OTA broadcasts which contain ads so DVR's won't die off until ATSC is killed off.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

b_scott said:


> I think by 2018 everything will be IPTV anyway. So it'll be kind of moot.


Pretty laughable timeline.


----------



## dcline414 (May 1, 2014)

aridon said:


> Pretty laughable timeline.


According to Wikipedia, _"ABI Research forecasts that truly self-driving cars would become a reality by 2020 and that 10 million such new cars would be rolling out on to United States' public highways every year by 2032."_

Nothing is laughable anymore. If we could have driverless cars by 2020 then TV distribution via IP by 2018 seems like a sure thing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> FYI, Windows Media Center isn't the only DVR app in town for a PC:
> 
> http://www.mythtv.org/
> http://www.team-mediaportal.com/
> ...


You can't count the ones that can't get access to flagged channels. Yes, TWC over-flags and Comcast and Verizon don't, but even on Comcast and Verizon, HBO is flagged.



heyted said:


> MythTV is still being developed, and it is already very stable with many options and features. MythTV supports encrypted channels from a CableCard tuner. The encrypted channels must be flagged copy freely. With Comcast's Digital Starter tier in South Florida, all encrypted channels are flagged copy freely except MoviePlex. MoviePlex movies can be streamed for free as a work around.
> 
> According to the link below Silicondust is "heading in the direction" of a DVR in addition to their line of CableCard tuners and other products. It will maybe be Android based.
> 
> http://www.silicondust.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=17453


HBO is flagged. Anything that doesn't handle flagged channels is not a credible solution for a cable DVR.



dcline414 said:


> According to Wikipedia, _"ABI Research forecasts that truly self-driving cars would become a reality by 2020 and that 10 million such new cars would be rolling out on to United States' public highways every year by 2032."_
> 
> Nothing is laughable anymore. If we could have driverless cars by 2020 then TV distribution via IP by 2018 seems like a sure thing.


There is no reason for QAM plants to move to IPTV. All the benefits can be realized through SDV if need be, and a well-managed QAM plant with no analog and all MPEG-4 HDs doesn't even need that.

Self-driving cars will have huge benefits, and operate in a competitive market.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dcline414 said:


> According to Wikipedia, _"ABI Research forecasts that truly self-driving cars would become a reality by 2020 and that 10 million such new cars would be rolling out on to United States' public highways every year by 2032."_
> 
> Nothing is laughable anymore. If we could have driverless cars by 2020 then TV distribution via IP by 2018 seems like a sure thing.


In 1960 the things I was told would happen by the 21st century, non but stereo sound came true and nobody talked about the internet then.

Self driving car, not in the next 50 years, unless they get lawyers out of the accident business.

For cars in town, all electric will become more common until the states get to taxing the mileage to get the road tax.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Bigg said:


> You can't count the ones that can't get access to flagged channels. Yes, TWC over-flags and Comcast and Verizon don't, but even on Comcast and Verizon, HBO is flagged.


This is only important if you subscribe to HBO, which many people don't. If you consider that a limiting factor then you've cut down your choices of Tivo alternatives considerably. None of the channels I subscribe to on FIOS are flagged so I could use just about any alternative front end for recording via cablecard tuners. I prefer WMC because I'm familiar with it and I can set up a HTPC with it in very short order. Any other front ends would require a much longer learning curve and I just don't have the time or motiviation to make the switch.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

aridon said:


> Pretty laughable timeline.


how many cable stations have apps or have all video available on their website?

FXNOW, CW, HBOGO, SHOWTIME ANYTIME, FOXNOW, ESPN, MLB.tv, Comedy Central app, A&E, Animal Plant L!VE, Encore Play, FOX News, History, Lifetime, MTV...... I mean I can keep listing or you can simply go to one of the sources, here: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/apps/xbox-360

and NBC/ABC/CBS all have "watch full episodes" on their sites. Among many others.

It's only a matter of time, and it snowballs. It's very recent, with all these apps. And you KNOW the monopoly cable companies are tired of leaving money on the table with all the people using these apps and hulu/netflix/crackle/etc for their TV instead of paying $90 a month for tv broadcasts.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

lessd said:


> In 1960 the things I was told would happen by the 21st century, non but stereo sound came true and nobody talked about the internet then.
> 
> Self driving car, not in the next 50 years, unless they get lawyers out of the accident business.
> 
> For cars in town, all electric will become more common until the states get to taxing the mileage to get the road tax.


they already have self driving google cars. today.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

b_scott said:


> they already have self driving google cars. today.


True, but in controlled places, think about what has to happen just to get out of your home garage and back in, think about a NYC parking garage for cars without any steering wheels, the list could go on and on, this concept will stay out 50 years for some time now. I sure test areas can be built that may work but not existing places, I was driving down my street and saw a young kids ball rolling toward the street, I stopped my car; the ball came into the street between two parked cars, followed by the child that I had not seen. I was stopped so no problem, BUT!!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I saw an article the other day where the government is worried that these self-driving cars could be used for terrorist activities. They wouldn't need suicide bombers anymore if they could simply program a car to drive into a building or crowd of people. Then again, how could they martyr themselves? No virgins for those guys in the afterlife.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I saw an article the other day where the government is worried that these self-driving cars could be used for terrorist activities. They wouldn't need suicide bombers anymore if they could simply program a car to drive into a building or crowd of people. Then again, how could they martyr themselves? No virgins for those guys in the afterlife.


I guess you have not heard, they running out of virgins, that why the number of martyrs attacks is down, these martyrs are not stupid, they check the virgin stock before they martyr themselves.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

b_scott said:


> how many cable stations have apps or have all video available on their website?
> 
> FXNOW, CW, HBOGO, SHOWTIME ANYTIME, FOXNOW, ESPN, MLB.tv, Comedy Central app, A&E, Animal Plant L!VE, Encore Play, FOX News, History, Lifetime, MTV...... I mean I can keep listing or you can simply go to one of the sources, here: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/apps/xbox-360
> 
> ...


I replied to his 4 year remark.

I realize all those exist. Do you realize you need a cable sub to watch most of it? Do you really think cable companies care that you stream some stuff via the web you have through them (likely with a cap soon)? I doubt it.

Broadcast television isn't going to change at all in 4 years. Maybe in 10 when they are doing another hardware push but until then its going to be exactly the same. You might get a few more shows, via your subscription I might add, from some company web sites but not much will change.

The future is some kind of on demand system. No doubt about it. Just won't be happening in 4 years like claimed and likely will be at least a decade away.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aridon said:


> The future is some kind of on demand system. No doubt about it. Just won't be happening in 4 years like claimed and likely will be at least a decade away.


My problem with any demand system is paying for a show before I know I would like it, over 1/2 the new shows I start I dump, I don't find it easy to find a show that I like, I watched *The Americans * only because I saw a preview at a movie theater, I found out about *Breaking Bad* as the last episode was on the air, so many people were saying good things about that program so I tried it and ended up binge watching all the programs on Netflix over two weekends, two people told me about *Homeland* so I started that using OD to check up.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

The other problem is that they all want a "Streaming" format so they can have complete control over how you view the material. In other words, there will LOTS of commercials and you won't have the ability to fast forward through them. It's going to suck. :down:

The other problem I see with this scenario is not everyone will be able to afford broadband access. So that's going to leave a lot of people out in the cold. Until Broadband internet prices come way down, I don't see being the main way people will access Televsion. Considering how long it took for HD to become mainstream, I don't think we have anything to worry about for a good decade or so.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> This is only important if you subscribe to HBO, which many people don't. If you consider that a limiting factor then you've cut down your choices of Tivo alternatives considerably. None of the channels I subscribe to on FIOS are flagged so I could use just about any alternative front end for recording via cablecard tuners. I prefer WMC because I'm familiar with it and I can set up a HTPC with it in very short order. Any other front ends would require a much longer learning curve and I just don't have the time or motiviation to make the switch.


Considering how much of a roll HBO has been on recently, it's pretty darn important.



lessd said:


> True, but in controlled places, think about what has to happen just to get out of your home garage and back in, think about a NYC parking garage for cars without any steering wheels, the list could go on and on, this concept will stay out 50 years for some time now. I sure test areas can be built that may work but not existing places, I was driving down my street and saw a young kids ball rolling toward the street, I stopped my car; the ball came into the street between two parked cars, followed by the child that I had not seen. I was stopped so no problem, BUT!!


The technology is already here. The cars will come within the next few years, and be nearly ubiquitous within 20 years at most.

The car will handle those situations better than a human can. And there will be an option for a manual mode if you have to do something, like parking on the lawn at a friend's picnic or something, that the car can't/won't do.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

aridon said:


> I replied to his 4 year remark.
> 
> I realize all those exist. Do you realize you need a cable sub to watch most of it? Do you really think cable companies care that you stream some stuff via the web you have through them (likely with a cap soon)? I doubt it.
> 
> ...


yeah, I was the one who said 2018 actually.

Look at TV in 2009-10. Probably only half was fully HD. Now look at TV. And that was only 4-5 years ago. I bought a plasma in 2008 and waited a couple years for most everything to even be in HD. Now with smart TVs and apps galore, it's becoming clear it's all shifting that way. Sure you have to pay for cable subs to get a lot of the apps (not broadcast of course) but it's becoming easier to flip a switch on things and say "well now it's this app, not a channel." My kid isn't going to understand why anyone ever needed to have TV that was just on all the time on all channels. On Demand is the new thing, and I think 4-5 years isn't too soon for it to be mostly switched over. Look at the flip out about the conversion boxes a couple years ago. Now everyone has an HDTV so they don't care. Things change.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

bareyb said:


> The other problem is that they all want a "Streaming" format so they can have complete control over how you view the material. In other words, there will LOTS of commercials and you won't have the ability to fast forward through them. It's going to suck. :down:
> 
> The other problem I see with this scenario is not everyone will be able to afford broadband access. So that's going to leave a lot of people out in the cold. Until Broadband internet prices come way down, I don't see being the main way people will access Televsion. Considering how long it took for HD to become mainstream, I don't think we have anything to worry about for a good decade or so.


Congratulations, you just figured out what the TV companies want.

Streaming TV and forcing ads to counter the DVR movement. Offer it online for free as a nice benefit. It's a win-win - cord cutters suddenly get to watch more ads when they can't just DVR adskip, and customers think they can easily dump cable and save money by just watching it online.

As for broadband, well, most of it is owned by TV companies. And they're seeing cord cutters and all that leaving their system. Well gee, if they make broadband expensive, cord cutters will have to ante up for much more profitable internet service, or go OTA.

Add in a bunch of "live" features like interactions and second screens, plus social networks and twitter, and that puts even more pressure on cord cutters to resubscribe.

(And the content industry saw what Apple did to the music industry and vowed to never let a single video content provider get access to everything - they will let Amazon have some content, but not all, Netflix gets other content, and Hulu a third set of content, so you have to subscribe to all services).

Remember how everyone was whining about ad skipping and all that destroying TV? It didn't happen because the stations figured out how to exploit the system - legal streaming (for free with unskippable ads!), making sure that those who cancel cable still need the much more profitable internet, etc.

The only real way is to stop indulging in TV - use OTA, read books, walk outside, etc. Because in some way or form they know they've got you bending over.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> .
> The technology is already here. The cars will come within the next few years, and be nearly ubiquitous within 20 years at most.
> 
> The car will handle those situations better than a human can. And there will be an option for a manual mode if you have to do something, like parking on the lawn at a friend's picnic or something, that the car can't/won't do.


You think the big problem with cars that have no steering wheel is parking on someone's lawn  
Did you ever park in NYC, valet parking would be fun in a car without any steering wheel!! Dream on as driverless cars will be like I was told in high school in the early 60s that by the 21st century we would all have personal flying machine to get to work, how that working out. If I was around in 1925 I would thought the lead acid battery to start cars would never last 95 more years, it is still here, with the only change 12VDC from 6VDC. Some technology will get much better some will never make it and other will stay the same (cars without steering wheels for one that will not make it for general public use). The piston auto engine is over 100 years old and still the main way engines for car/trucks are made, someone did try a turbine type auto engine, did not work out. Things we don't yet know about may be a big deal in 20 years like the internet was, never herd of the internet until the mid 80s, got my first cable internet from @Home sometime in the 90s.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

I don't know about steering wheels disappearing any time soon, but cars already have forward looking cruise control and rear end crash avoidance systems and lane departure assist. Some form of driverless vehicle will happen, but I don't see anything where human interaction would become completely unnecessary. At least not anytime soon.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Considering how much of a roll HBO has been on recently, it's pretty darn important.


Considering that Game of Thrones is the most pirated show on TV, many would think otherwise. Clearly, there are a lot of people that don't subscribe to HBO because they know they can obtain the content elsewhere. The ability to get HBO isn't the deal breaker you make it out to be. Anyone with the motivation to build a HTPC wouldn't have any problem getting around the HBO issue. HBO exclusive programming is available through several legit sources as well. I believe it is Amazon or one of the other streaming services that now offers HBO programs. You can get movies from a variety of sources.



bareyb said:


> The other problem is that they all want a "Streaming" format so they can have complete control over how you view the material. In other words, there will LOTS of commercials and you won't have the ability to fast forward through them. It's going to suck. :down:


This is also a non-issue. There are ways that you can capture the streamed content and either edit out commercials or skip past them. There are web-rips of TV shows posted on a lot of torrent sites. Anything that Netflix offers is available if you know where to look.

The main thing is that anyone that anyone that really wants the content can get it, regardless of whether they can subscribe to HBO on their DVR.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Yep stealing is a Tivo alternative.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm not promoting theft of any kind. I'm just giving you the facts. HBO programming is available through various sources other than cable. Some are legit and some not so much. Bigg indicated that getting HBO via cable was of paramount importance when considering an alternative to Tivo. I only indicated that it's not as important to others as it is to him.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Worf said:


> The only real way is to stop indulging in TV - use OTA, read books, walk outside, etc. Because in some way or form they know they've got you bending over.


uh.... yeah. the way to not pay for something is to not use it. thank you Captain Obvious.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

lessd said:


> You think the big problem with cars that have no steering wheel is parking on someone's lawn
> Did you ever park in NYC, valet parking would be fun in a car without any steering wheel!! Dream on as driverless cars will be like I was told in high school in the early 60s that by the 21st century we would all have personal flying machine to get to work, how that working out. If I was around in 1925 I would thought the lead acid battery to start cars would never last 95 more years, it is still here, with the only change 12VDC from 6VDC. Some technology will get much better some will never make it and other will stay the same (cars without steering wheels for one that will not make it for general public use). *The piston auto engine is over 100 years old and still the main way engines for car/trucks are made, someone did try a turbine type auto engine, did not work out.* Things we don't yet know about may be a big deal in 20 years like the internet was, never herd of the internet until the mid 80s, got my first cable internet from @Home sometime in the 90s.


http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/technology/motor

I was born in 1981 so I probably knew about the internet in around 1991. Got cable internet (@Home as well) in 1998 I think.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

bareyb said:


> I don't know about steering wheels disappearing any time soon, but cars already have forward looking cruise control and rear end crash avoidance systems and lane departure assist. Some form of driverless vehicle will happen, but I don't see anything where human interaction would become completely unnecessary. At least not anytime soon.


I have forward looking cruise control and it is great when on a highway, has almost no use yet in the city. I have a rear end crash avoidance systems but that for my use not to stop someone from hitting my car in the rear. Blind spot warning is now on many cars, so safety improvements are coming but the demo of a driverless car showed the passengers in the back seat, no one in the front, for general use, no way. That type of system may/is used inside big warehouse but that in a controlled environment. A car that you get into the back seat in your garage and say take *me to moms home*, go to sleep and end up at moms home is 50 years away and for now will stay 50 years away.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

those cars would probably work great in a closed environment where all the cars were driverless. It's the unpredictability of humans entering into it that blows it up


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Have you seen the video of the blind guy "driving" the Google car? It takes him to the pharmacy and back without him ever touching the wheel.

While the technology would certainly be easier in a closed environment, they are working on AI that will allow it to deal with unpredictable humans. The biggest hurdle at this point is not the technology but the laws. There are a lot of liability issues with an autonomous car that need to be worked out before they start selling them. But the technology itself will be ready in a decade or less.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

lessd said:


> I have forward looking cruise control and it is great when on a highway, has almost no use yet in the city. I have a rear end crash avoidance systems but that for my use not to stop someone from hitting my car in the rear. Blind spot warning is now on many cars, so safety improvements are coming but the demo of a driverless car showed the passengers in the back seat, no one in the front, for general use, no way. That type of system may/is used inside big warehouse but that in a controlled environment. A car that you get into the back seat in your garage and say take *me to moms home*, go to sleep and end up at moms home is 50 years away and for now will stay 50 years away.


I would say it will come when we have true AI, which is only 10 years away. Of course, AI has been 10 years away for at least 40 years now.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

You guys ride around in your ghost car, I will just send my home servant android to run my errands, we've had those for decades now right?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I think real AI is many decades away. But we don't need real AI to drive a car. We need a very specific set of rules and sensors so that the car can make proper decisions about how best to handle what's presented to it on the road. It doesn't need to be able to hold a conversation or learn on it's own. It just needs to be very, very, good at driving a car and dealing with the various conditions that presents.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The advantages I see to a self driving car....

1) You no longer need to park. You can have the car drop you off at the door and then park itself. When you're done you can summon it to pick you up. Like having a valet everywhere you go.

2) No more designated driver. You can go out and get drunk and the car will safely drive you home. 

3) You can do other things to entertain yourself while the car is driving, so being the driver on a long trip is no longer boring. 

Basically all the same advantages rich people get from having a driver except that it's accessible to the average Joe.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I think real AI is many decades away. But we don't need real AI to drive a car. We need a very specific set of rules and sensors so that the car can make proper decisions about how best to handle what's presented to it on the road. It doesn't need to be able to hold a conversation or learn on it's own. It just needs to be very, very, good at driving a car and dealing with the various conditions that presents.


Think again about a parking garage in NYC (if you have ever used one). The various conditions to account for are almost unlimited in todays USA. A place like the *The villages (in FL) *if built new with this type of car in mind could work, maybe.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Unless the direction in which energy prices are going changes fairly soon, while we may have few if any self-driving cars, we will have lots of driverless cars. They'll also be passengerless and motionless.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> 1) You no longer need to park. You can have the car drop you off at the door and then park itself. When you're done you can summon it to pick you up. Like having a valet everywhere you go.


A picture flashed through my mind of a bunch of empty self-driving cars, all driving around searching in vain for an available parking space, each one periodically issuing Herbie's plaintive cry. Then some of them, sensing that a parked car is about to move, gather like vultures around a dying animal.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> The advantages I see to a self driving car....


Lower accident/death rate.
New types of insurance.
Freeways run faster, fewer lanes needed.
Cars can be shared, fewer need to be built and owned.
Children/Elderly/Drunk/High/Sick can be dropped off.



lpwcomp said:


> A picture flashed through my mind of a bunch of empty self-driving cars, all driving around searching in vain for an available parking space, each one periodically issuing Herbie's plaintive cry. Then some of them, sensing that a parked car is about to move, gather like vultures around a dying animal.


That sounds alot like NYC yellow cabs. We gave them Taxi queue's.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)




----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

b_scott said:


>


My very point about self driving cars


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

telemark said:


> Lower accident/death rate.
> New types of insurance.
> Freeways run faster, fewer lanes needed.
> Cars can be shared, fewer need to be built and owned.
> Children/Elderly/Drunk/High/Sick can be dropped off.


Those all sound great too!


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

telemark said:


> Cars can be shared, fewer need to be built and owned.


Sorry. Doesn't track. People still want access to _*their*_ car when _*they*_ need it. In fact, it could result in _*more*_ cars on the road. No need for a designated driver and every kid could have his or her own car since they don't need to be able to drive themselves to use one.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Good point, but maybe they could be small single seat electric cars which wouldn't have as much impact on the environment as a bug gas guzzling SUV.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Personally, I'd like to get rid of as much bug gas as possible.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

lpwcomp said:


> Sorry. Doesn't track. People still want access to _*their*_ car when _*they*_ need it. In fact, it could result in _*more*_ cars on the road. No need for a designated driver and every kid could have his or her own car since they don't need to be able to drive themselves to use one.


Households with money to burn can buy one per person (or 2 per person) if they desire. I'm going to assume they're a minority of the US and the world.

The sensor cost is +$100k today, say we half it by the time it comes to market +$50k. This is still a multiple of an ordinary car. Initial (rational finances) adoption will be use cases where the single autonomous car replaces multiple driver based cars.

One example was taxi fleets, could run 24hours, which would reduce the number of cars required.

Another proposal was after yours takes you to work, instead of paying to park it idle for the 8 hours, it can pick up fares. This would create a robust taxi force in areas without one, and those individuals/households/businesses who own a car for occasional use would instead transition to these automated taxi's (as non-owner)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

People like to own things, so I doubt we'll see everyone transition to a taxi style system. It's just not in our nature no matter how practical it is.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> People like to own things, so I doubt we'll see everyone transition to a taxi style system. It's just not in our nature no matter how practical it is.


Sure, that's another cultural bias against adoption. But argue this point with a Londoner or New Yorker.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

telemark said:


> Sure, that's another cultural bias against adoption. But argue this point with a Londoner or New Yorker.


Where you live will make a difference all the time, few people own single family homes in NYC with back yards and attached covered garages, where I live the opposite is true.


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> People like to own things, so I doubt we'll see everyone transition to a taxi style system. It's just not in our nature no matter how practical it is.


you obviously have never lived in a major city  I didn't own a car for 7 years in Chicago.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

What you guys are discussing is basically just another version of a mass transit system. This is fine for daily commuting to work, but what about larger groups? Single seat cars just don't cut it for family use.

For any type of automated cars to become a reality, I think they'd have to construct dedicated lanes for them to use that are isolated from the mainstream traffic. Manually driven cars and trucks will be around for as long as the oil companies have gas and diesel to sell us. People are used to being independant and like being able to drive their own vehicles. Large cities are a perfect candidate for this type of system, but then you'd have to deal with a lot of pissed off unemployed cab drivers. New York cabbies are rude and obnoxious on a good day. Can you imagine what they'd be like with an actual reason to be angry?

The oil companies aren't going to release their stranglehold on the industry so this is all a pipedream. The lobbyists in Congress are just too strong and politicians too corrupt to do anything that benefits anyone other than themselves. This entire discussion is nice in theory, but the reality is it probably won't happen in our lifetime.

And WTF does any of this have to do with alternatives to Tivo?


----------



## poppagene (Dec 29, 2001)

telemark said:


> Lower accident/death rate.
> New types of insurance.
> Freeways run faster, fewer lanes needed.
> Cars can be shared, fewer need to be built and owned.
> Children/Elderly/Drunk/High/Sick can be dropped off.


The TiVo version would make suggestions on destinations you might like.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Passengers will be able to watch TV via TivoToGo on ipads but not Androids nor Android drivers.

Maybe the point is technology improves faster than cultural acceptance.

For cars, the tech already exists and simple versions are out in the market. The limiting factor is changing the regulation and cultural acceptance.

For IPTV / On Demand, it also exists. Whatever prevents getting all content from that method is not technological. (if not true today, true soon enough)

Whenever it gets adopted, there's a long distance from there, and getting that last person to switch. (be it giving up driving, or giving up Cable TV)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> For any type of automated cars to become a reality, I think they'd have to construct dedicated lanes for them to use that are isolated from the mainstream traffic.


Google, BWM and others think you're wrong. The Google autonomous car can drive on regular streets and react to the actions of other cars and pedestrians. It's basically ready to go technology at this point. The problem is that the car with all the sensors would cost like $150K so it's a bit out of reach for most people. Plus the laws governing autonomous cars are not yet set. They have a limited license to drive them in CA and NV but they have to carry special insurance and it still requires someone to be behind the wheel "just in case".


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Google, BWM and others think you're wrong. The Google autonomous car can drive on regular streets and react to the actions of other cars and pedestrians. It's basically ready to go technology at this point. The problem is that the car with all the sensors would cost like $150K so it's a bit out of reach for most people. Plus the laws governing autonomous cars are not yet set. They have a limited license to drive them in CA and NV but they have to carry special insurance and it still requires someone to be behind the wheel "just in case".


They still use them in a controlled situation, the driverless car for everyday use for ordinary people at any price is 50 years out. Now it is just a concept, like some of the cars you see at auto shows, great to look at but very few come out for general sales, it done for publicly mostly. It will take more time than I have to prove I am correct, but if they do come out for general sales in the next 10 years I will eat humble pie. Look how hard a time we are having just to get cars out to the general population that don't use any carbon type fuel, and all electric cars that can hold 5 people are now for sale, it just that few people are buying. I have 3 cars so I would like my next car to be all electric to use around town (I would never take it on any trip over 30 miles, (that would be 60 round trip) as I want some safety if I should stuck in traffic in hot or very cold weather.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

They're not in a *fully* controlled situation. They're out on real roads, with real traffic.

One thing I've seen they can't handle yet is parking lots.

Don't get me wrong, I think I'm more wary of them than most people, but with as many stupid drivers as there are out there, I think the driverless car will be at least as good as the bad drivers, probably a lot better.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

I saw a teenaged driver texting while driving just today. She was on the freeway. With all the distracted drivers we are producing, driverless or at least semi-driverless cars probably would be safer.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bareyb said:


> I saw a teenaged driver texting while driving just today. She was on the freeway. With all the distracted drivers we are producing, driverless or at least semi-driverless cars probably would be safer.


So we have a growing number of driverless cars on the road already. 
Judging by our local news, the rate of distracted-driver accidents is growing exponentially.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Google, BWM and others think you're wrong. The Google autonomous car can drive on regular streets and react to the actions of other cars and pedestrians. It's basically ready to go technology at this point. The problem is that the car with all the sensors would cost like $150K so it's a bit out of reach for most people. Plus the laws governing autonomous cars are not yet set. They have a limited license to drive them in CA and NV but they have to carry special insurance and it still requires someone to be behind the wheel "just in case".


I can see it on side streets, but not a busy multi-lane highway during rush hour? I can't see how an automated car could possibly react quick enough with all the idiots driving on the Washington Beltway at breakneck speeds constantly switching lanes. The car could swerve to avoid one vehicle and end up in the path of another. Panic stops involving multiple rear end collisions are commonplace. The car could keep you from running into someone else but it can't keep the car behind you from plowing into you if you're stopped.

My point is, in order for automated vehicles to operate safely, they'd all have to function under the same parameters in a controlled environment (i.e., dedicated lanes). Mixing them in with regular drivers is a suicide mission. The car may be smart enough to avoid causing a collision, but there's no way it could possibly avoid every possible scenario involving other vehicles on a crowded thoroughfare.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> The car may be smart enough to avoid causing a collision, but there's no way it could possibly avoid every possible scenario involving other vehicles on a crowded thoroughfare.


And when you consider the propensity of teens (and some others) to cut it as close as possible, once you get safer other cars, then the cars being driven manually will be driven that much more aggressively.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

mr.unnatural said:


> I can't see how an automated car could possibly react quick enough with all the idiots driving on the Washington Beltway at breakneck speeds constantly switching lanes.


Computers have faster response times than humans. The Google implementation has a 360 degree (3D) view of the surroundings, something humans can't do. Some implementations have IR sensors for pedestrians and deer.

That's enough advantages that they will eventually reach a level that humans can not match.

Another way to look at it, a professional race car driver can train the computer's instincts. Once perfected, it can be duplicated to all cars. But you can't do that with humans.

And another, it's trivial to take 100 cars after a year, and merge their collective experience into the next version. 
It's impossible to train a teenager with 100 years of experience within a year.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I can see it on side streets, but not a busy multi-lane highway during rush hour? I can't see how an automated car could possibly react quick enough with all the idiots driving on the Washington Beltway at breakneck speeds constantly switching lanes. The car could swerve to avoid one vehicle and end up in the path of another. Panic stops involving multiple rear end collisions are commonplace. The car could keep you from running into someone else but it can't keep the car behind you from plowing into you if you're stopped.
> 
> My point is, in order for automated vehicles to operate safely, they'd all have to function under the same parameters in a controlled environment (i.e., dedicated lanes). Mixing them in with regular drivers is a suicide mission. The car may be smart enough to avoid causing a collision, but there's no way it could possibly avoid every possible scenario involving other vehicles on a crowded thoroughfare.


Even on a side street could a driverless car see someone in the road directing you not to make a left turn (normally legal) because of say construction work, just one of many reason these cars will not be at your dealers within the next 50 years, how about someone warning you the bridge ahead just fell down (happen in CT a few years ago), a sign saying a exit is closed, I could go on and on, driverless cars, great idea, going nowhere (for the general public) for now.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> And when you consider the propensity of teens (and some others) to cut it as close as possible, once you get safer other cars, then the cars being driven manually will be driven that much more aggressively.


+1

That is exactly how a sizable segment of our population, not just teens, will "game" such a system to their selfish advantage. Some of them will even get a big laugh out of the extreme reactions they provoke from the automated cars.

Maybe we need further automation that would detect, record and report reckless driving ... but wait that would infringe on our constitutional rights to break the law and not get caught!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

telemark said:


> Computers have faster response times than humans. The Google implementation has a 360 degree (3D) view of the surroundings, something humans can't do. Some implementations have IR sensors for pedestrians and deer.


Response time is moot when you have multiple vehicles trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

Case in point: Several years ago I was driving to work on the Baltimore beltway during rush hour in extremely heavy traffic. All of the traffic ahead of me came to a panic stop so I slammed on my brakes to avoid hitting the car in front of me. The car directly behind me was also able to stop in time, but the car behind him had to swerve to the left to avoid hitting him in the rear. In the process of avoiding him the driver hit a minivan coming up fast in the left lane. He bounced off the minivan and careened into me, taking out both the left front and rear fenders and both left side doors. I was sitting still at the time.

Now tell me, how is having a computer-controlled vehicle going to help in this situation? If it's being used in a controlled environment, such as dedicated lanes occupied by nothing but other similar vehicles, they could all interact with each other and completely avoid any such situations. The minute you add vehicles controlled by human drivers you allow chaos into the equation. Computers can only control the vehicle they're in. They have no control over the surrounding environment. They can monitor it and take evasive action when necessary, but that can only work up to a point. You still need room to maneuver a vehicle safely, whether controlled by a computer or by a human.

Now, a computer-controlled vehicle would strive to maintain a safe distance between the vehicle and any car in front of it. Problem is, if you try to do that on any busy highway with human drivers you're going to find that safe distance between you and the car in front of you will quickly become occupied by several other vehicles. Try it sometime and you'll see what I mean. Rule of thumb is to have one car length between you and the car ahead of you for every 10 miles per hour. Do that and you'll have anywhere from three to five cars filling that space in short order.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> Response time is moot when you have multiple vehicles trying to occupy the same space at the same time.


Same is true with a human driver. A computer can't completely avoid an accident if there is no way for it to do so. But it can do things a human can't. For example it can slow the car just enough to avoid hitting the car that's cutting it off without slamming on the breaks so hard the person behind it slams into the back. It's accurate to with-in inches and doesn't ever panic. So given the same situation with a human driver and autonomous car the autonomous car would likely do better even if the ultimate end was an unavoidable accident. It's also less likely to put itself into a situation like that to begin with as it wont tailgate like most people are prone to do.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> Even on a side street could a driverless car see someone in the road directing you not to make a left turn (normally legal) because of say construction work, just one of many reason these cars will not be at your dealers within the next 50 years, how about someone warning you the bridge ahead just fell down (happen in CT a few years ago), a sign saying a exit is closed, I could go on and on, driverless cars, great idea, going nowhere (for the general public) for now.


IIRC the Google car can already detect cones and lane shifts due to construction. I'm not sure about humans directing traffic, but as of right now it requires a capable human driver behind the wheel to take over if a situation arises that it can't handle, so in that case you'd just switch to manual mode, navigate the obstacle, and then turn the driving back over to the car. Now that's not ideal for some of the situations we discussed, like the handicap or impaired, driving but it's a good start. Plus they are making exponential progress. This thing started out like 8-10 years ago not even being able to properly negotiate a circular off ramp. Now it can drive on city streets and only has trouble with the most complex obstacles.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> IIRC the Google car can already detect cones and lane shifts due to construction. I'm not sure about humans directing traffic, but as of right now it requires a capable human driver behind the wheel to take over if a situation arises that it can't handle, so in that case you'd just switch to manual mode, navigate the obstacle, and then turn the driving back over to the car. Now that's not ideal for some of the situations we discussed, like the handicap or impaired, driving but it's a good start. Plus they are making exponential progress. This thing started out like 8-10 years ago not even being able to properly negotiate a circular off ramp. Now it can drive on city streets and only has trouble with the most complex obstacles.


A TiVo itself is in a controlled environment for all its software/hardware and still some people have problems with their TiVo freezing or re-booting, not many problems, and nothing bad happens, but if a TiVo re-boot caused a death or injury.... What happens when these cars computers re-boot going 60MPH on a highway ? (even 1 in a 1000 chance) The idea that the driver would take over in an instant is not practical, I have the radar type speed control in one of my cars, a great invention, but I am steering the car just not using the gas or break, heavy rain comes, the radar stops working, and I get a loud warning, not a problem because my right foot is still near the gas or brake if needed, and I am still driving, not engaged in something other than driving (like catching up on some sleep).

We now have good automatic public trains now like in the AL airport, they work great because all the trains are tied together in one system.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> Same is true with a human driver. A computer can't completely avoid an accident if there is no way for it to do so. But it can do things a human can't.


Well said.

The media / public gravitates to a fear that Robots will attack Humans. 
But actually it'll be Humans attacking Robot [cars].

Maybe if we make them look like Knight Rider or Herbey, people will have a different reaction.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Same is true with a human driver. A computer can't completely avoid an accident if there is no way for it to do so. But it can do things a human can't. For example it can slow the car just enough to avoid hitting the car that's cutting it off without slamming on the breaks so hard the person behind it slams into the back. It's accurate to with-in inches and doesn't ever panic. So given the same situation with a human driver and autonomous car the autonomous car would likely do better even if the ultimate end was an unavoidable accident. It's also less likely to put itself into a situation like that to begin with as it wont tailgate like most people are prone to do.


You just made my point for me. A computer could completely avoid an accident if it were being used in a controlled environment (i.e., dedicated roadways or isolated lanes occupied only with other computer-controlled vehicles). The computers would automatically maintain a safe distance and speed and eliminate the variables caused by human interaction. If you mix them into the mainstream traffic then all bets are off.



telemark said:


> Maybe if we make them look like Knight Rider or Herbey, people will have a different reaction.


Who's Herbey? I think you meant Herbie, The Love Bug.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> You just made my point for me. A computer could completely avoid an accident if it were being used in a controlled environment (i.e., dedicated roadways or isolated lanes occupied only with other computer-controlled vehicles). The computers would automatically maintain a safe distance and speed and eliminate the variables caused by human interaction. If you mix them into the mainstream traffic then all bets are off.


The next step in commercial airplanes is just that, all planes will be fitted with a computer that can communicate with all other planes within range to make sure each plane does not get near another plane, than we will not need air traffic controllers as we do today as each pilot will set his own route to where the plane is suppose to go, this will save fuel and time. But all planes must have the system.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> You just made my point for me. A computer could completely avoid an accident if it were being used in a controlled environment (i.e., dedicated roadways or isolated lanes occupied only with other computer-controlled vehicles). The computers would automatically maintain a safe distance and speed and eliminate the variables caused by human interaction. If you mix them into the mainstream traffic then all bets are off.


That's ideal, but impractical. It would either require all cars to be replaced or special roadways to be built specifically for autonomous cars. Neither of those is a viable option. Maybe someday we'll be able to phase in smart cars so that most/all cars on the road can communicate and do what you suggest, but currently our only option is to make cars smart enough that they can intermix with main stream traffic. Even if they can't avoid all accidents they would still reduce the number by simply taking the human out of the equation. The computer can be 100% accurate all the time. It knows exactly how hard to hit the breaks to avoid hitting the car in front of it which would prevent "panic breaking". It wont ever get tired, distracted or over correct because it get's startled. Having a computer driver wont make you completely safe, but it will make you safer then having a human behind the wheel.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> I can see it on side streets, but not a busy multi-lane highway during rush hour? I can't see how an automated car could possibly react quick enough with all the idiots driving on the Washington Beltway at breakneck speeds constantly switching lanes. The car could swerve to avoid one vehicle and end up in the path of another. Panic stops involving multiple rear end collisions are commonplace. The car could keep you from running into someone else but it can't keep the car behind you from plowing into you if you're stopped.
> 
> My point is, in order for automated vehicles to operate safely, they'd all have to function under the same parameters in a controlled environment (i.e., dedicated lanes). Mixing them in with regular drivers is a suicide mission. The car may be smart enough to avoid causing a collision, but there's no way it could possibly avoid every possible scenario involving other vehicles on a crowded thoroughfare.


Actually even the current autonomous cars do this BETTER than most drivers. They are fully aware of all vehicles around them, actually multiple lanes out, the rates and direction of travel and predication of future location several seconds out. One one of those does not conform to prediction, it already knows what the others are doing. This is exactly what human drivers do but on a much more limited basis.

Once autonomous cars can be proven safe and the risks of liability LESS than human drivers, insurance companies will trip over themselves to offer over priced full liability coverage for the cars. The issue of liability will be gone. And the issues of 'what happened' at a scene of an accident will be much easier to solve as the autonomous cars have very good record of what all cars in the vicinity were doing in the seconds prior to the crash. It will be the human driver cars at fault the large majority of the time.

They are not for me, I still refused to have a slush box for a transmission....and my favorite driver does not have cruise control, traction control, or any of the other nannies on board. But just as all of these technologies are now common place, so will be autonomous cars.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> That's ideal, but impractical.


Agreed, which is why I don't see it happening in my lifetime and possibly not within the next 50 years.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> You think the big problem with cars that have no steering wheel is parking on someone's lawn


Considering that driverless cars have been driving around for several years, including for a blind guy that uses the drive-through, you're clearly not thinking straight here. Yes, they will still have a manual mode and a steering wheel, but otherwise, they will be fully driverless, and will not require any human interaction to park in a legal parking spot.



mr.unnatural said:


> Considering that Game of Thrones is the most pirated show on TV, many would think otherwise.


Sure, all the good shows are pirated, although advocating piracy in order to have a crippled DVR that can't handle the full CableCard system is absurd...



Dan203 said:


> Have you seen the video of the blind guy "driving" the Google car? It takes him to the pharmacy and back without him ever touching the wheel.


The the drive-through. That was the coolest part!



lessd said:


> Think again about a parking garage in NYC (if you have ever used one). The various conditions to account for are almost unlimited in todays USA. A place like the *The villages (in FL) *if built new with this type of car in mind could work, maybe.


They will have manual modes, but valet parking makes no sense if the car can go and park itself somewhere without a human drive at all. I think it will take quite a while for the laws to allow cars to drive themselves without at least a sleep/drunk/high human "driver" plopped in the seat...



lpwcomp said:


> Sorry. Doesn't track. People still want access to _*their*_ car when _*they*_ need it. In fact, it could result in _*more*_ cars on the road. No need for a designated driver and every kid could have his or her own car since they don't need to be able to drive themselves to use one.


The big challenge is deadhead parking moves. If cars start driving several miles to get a parking spot, it could have serious impacts on energy consumption and congestion. OTOH, if cars do short deadhead moves on private property, like to access a parking lot that's far away from a building, it would be pretty much universally beneficial.



mr.unnatural said:


> What you guys are discussing is basically just another version of a mass transit system.


No. We're talking about individuals owning their own self-driving cars.



Dan203 said:


> Google, BWM and others think you're wrong. The Google autonomous car can drive on regular streets and react to the actions of other cars and pedestrians. It's basically ready to go technology at this point. The problem is that the car with all the sensors would cost like $150K so it's a bit out of reach for most people. Plus the laws governing autonomous cars are not yet set. They have a limited license to drive them in CA and NV but they have to carry special insurance and it still requires someone to be behind the wheel "just in case".


The laws and legal aspects of it are really the only barriers, but you can be sure the insurance companies are on the side of self-driving cars, as they could cut the price of car insurance in half and still make far more money than they do now with a 90% reduction in accidents...

I think eventually insurance will phase out human-driven cars, as they will be too expensive to insure stupid humans. I'm seeing that reality occurring in 20-30 years, about 15-25 years after mainstream availability of self-driving cars.



Dan203 said:


> ]It's accurate to with-in inches and doesn't ever panic.


Yeah, it's also a heck of a lot faster reacting to an event than a human driver. Humans take in some cases hundreds of ms to perceive, think, and react, a computer does it in a few ms. In fact, self-driving cars need far less distance between it and the car in front of it, because if the sensors see the distance narrowing between it and the car in front, within a few ms, the brakes will be applied. A human driver at that distance and speed would already have rear-ended the car in front of it...



Dan203 said:


> That's ideal, but impractical. It would either require all cars to be replaced or special roadways to be built specifically for autonomous cars.


Exactly. Autonomous cars as of a year or two ago had logged half a million miles with no driver interaction, and only one accident caused by a human driver. As they are today, driverless cars reduce accidents by 90%.


----------



## SWFan (Oct 6, 2002)

b_scott said:


> I think by 2018 everything will be IPTV anyway. So it'll be kind of moot.


In four years no way. Its easily doable today, but the overall industry feels it would be giving up control and thus they have been fighting it. By 2018 I expect them to still be fighting it with the same fervor exhibited today. Almost all the IPTV available today requires you to have an active cable or satellite subscription thus keeping you tied to the incumbent system.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Response time is moot when you have multiple vehicles trying to occupy the same space at the same time.
> 
> Case in point: Several years ago I was driving to work on the Baltimore beltway during rush hour in extremely heavy traffic. All of the traffic ahead of me came to a panic stop so I slammed on my brakes to avoid hitting the car in front of me. The car directly behind me was also able to stop in time, but the car behind him had to swerve to the left to avoid hitting him in the rear. In the process of avoiding him the driver hit a minivan coming up fast in the left lane. He bounced off the minivan and careened into me, taking out both the left front and rear fenders and both left side doors. I was sitting still at the time.
> 
> ...


Actually this is the perfect scenario for a computer controlled car. The car that stopped late likely didn't react quickly enough to the brake lights of the car in front of him. The computer would have reacted faster and likely seen the breaking ahead faster.

As humans, we cause traffic and accidents based on the poor decisions we make on the roads. Computers can make optimal decisions that would improve traffic flow and minimize accidents. Highways are perfect for a computer controlled car. I'm more worried about local driving. That's where it would be difficult for the computer controlled car.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

NYHeel said:


> Actually this is the perfect scenario for a computer controlled car. The car that stopped late likely didn't react quickly enough to the brake lights of the car in front of him. The computer would have reacted faster and likely seen the breaking ahead faster.
> 
> As humans, we cause traffic and accidents based on the poor decisions we make on the roads. Computers can make optimal decisions that would improve traffic flow and minimize accidents. Highways are perfect for a computer controlled car. I'm more worried about local driving. That's where it would be difficult for the computer controlled car.


That quick response is great on my radar controlled speed control as it will use the brakes when needed as the car in front of me slows down, my system craps out at about 25 to 30 MPH but I don't think it would be a big leap to bring that type of control down to 0 MPH, and have it operate when not using the speed control. This would prevent many rear end accidences, but still be far from a driverless car. We can and should make cars/trucks less accident prone, like the accident in NJ that put Tracy Morgan in critical condition.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> That quick response is great on my radar controlled speed control as it will use the brakes when needed as the car in front of me slows down, my system craps out at about 25 to 30 MPH but I don't think it would be a big leap to bring that type of control down to 0 MPH, and have it operate when not using the speed control. This would prevent many rear end accidences, but still be far from a driverless car. We can and should make cars/trucks less accident prone, like the accident in NJ that put Tracy Morgan in critical condition.


That technology already exists in cars you can buy. There is also at least one car you can but that can drive completely autonomously in traffic on the freeway up to like 35mph. (I think it's a Lexus)

The technology of these autonomous cars is already making it's way into real vehicles, that's why I think it'll be a lot less then 50 years before we see completely autonomous cars on the roads.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yeah, we may see a mixture of holding the lane with DRCC first, where the driver would still need to manually drive on surface streets and on and off the highway, but whatever path we take, the fully self-driving car is coming, and coming fast.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

SWFan said:


> Almost all the IPTV available today requires you to have an active cable or satellite subscription thus keeping you tied to the incumbent system.


I recall a Comcast Exec being interviewed, saying they see the future with people paying for content through their Comcast bill. Idk the intricacies of their content agreements, but he sounded confident they were complicated enough that nobody else could obtain rights and calculate rev shares.

Didn't we see this during the last Olympics?

Now CSPAN too:
You'll soon need a cable account to sit and watch Cspan all day online


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

telemark said:


> I recall a Comcast Exec being interviewed, saying they see the future with people paying for content through their Comcast bill. Idk the intricacies of their content agreements, but he sounded confident they were complicated enough that nobody else could obtain rights and calculate rev shares.
> 
> Didn't we see this during the last Olympics?
> 
> ...


Pretty much. Streaming video became a reality, but it is mostly tied to the MSO...


----------



## hansnuts (Jan 17, 2012)

Hi. Does anyone here have this digital converter box Mediasonic HomeWorx HW-150 PVR? If you do, were you able to use the IR Blaster to control it? I appreciate all the help and thanks in advance.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That technology already exists in cars you can buy. There is also at least one car you can but that can drive completely autonomously in traffic on the freeway up to like 35mph. (I think it's a Lexus)
> 
> The technology of these autonomous cars is already making it's way into real vehicles, that's why I think it'll be a lot less then 50 years before we see completely autonomous cars on the roads.


Don't they need to change the laws first to allow it? And it better be rock solid. Because the first time it fails will probably be the last since people would be up in arms after that for the lawmakers allowing it on the streets.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Don't they need to change the laws first to allow it? And it better be rock solid. Because the first time it fails will probably be the last since people would be up in arms after that for the lawmakers allowing it on the streets.


A lot of stuff has to change, without a control road, the problems are immense, road construction with lane changes needed, snow on the road (my radar speed control in my car will not work in heavy rain and most likely snow.) Insurance has to cover this, great idea but not anytime soon, they can't even get airplanes to use automatic flight path GPS yet. Accident avoidance systems will get better over time, but auto driving not so fast, still 50 years out. (We can't even find a replacement for the lead acid battery use in cars, and that technology is over 100 years old!!.) In high school in the late 50s they showed the future of travel using personal flying machines in place of cars that would be common by the turn of the 21st century, even in high school I though that was bull, and it was.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lessd said:


> A lot of stuff has to change, without a control road, the problems are immense, road construction with lane changes needed, snow on the road (my radar speed control in my car will not work in heavy rain and most likely snow.) Insurance has to cover this, great idea but not anytime soon, they can't even get airplanes to use automatic flight path GPS yet. Accident avoidance systems will get better over time, but auto driving not so fast, still 50 years out. (We can't even find a replacement for the lead acid battery use in cars, and that technology is over 100 years old!!.) In high school in the late 50s they showed the future of travel using personal flying machines in place of cars that would be common by the turn of the 21st century, even in high school I though that was bull, and it was.


Self-driving cars are definitely not "50 years out". They already exist, and will be available for purchase within 10 years, commonplace in 20 years, and almost mandatory within 30 years. They don't just use radar/laser sensors, they also use visual cameras, so they can see better than your eyes can, even in the rain and snow. Not to mention their reaction time and decision making will be far better than any human driver. Insuring them will be much cheaper than insuring a manually driven car, because insurance is all about risk pooling, and self-driving cars will be involved in far fewer accidents overall than manual cars.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Self-driving cars are definitely not "50 years out". They already exist, and will be available for purchase within 10 years, commonplace in 20 years, and almost mandatory within 30 years. They don't just use radar/laser sensors, they also use visual cameras, so they can see better than your eyes can, even in the rain and snow. Not to mention their reaction time and decision making will be far better than any human driver. Insuring them will be much cheaper than insuring a manually driven car, because insurance is all about risk pooling, and self-driving cars will be involved in far fewer accidents overall than manual cars.


Future speculation is fun as it would take almost 20 years to prove you or I were incorrect in our assumptions.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

lessd said:


> Future speculation is fun as it would take almost 20 years to prove you or I were incorrect in our assumptions.


That's why I find it annoying.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lessd said:


> Future speculation is fun as it would take almost 20 years to prove you or I were incorrect in our assumptions.


There's no doubt that whatever happens in the next 20 or 40 years will be amazing but the track record of predicting that far out is terrible. Back around 1950 people were predicting we would all be flying to work in our personal flying cars or helicopters. And then there were the ominous predictions of global **cooling** around 1970.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dlfl said:


> There's no doubt that whatever happens in the next 20 or 40 years will be amazing but the track record of predicting that far out is terrible. Back around 1950 people were predicting we would all be flying to work in our personal flying cars or helicopters. And then there were the ominous predictions of global **cooling** around 1970.


+1 :up: And the *internet* was not on anybody's radar


----------

