# R.I.P. Boxee: 3 lessons to learn from Boxees demise



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/05/3-lessons-to-learn-from-boxee-shutdown/

Pretty fair analysis looking at some of the mistakes made by Boxee. TiVo appears to be avoiding many of them which may be the reason they are still around after so many years...


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

One of Boxee's biggest mistakes was introducing a product in a market that was already flooded with media players at a price that wasn't competitive with the other devices. I didn't see anything about the Boxee Box at $199 that would convince me it was a better product than a Roku or a WDTV player that were available for less than half the cost. They came out of the gate with two strikes against them. It was clearly developed by enthusiasts that knew nothing about marketing and retail sales.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I thought the Boxee Box complimented the ROku. My Boxee Boxes could not replace my Rokus and my Rokus could not replace my Boxee Boxes.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Boxee Box at $199 was and is still one of my best electronics buys

Use it almost every day, and it works GREAT for years and hopefully a few more years to come.

I wish they just updated it and kept it not like the DVR thing they did


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

sbiller said:


> http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/05/3-lessons-to-learn-from-boxee-shutdown/
> 
> Pretty fair analysis looking at some of the mistakes made by Boxee. TiVo appears to be avoiding many of them which may be the reason they are still around after so many years...


The only reason TiVo is still around is because of Patent Trolling. No other reason.

TiVo has never made a dime it didn't sue someone out of.

They'd have gone under 6 years ago if it wasn't for the Courts.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Richard Cranium said:


> The only reason TiVo is still around is because of Patent Trolling. No other reason.
> 
> TiVo has never made a dime it didn't sue someone out of.
> 
> They'd have gone under 6 years ago if it wasn't for the Courts.


Patent trolling? Isn't a patent troll a company that doesn't have a product that just sues for the patents they have? TiVo sells a product that uses their patents. Why should someone be able to use patents they have for free? It doesn't work that way with other companies, why should it be different for TiVo?


----------



## Davisadm (Jan 19, 2008)

Richard Cranium said:


> The only reason TiVo is still around is because of Patent Trolling. No other reason.
> 
> TiVo has never made a dime it didn't sue someone out of.
> 
> They'd have gone under 6 years ago if it wasn't for the Courts.


TiVo also would not be out of business if other companies didn't try to infringe on and steal their patented technologies, but paid licensing fees which they should legally be doing.


----------



## stahta01 (Dec 23, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> Patent trolling? Isn't a patent troll a company that doesn't have a product that just sues for the patents they have? TiVo sells a product that uses their patents. Why should someone be able to use patents they have for free? It doesn't work that way with other companies, why should it be different for TiVo?


Please do NOT feed the real Troll.

Tim S.


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

aaronwt said:


> Patent trolling? Isn't a patent troll a company that doesn't have a product that just sues for the patents they have? TiVo sells a product that uses their patents. Why should someone be able to use patents they have for free? It doesn't work that way with other companies, why should it be different for TiVo?


Replay had a patent that belongs to DirecTV now. Cisco has a patent, MOTO has a patent, Microsoft has a patent, Dish worked around the patent and has one of their own, and the EPO just revoked TiVo's patent so Liberty is free to do whatever they want as far as patents are concerned.

I don't see any of these other companies suing anyone over their DVR patents.

TiVo? Looks like patent trolling to me.


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

Davisadm said:


> TiVo also would not be out of business if other companies didn't try to infringe on and steal their patented technologies, but paid licensing fees which they should legally be doing.


No one has EVER been found to be "infringing their patented technologies" FACT!


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

I see someone is trolling about patent trolling.


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

SnakeEyes said:


> I see someone is trolling about patent trolling.


Yes, anyone who points out the warts of this Company or product is a troll...

I get it, already!!!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Richard Cranium said:


> Dish worked around the patent and has one of their own.


I don't know about the rest of these companies but Dish blatantly ripped them off. Back in the early days Dish came to TiVo and had them develop a prototype for a box that would work on Dish's network. TiVo gave them a prototype and after some time Dish came back and said never mind we've developed our own, which just happened to have the same basic design as the one TiVo gave them. It was straight out theft. The other companies may have developed their own products which just happened to run up against TiVo patents, but Dish flat out stole their technology and banked on TiVo going out of business before they ever had to account for it. And they almost did a few times.

Also I'm pretty sure there was at least one quarter, maybe two, where TiVo turned a profit. It may have been an accounting trick, but I'm pretty sure there were a couple times when they were in the black.


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> I don't know about the rest of these companies but Dish blatantly ripped them off. Back in the early days Dish came to TiVo and had them develop a prototype for a box that would work on Dish's network. TiVo gave them a prototype and after some time Dish came back and said never mind we've developed our own, which just happened to have the same basic design as the one TiVo gave them. It was straight out theft. The other companies may have developed their own products which just happened to run up against TiVo patents, but Dish flat out stole their technology and banked on TiVo going out of business before they ever had to account for it. And they almost did a few times.
> 
> Also I'm pretty sure there was at least one quarter, maybe two, where TiVo turned a profit. It may have been an accounting trick, but I'm pretty sure there were a couple times when they were in the black.


Straight out theft?

Sorry, no...

It took 2 courts over 4 years to ponder that very question and they never got the chance to answer it due to the parties "settling".

As a matter of fact I believe that TiVo was going to LOSE to Dish on appeal and that was the very reason they took the lowball settlement they were offered.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Richard Cranium said:


> Straight out theft?
> 
> Sorry, no...
> 
> ...


Regardless of what the courts did or didn't say the anecdotal evidence that Dish stole TiVo's technology was overwhelming. Dish is as guilty as OJ Simpson on this one.


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

Dan203 said:


> Regardless of what the courts did or didn't say the anecdotal evidence that Dish stole TiVo's technology was overwhelming. Dish is as guilty as OJ Simpson on this one.


Unfortunately smarter people than us differ with your opinion.  

But all kidding aside the only reason TiVo got any traction at all in that lawsuit is because they convinced a Judge that "parse" meant "analyse".

Remember, patents are granted to FURTHER technologies, not for the inventor to become a multi billionaire.

Also remember, TiVo didn't patent the DVR (they can't) they patented a process.

All Dish needed to do (and did) was show that they omitted a step in TiVo's process and was granted a patent of their own.

What everyone gets wrong is that DISH wasn't found guilty of infringement or "stealing" they were found guilty of not obeying an injunction. An injunction that wasn't written clearly according to the CAFC. An injunction that was stayed MULTIPLE times.

Big difference....


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Richard Cranium said:


> ...
> What everyone gets wrong is that DISH wasn't found guilty of infringement or "stealing" they were found guilty of not obeying an injunction. An injunction that wasn't written clearly according to the CAFC. An injunction that was stayed MULTIPLE times.
> 
> Big difference....


Very amusing, so you think Dish had won the day, looked things over and decided to send TiVo a big fat check just because they are nice guys?

If you really believe that I have a great investment for you - a really great bridge.

Dish settled because they decided it was their least cost option - which means they believed they were going to lose.


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

atmuscarella said:


> Very amusing, so you think Dish had won the day, looked things over and decided to send TiVo a big fat check just because they are nice guys?
> 
> If you really believe that I have a great investment for you - a really great bridge.
> 
> Dish settled because they decided it was their least cost option - which means they believed they were going to lose.


What I believe is irrelevant. The FACT is, Dish was never found guilty of infringement or "stealing". They settled because they were going to found guilty of ignoring an injunction and knew it was cheaper to pay the settlement than to have to shut their boxes down.

TiVo won the proverbial battle but Charlie won the war. He won EVERY SINGLE RULING after the jury award, and there was no reason to think that was going to change the the second time around.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Richard Cranium said:


> What I believe is irrelevant.


Exactly


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

sbiller said:


> http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/05/3-lessons-to-learn-from-boxee-shutdown/
> 
> Pretty fair analysis looking at some of the mistakes made by Boxee. TiVo appears to be avoiding many of them which may be the reason they are still around after so many years...


Sam, if your still there, trying to get this discussion back on topic, Why would Samsung buy this Boxee thing, what are they going to even do with it? If Boxee can't sell a Boxee what make Samsung think they can sell a Boxee? Maybe I need more info on what a Boxee is use for.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

My understanding is that the Boxee hardware was only ever intended to be one platform for the Boxee software, much as the TiVo box is theoretically just a platform for the TiVo software. Presumably, Samsung will integrate Boxee features into their own devices.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> My understanding is that the Boxee hardware was only ever intended to be one platform for the Boxee software, much as the TiVo box is theoretically just a platform for the TiVo software. Presumably, Samsung will integrate Boxee features into their own devices.


I see this primarily as a play to upgrade Samsung's software/services. Boxee has some talented software engineers that could improve the Samsung user experience.

That is my translation of this Samsung statement,



> This will help us continue to improve the overall user experience across our connected devices.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

And what will happen with their existing boxes? Are they completely dead as far as development (bug fixes)? What happens to all the boxes that were for sale at Walmart?


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Richard Cranium said:


> What I believe is irrelevant. The FACT is, Dish was never found guilty of infringement or "stealing". They settled because they were going to found guilty of ignoring an injunction and knew it was cheaper to pay the settlement than to have to shut their boxes down.
> 
> TiVo won the proverbial battle but Charlie won the war. He won EVERY SINGLE RULING after the jury award, and there was no reason to think that was going to change the the second time around.


Pure FICTION. i don't know what alternate universe you live in, but it is certainly different from the rest of us.

Dish was found guilty of infringing on TiVo's patents in a jury trial in 2006 and TiVo was awarded 74 million.
EVERY SINGLE RULING after the jury award went TiVo's way. The major one concerning the infringing was the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the software infringing, but said the hardware infringing needed to be discussed more if TiVo wanted to pursue it. Since the software infringing was enough to require licenses, TiVo never did.

Everything afterwards was Dish playing games; saying that very minor changes in their DVR software (going from 8 buffers to 10?) was sufficient to not require licenses, and if TiVo thought otherwise, they would have to sue again from the beginning. The trial judge said that was nonsense, and ruled (yet again) that Dish was infringing and awarded TiVo more money. Dish appealed and lost yet again.

The final en banc ruling in 2011 included the following:


> Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the jury verdict delivered on April 13, 2006 and with the Court's contemporaneously filed orders, the Court thereby enters judgment lor Plaintiff against Defendants for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 (`"389 patent"), claims 1, 5, 21, 23, 32, 36, 52, 31 and 61 ("the Infringed Claims") by Defendants' following DVR receivers (collectively the "Infringing Products''): DP-501; DP-508; DP-510: DP-522; DP-625; DP-721; DP-921; and the DP-942.


The final ruling did say that some of the monetary judgement had to be vacated. Instead of $1.25/month for Dish's use of its modified software, the monetary penalty had to be $1.25/month for Dish's use of its original software, since the modified and original software had been ruled effectively the same. So a penalty got vacated, but an equal penalty got substituted.

Dish was found of infringing on TiVo's patents at every step of the path (though some infringements were reduced). Your claim otherwise is just totally ridiculous.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

magnus said:


> And what will happen with their existing boxes? Are they completely dead as far as development (bug fixes)? What happens to all the boxes that were for sale at Walmart?


They are still for sale.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Boxee-TV/21984297


----------



## disturbedfred (Oct 2, 2004)

Richard Cranium said:


> The only reason TiVo is still around is because of Patent Trolling. No other reason.
> 
> TiVo has never made a dime it didn't sue someone out of.
> 
> They'd have gone under 6 years ago if it wasn't for the Courts.


And I'm sure 6 years ago you were screaming how TiVo was going out of business any day.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

CrispyCritter said:


> .


Fantastic summary. Let's see if its ignored


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

magnus said:


> And what will happen with their existing boxes? Are they completely dead as far as development (bug fixes)? What happens to all the boxes that were for sale at Walmart?


There still for sale, but I would not buy one. Most likely the Boxee's will not receive any new support. I will bet that the cloud DVR will die before the end of the year.


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

CrispyCritter said:


> Pure FICTION. i don't know what alternate universe you live in, but it is certainly different from the rest of us.
> 
> Dish was found guilty of infringing on TiVo's patents in a jury trial in 2006 and TiVo was awarded 74 million.
> EVERY SINGLE RULING after the jury award went TiVo's way. The major one concerning the infringing was the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the software infringing, but said the hardware infringing needed to be discussed more if TiVo wanted to pursue it. Since the software infringing was enough to require licenses, TiVo never did.
> ...


The CAFC also sent the case back to EDTX for another trial. A trial that never happened because of the settlement. Atrial that DISH may very well would have won.


----------



## Richard Cranium (Mar 28, 2010)

SnakeEyes said:


> Fantastic summary. Let's see if its ignored


Whats ignored is my original point that this company would have gone under 6 years ago if it wasn't for patent trolling.

They've never made a dime they didn't sue someone out of.

Let's see what happens now that the lawsuits are over.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Moving goalposts should involve a back-hoe, crane, and flatbed. Making it out of Styrofoam and mounting it on wheels just isn't right.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Richard Cranium said:


> Whats ignored is my original point that this company would have gone under 6 years ago if it wasn't for patent trolling.
> 
> They've never made a dime they didn't sue someone out of.
> 
> Let's see what happens now that the lawsuits are over.





> Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered *unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the product.* A related, less pejorative expression is non-practicing entity (NPE) which describes a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention.


There is just about universal agreement that TiVo isn't a Patent Troll. It doesn't really matter at this point. Now that TiVo has license agreements or business arrangements covering a very high percentage of US DVRs, the attention on TiVo will now focus on their core business which is now profitable.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Richard Cranium said:


> The CAFC also sent the case back to EDTX for another trial. A trial that never happened because of the settlement. Atrial that DISH may very well would have won.


And that, as you undoubtedly know but won't admit, had nothing to do with the FACT of infringement. It got sent back to the trial judge so he could make the substitution of penalty that I've already talked about; appeals courts don't generally do that themselves. The trial judge couldn't change the finding of infringement even if he wanted to - at that point only the Supreme Court could.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Richard Cranium said:


> Whats ignored is my original point that this company would have gone under 6 years ago if it wasn't for patent trolling.
> 
> They've never made a dime they didn't sue someone out of.
> 
> Let's see what happens now that the lawsuits are over.


Perhaps they would have gone bankrupt in your personal alternate universe where the FACTS are very different from our world, but not in the real world.

At that time, TiVo had demonstrated that they could break even any time they wanted to (reduce hardware subsidy and research funding) and they had no long term debt. You can't be forced into bankruptcy unless you owe money!

I agree that the patent infringement money has helped TiVo a lot - they dramatically upped their research budget for instance, but lack of it would not have caused bankruptcy in that time period.

They were in danger of bankruptcy 4-5 years previously, when they had to sell off 1/6 of the company just to get 3-4 months of operating expenses. That was so they could bring out the Series 2 (including DirecTiVo) which was their first "self-produced" hardware. But they had recovered from that by 6 years ago.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

And now we'll see how they survive without the patent windfalls. My guess is not well, and they'll eventually get bought out by someone big because of those patents. Which is pretty much what they need anyway, a management and development overhaul due to all the wasted potential.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I really wish we could have a conversation on this forum without Richard Cranium dragging it down.

*The moderators on this forum are sleeping on the job if you ask my opinion.*

A simple topic on the current state / future of Boxee turns into patent rant against TiVo, my thread on a the future Tivo models, turns into a rant against TiVo.

What is really frustrating is that the "rants" aren't even on topic...

I don't even want to read a thread around here anymore.


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

slowbiscuit said:


> And now we'll see how they survive without the patent windfalls. My guess is not well, and they'll eventually get bought out by someone big because of those patents. Which is pretty much what they need anyway, a management and development overhaul due to all the wasted potential.


The trouble with that is, I doubt that there are any large companies out there that want consumers to be able to own their equipment. Those companies either want streaming to take the place of personal dvrs or want to sell directly to the pay-tv providers. If Tivo can't survive on their own, then we'll be left with pc cable card dvrs with an uncertain future due to Microsoft not putting any more effort into Media Center.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

moedaman said:


> If Tivo can't survive on their own, then we'll be left with pc cable card dvrs with an uncertain future due to Microsoft not putting any more effort into Media Center.


The only thing that's uncertain is how long Microsoft will be providing guide data to Media Center PCs. You can use a Media Center PC for as long as you like. Microsoft is on the verge of dropping support for Windows XP after more than a decade so chances are any Media Center PC will last at least that long for Windows 8. In fact, even if Microsoft stops supporting Media Center with guide data, there are third party providers that can provide it for a modest fee. Media Center will survive for as long as guide data is available from any source.



bradleys said:


> I really wish we could have a conversation on this forum without Richard Cranium dragging it down.


His forum name should have clued you into his demeaner (Richard Cranium = Dick Head).


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

mr.unnatural said:


> His forum name should have clued you into his demeaner (Richard Cranium = Dick Head).


Yeah - I noticed. Talk about living up to your screen name!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Be sweet if a Boxee Box by Samsung came out, or something like that.

I have a NAS and don't want to run media through a PC that has to be left on. Just want directly from NAS to Media Box. And Boxee Box is awesome for that.


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

mr.unnatural said:


> The only thing that's uncertain is how long Microsoft will be providing guide data to Media Center PCs. You can use a Media Center PC for as long as you like. Microsoft is on the verge of dropping support for Windows XP after more than a decade so chances are any Media Center PC will last at least that long for Windows 8. In fact, even if Microsoft stops supporting Media Center with guide data, there are third party providers that can provide it for a modest fee. Media Center will survive for as long as guide data is available from any source.


Doesn't Cable Labs have to approve software as well as hardware? Is there enough money to be made by third party guide makers to go out and get approved by Cable Labs? My Hauppauge tuner can schedule ota recordings via Titan TV, but what about CC tuners? And without a big name like MS being involved, would Cable Labs even bother?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Cable Labs certification has nothing to do with guide data. I believe it's only required to certify software and hardware that works with any device using a cablecard. Otherwise, many third party DVR apps could be used with cablecard tuners other than Windows Media Center. The cost to get the software certified is way beyond the means of most third party developers, which is why WMC is currently the only game in town when it comes to cablecard tuners for a PC.


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

mr.unnatural said:


> The cost to get the software certified is way beyond the means of most third party developers, which is why WMC is currently the only game in town when it comes to cablecard tuners for a PC.


Which is why I said that with MS no longer investing in Media Center, pc dvr's have an uncertain future. Unless you're strictly ota I guess.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Johncv said:


> There still for sale, but I would not buy one. Most likely the Boxee's will not receive any new support. I will bet that the cloud DVR will die before the end of the year.


It already has. They will discontinue service on the 10th of July.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> I thought the Boxee Box complimented the ROku.


Boxee: You're nice, Roku.

Roku: Thanks, Boxee.


----------



## buscuitboy (Aug 8, 2005)

Johncv said:


> There still for sale, but I would not buy one. Most likely the Boxee's will not receive any new support. I will bet that the cloud DVR will die before the end of the year.


From what I have read, their cloud DVR system/option will be shut down sometime this month (July, 2013). Therefore, I also suspect that ALL future upgrade support (new firmware, fixes, features, etc.) for this box is also pretty much dead.

I had briefly thought about getting a boxee box several times, but the price point they were at ($140+) did not fare well for me compared to some other media streaming boxes. I wound up getting a WDTV Live device for $69 and it has been great for my needs.

Streams just about any format, has pretty much all the streaming services I could ask for (except Amazon Prime), built in wireless (as well as hard wired) and has great networking features (that I stream files from numerous home PCs). A much worthy product in my opinion. I almost even got a Roku over a Boxee so they were really 3rd in line for my taste.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

moedaman said:


> Which is why I said that with MS no longer investing in Media Center, pc dvr's have an uncertain future. Unless you're strictly ota I guess.


Media Center DVRs will survive long after MS drops support for Windows 7 or 8. As long as you can run compatible hardware and have a source for guide data, they can be used indefinitely. There are several third party media center front ends that will work with cablecard tuners. They just can't record DRMed content and probably won't due to the Cable Labs certification requirement. However, if you're fortunate enough to have a provider that flags all content as copy freely (all but premium channels, that is), such as FIOS, you can use one of the alternate front ends instead of Windows Media Center. Media Portal just announced support for cablecard tuners and MythTV and one or two others already support them.


----------



## bmgoodman (Dec 20, 2000)

mattack said:


> Boxee: You're nice, Roku.
> 
> Roku: Thanks, Boxee.


Nicely played, sir, nicely played!


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

mr.unnatural said:


> However, if you're fortunate enough to have a provider that flags all content as copy freely (all but premium channels, that is), such as FIOS, you can use one of the alternate front ends instead of Windows Media Center. Media Portal just announced support for cablecard tuners and MythTV and one or two others already support them.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The DVr recordings are gone now. When I go to the webpage that had my recordings I see the


> We're pleased to announce
> Boxee will be joining Samsung


 page now.

The Boxee TV still has access to the apps. Netflix was working, Pandora, Vudu and of course LiveTV. if you want to get that retro feel of watching TV like it's the 70's or earlier.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

mattack said:


> Boxee: You're nice, Roku.
> 
> Roku: Thanks, Boxee.


I literally LOLd at this one. :up:


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

Liked Boxee Box at first. Then it started freezing after being left running awhile. Then they stopped doing updates. Then I stopped using it. Recently sold it after 6 months of not using it during which time I built an HTPC.


----------

