# TiVO Elite - Another gutless wonder



## dcooper2025 (Sep 28, 2008)

So, I'm a long time fan of TiVO, I was customer number 156 or so in the original, but the customer base is now less than half of what it was in 2007, and the decline continues.

I've filled out survey after survey from TiVO telling them what they are doing wrong and they just really have hopelessly lost their way as a company, I have concluded.

The bottom line: per-unit cost over user experience. Back with the original TiVO, it was awesome. Innovation abounded, software innovation was rapid and updates came often.

And then innovation died, the machines and software languished, software patent lawsuits consumed the company's resources, per-unit cost cutting trumped innovation, and mass marketing decaying products became the new MO of the company. 

I had just about written off the company when they released the Premiere & XL. I eagerly ordered one despite the horrific reviews about sluggish performance and screen switching, lack of a second CPU core enabled, and poor terrible UI for non-core DVR functions like Netflix, Pandora, etc. 

Doing a bit of research, it became clear what the problem was: the company had skimped on the processor in the Premier, opting to sacrifice user interface performance for a few dollars of per-unit costs. In fact, tragically, the Apple iPhone 3GS outperforms the TiVO Premier. 

See bit.ly/phXFwp for the graph

This one fact banished TiVO's hopes of becoming the "entertainment hub" of the home, and made the non-DVR functions painful and unpleasant to use. The introduction of the iPad and iPhone apps helped, since the UI was finally responsive, but using the actual box UI remains painful to the point where, if any reasonable alternative were available (hello, Apple, come and collect 2M users), TiVO would find itself without a user base, left as nothing but a shell company / patent troll in the course of a year or two. 

Why? Why did it come to this?

Shortsighted focus on per--unit costs and a fundamental lack of understanding of the importance of the user experience.

For a prime example of a fluid-to-the-point-of-liquid interface, take a lok at the XBox 360. The controller is all wrong, sure, and there's no cable connection or DVR functionality, but the UI is liquid fast and smooth as butter. Even dipping out into the far reaches of the interface is painless, because the UI is simple and wicked fast and fluid. Sure it's basically a little supercomputer Microsoft had to sell at less than cost for a few years, but if TiVO would simply shell out the extra $50.00 per box for a circa-2010-era CPU in it's new boxes, it might have a chance at survival.

The really tragic irony is: post after post of TiVO die hards proclaim their loyalty and willingness to pay up to $1,000.00 per box for something stunning and magical. But somehow, somehow, TiVO doesn't get it: you simply cannot expect to become the "entertainment hub" of anything when it makes users experience actual, physical pain to use your product. And adding even more functionality and services to a grossly underpowered machine will not improve things.

Certainly, you can never expect to be able to innovate like Dish has with their DVR unis adding Internet Slingbox capability to them, for example, since the box is too anemic to ever perform such demanding tasks in addition to it's original functions simultaneously. And the lack of simple Gigabit-capable ethernet in the Elite is another example of long term blindness for short term savings. How much money did they save by using a 100Mb ethernet chip vs a Gigabit chip? Maybe $5? That would have enabled wicked fast inter-home video transfers and enabled future applications not yet conceived of. And customers have proclaimed in writing they are wiling to foot the bill already! It's insane.

No, I think we are seeing the death throws of the star that was called TiVO. If they continue on their current path, the star will soon collapse onto itself, having run out of fuel or users, accelerated if a company like Apple seizes the opportunity, and TiVIO will be a white dwarf shadow of it's former self we can all sadly point to in the sky and say, "I knew them when they had so much promise, look at them now". 

Here's hoping that won't happen. But I fear it's already too late. Analysts believe Apple is coming to this space in 2012 and that one single announcement, if and when it comes, will wipe TiVO off the map for good. Apple loves a good patent fight after all. And they know User Experience is King, something TiVO has long forgot.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dcooper2025 said:


> The really tragic irony is: post after post of TiVO die hards proclaim their loyalty and willingness to pay up to $1,000.00 per box for something stunning and magical.


I think you need to spend more time reading here. The complaints and anti-Tivo posts are pretty frequent. They may even outnumber the people who still praise Tivo.

I still consider myself a fan of Tivo but I realize they are slowly dying. I keep hoping they will do something to make me fall in love with them all over again.....


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

I had a Series 1 TiVo and still have an original Series 3 (OLED) TiVo.

When the Premiere came out, since it still had only 2 tuners, I was not excited in the slightest.

However, with the Elite, I am excited for the first time in years and this will definitely be the TiVo that replaces my Series 3.

I can't wait.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Even with the many horrific reports (there were some good ones, as well, but not many) on this forum regarding Premiere, I would be gladly willing to spend the $$ for the Elite because of its 4 tuners, except this new power box has NO ATSC OTA tuners. Yours truly is OTA, NOT cable. Thanks for losing my business, TiVo. You almost had me adding an Elite to my S3 for a whopping amount of money. Too bad.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Series3Sub said:


> Even with the many horrific reports (there were some good ones, as well, but not many) on this forum regarding Premiere, I would be gladly willing to spend the $$ for the Elite because of its 4 tuners, except this new power box has NO ATSC OTA tuners. Yours truly is OTA, NOT cable. Thanks for losing my business, TiVo. You almost had me adding an Elite to my S3 for a whopping amount of money. Too bad.


I am OTA only and I say so what to the lack of a 4-tuner Elite, OTA isn't the market for that kind of box, you are a rare exception. I suspect cost is the reason OTA tuners aren't included and there could be no justification for the added cost to the huge majority of the Elite market that won't use the OTA tuners. With 2 dual tuner TiVoHDs, I have never once had a conflict and don't recall ever needing more than 2 tuners at any one time but I am ready if I do and I don't want to be restricted by having the Elite cost tied up to a single display.

I am so happy with TiVoHD and the ability to transfer a program from one TiVo to the other when needed, I wouldn't consider the Elite even if I could afford it and thought 4 OTA tuners in one box was needed.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Series3Sub said:


> Even with the many horrific reports (there were some good ones, as well, but not many) on this forum regarding Premiere, I would be gladly willing to spend the $$ for the Elite because of its 4 tuners, except this new power box has NO ATSC OTA tuners. Yours truly is OTA, NOT cable. Thanks for losing my business, TiVo. You almost had me adding an Elite to my S3 for a whopping amount of money. Too bad.





Chris Gerhard said:


> I am OTA only and I say so what to the lack of a 4-tuner Elite, OTA isn't the market for that kind of box, you are a rare exception. I suspect cost is the reason OTA tuners aren't included and there could be no justification for the added cost to the huge majority of the Elite market that won't use the OTA tuners. With 2 dual tuner TiVoHDs, I have never once had a conflict and don't recall ever needing more than 2 tuners at any one time but I am ready if I do and I don't want to be restricted by having the Elite cost tied up to a single display.
> 
> I am so happy with TiVoHD and the ability to transfer a program from one TiVo to the other when needed, I wouldn't consider the Elite even if I could afford it and thought 4 OTA tuners in one box was needed.


I am OTA only also and tend to agree with Chris's comments.

Unlike cable with OTA there is no extra fees when you have multiple DVRs so the only advantage I see for OTA users to have one 4 tuner DVR versus 2, 2 tuner DVRs is scheduling conflict management.

I actually have 6 OTA tuners and 5.25TB of storage in 3 HD TiVos. I have never used more than 4 tuners at once and in my opinion the ability to have more storage and your TiVos connected to more than one TV out ways having 4 tuners in one TiVo.

Regarding the "horrific reports" the Premiere is an excellent DVR. My Premiere out performs both my Series 3 HD and TiVo HD in ever way I can think of so if someone really wants a great OTA only DVR get the Premiere and use the discount code mention in various threads to get service at $9.99/mo if paying for lifetime is too costly.

Thanks,


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I've been a long time Tivo user and advocate. Unfortunately, Tivo is a prime example of yesterday's technology. Technology aside, I'm the type of person that likes to get the most bang for my buck, and Tivo falls way short in this area. The new bells and whistles they keep adding amount to nothing more than band-aids to cover a gaping wound.

The new quad tuner models may help to stimulate sales, but it's a case of too little, too late, IMHO. For any serious TV watcher (i.e., diehard couch potato like me), even four tuners is insufficient. I built an HTPC originally to record OTA channels using six ATSC tuners. The idea was to supplement my DirecTivos rather than pay a monthly fee for something I could already get for free. Besides, DirecTV doesn't offer all locals in any given market regardless of what they claim.

With the introduction of the Ceton InfiniTV4 last year and my switch to FIOS almost four years ago, my HTPC now includes four ATSC tuners and eight digital cablecard tuners (i.e. two InfiniTV4's). Windows 7 Media Center does everything I need it to and does it at least as well as any of my Tivos ever did.


----------



## uw69 (Jan 25, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> I've been a long time Tivo user and advocate. Unfortunately, Tivo is a prime example of yesterday's technology. Technology aside, I'm the type of person that likes to get the most bang for my buck, and Tivo falls way short in this area. The new bells and whistles they keep adding amount to nothing more than band-aids to cover a gaping wound.
> 
> The new quad tuner models may help to stimulate sales, but it's a case of too little, too late, IMHO. For any serious TV watcher (i.e., diehard couch potato like me), even four tuners is insufficient. I built an HTPC originally to record OTA channels using six ATSC tuners. The idea was to supplement my DirecTivos rather than pay a monthly fee for something I could already get for free. Besides, DirecTV doesn't offer all locals in any given market regardless of what they claim.
> 
> With the introduction of the Ceton InfiniTV4 last year and my switch to FIOS almost four years ago, my HTPC now includes four ATSC tuners and eight digital cablecard tuners (i.e. two InfiniTV4's). Windows 7 Media Center does everything I need it to and does it at least as well as any of my Tivos ever did.


Sounds like you have the ideal solution for your needs, but you may be the exception rather than the rule. I think the Elite is about two years late to market. I have several OTA and cable card Tivo's to more that fill my needs and am not too excited about a $1000 box (w/lifetime). I'm sure the Elite will fill a need for many however.


----------



## DrewS3 (Sep 19, 2008)

I don't think the problem is hardware - it's the software. Tivo's software hasn't been actively developed in many years. We get occasional refreshes which are poorly done and buggy, such as the HD UI, Photos, Music, Netflix, Rhapsody. I suspect that Tivo has either farmed out all their software work, or else their remaining software guys are in constant firefighting mode with fixing guide data aggregator bugs or other glitches.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

LOL! Well, that settles it. TiVo's problems are purely the result of poor management.  Never mind that their size and unit volume are less than 1/100'th that of Apple. Ignore the hurdles put up by the Cable operators going digital requiring the CableCARD and the kluge known as a Tuning Adapter, and doing everything they can get away with to impede TiVo's successful use of these devices.

Has any market analysis verified that TiVo's sales or profit would increase if they spent the extra $50 (probably much more than that actually) per unit to make the TiVo what the OP wants? I suspect quite the opposite.

We'll just have to switch to other superior DVR's, right? BTW, which ones are those?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Never mind that their size and unit volume are less than 1/100'th that of Apple.


Why compare to Apple? Apple has developed hundreds if not thousands of products over the years. TiVo has only developed 1/100th of that. The numbers seem about right to me.........


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> Why compare to Apple? Apple has developed hundreds if not thousands of products over the years. TiVo has only developed 1/100th of that. The numbers seem about right to me.........


OK, pick any company that the OP might have compared to TiVo (although some of them don't actually produce a DVR) and tell me which ones don't have at least 10X the money to put into product development.

However it isn't even that simple. Even if you have the money to put into developing a product, it doesn't make sense to do it unless the market analysis says you can make money on the more expensive product. The OP's attitude only makes sense if you accept the idea that TiVo's main purpose is to satisfy him (while pricing themselves out of the business).


----------



## uw69 (Jan 25, 2001)

dlfl said:


> OK, pick any company that the OP might have compared to TiVo (although some of them don't actually produce a DVR) and tell me which ones don't have at least 10X the money to put into product development.
> 
> However it isn't even that simple. Even if you have the money to put into developing a product, it doesn't make sense to do it unless the market analysis says you can make money on the more expensive product. The OP's attitude only makes sense if you accept the idea that TiVo's main purpose is to satisfy him (while pricing themselves out of the business).


Well you are cranky I'll give you that.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> OK, pick any company that the OP might have compared to TiVo (although some of them don't actually produce a DVR) and tell me which ones don't have at least 10X the money to put into product


Why compare them to anyone? They built this business. They built this business model. They have known for years that it was not sustainable and have done very little to gain more customer/revenue.


----------



## LKMcMillen (Nov 18, 2004)

I've been a TiVo owner, subscriber, and supporter since TiVo first became available. I currently own two TiVo Premier DVRs. As additional support of TiVo and it's services I've always been a contributor to TiVo's revenue stream by being a monthly subscriber, rather than the purchaser of lifetime service.

Unfortunately, in order for TiVo to retain me as a customer, TiVo needed to come up with a TiVo branded Home Theater Media Center that provides at least the same features provided by my Home Theater (with a 4 tuner adapter card) PC Media Center. The Premier Elite fails to deliver those features.

TiVo's epitaph will likely be:

Here lies TiVo.

Died due to having focused more on the needs and desires of media providers and networks, than those of revenue producing consumers.

R.I.P.​
Innovate, or die.


----------



## Hamstring (Feb 13, 2007)

They are too busy running Tivo and just need to worry about getting content to me in the best way possible. My 4 year old PS3 (while not a dvr) has given me more unexpected functionality than TIVO is doing and I only bought it to be a blu-ray player and a gaming machine.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> Why compare them to anyone? They built this business. They built this business model. They have known for years that it was not sustainable and have done very little to gain more customer/revenue.


The OP compared TiVo to several other devices/companies, all of which either
(1) Don't make DVR's or (2) have much higher unit sales or (3) can justify much greater per-unit development costs based on their market environment. I simply wanted to indicate how illogical such comparisons are.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Hamstring said:


> They are too busy running Tivo and just need to worry about getting content to me in the best way possible. My 4 year old PS3 (while not a dvr) has given me more unexpected functionality than TIVO is doing and I only bought it to be a blu-ray player and a gaming machine.


But it's not doing a better job than TiVo. Amazon downloads are on TiVo, Hulu+ is pretty much identical to the PS3. Netflix on the PS3 is currently borked so TiVo beats it. The PS3 always sends out a 7.1 PCM signal from Netflix now. The PS3 does have VUDU. But even that is borked on the PS3 since it won't bitstream the DD+.

Plus the PS3 doesn't have native resolution output like the TiVo. Anytime the PS3 does any scaling it provides an inferior picture to what I get from my scaler that my TiVos are connected to.

And the PS3 uses much more power. At one point the PS3 was worth it for me to use. But now it's been relegated as a backup to the backup devices for me.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> And the PS3 uses much more power. At one point the PS3 was worth it for me to use. But now it's been relegated as a backup to the backup devices for me.


I disagree. Your PS3 is not running 24/7. TiVo is costing most people more money unless you are using your PS3 excessively.


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

I've been saying this for several years and this seems like another good thread to post it in. There is one thing that Tivo really missed the boat on - an App Store. A few years ago, Tivo came out their their SDK and many of us, including myself, wrote some good apps for the Tivo. Unfortunately, Tivo simply released the SDK and then did NOTHING else with it. They should have come out with their own App Store which sold apps. At that time, only Apple had an App Store for their portable devices and no TV's had it. Now, several years later, every new TV has access to an App Store, like Samsung's Apps.... Tivo really could have been a leader in this new industry, but they decided to do it half-ass...


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

csell said:


> Tivo really could have been a leader in this new industry, but they decided to do it half-ass...


+1, and then some. They really dropped the ball on it. Meanwhile going to extra lengths to cripple any scripting or hacking of it. They basically just yanked the rug out from under anyone interested in doing anything even slightly innovative with it. Preventing theft of programming I can understand, but Tivo just shut down everything.

Meanwhile it continues to do a decent job of being a DVR. That other products haven't exceeded this is no small surprise. But it certainly fails to be anything more than a DVR. It's like the old joke of fat vs ugly. The other products might be bloated and slow but they're at least trying to innovate. Tivo seems stuck being ugly.


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

wkearney99 said:


> +1, and then some. They really dropped the ball on it. Meanwhile going to extra lengths to cripple any scripting or hacking of it. They basically just yanked the rug out from under anyone interested in doing anything even slightly innovative with it. Preventing theft of programming I can understand, but Tivo just shut down everything.
> 
> Meanwhile it continues to do a decent job of being a DVR. That other products haven't exceeded this is no small surprise. But it certainly fails to be anything more than a DVR. It's like the old joke of fat vs ugly. The other products might be bloated and slow but they're at least trying to innovate. Tivo seems stuck being ugly.


Tivo does an awesome job of just being a DVR - they are simply the best by far. Unfortunately, that is not enough to survive.

Back to the App Store. That could have been a game changer for them. When you open up a market for developers to make money, they will come from everywhere to try and make their fortunes. And the more developers that get involved, the quality of the apps go up and up and competitions develops. And more developers means more subscribers and more apps means its more attractive to potential subscribers (I'm currently getting ready to buy a Samsung Blu-Ray player simply cause I like their App store)...

And the beautiful thing about App Stores is that its easy money for the company. Essentially you are getting thousands of developers to make software for your system and to make it a better system, yet you aren't paying them a single penny. And even better, you actually make profit off of every app they sell... They already had the SDK, all they needed to do was to create the store, host the apps, and market the concept. Oh well - too late now!


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

I keep waiting for TiVo to be bought out, but no one wants to take on the cable mafia.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

csell said:


> Tivo does an awesome job of just being a DVR - they are simply the best by far. Unfortunately, that is not enough to survive.
> 
> Back to the App Store. That could have been a game changer for them. When you open up a market for developers to make money, they will come from everywhere to try and make their fortunes. And the more developers that get involved, the quality of the apps go up and up and competitions develops. And more developers means more subscribers and more apps means its more attractive to potential subscribers (I'm currently getting ready to buy a Samsung Blu-Ray player simply cause I like their App store)...
> 
> And the beautiful thing about App Stores is that its easy money for the company. Essentially you are getting thousands of developers to make software for your system and to make it a better system, yet you aren't paying them a single penny. And even better, you actually make profit off of every app they sell... They already had the SDK, all they needed to do was to create the store, host the apps, and market the concept. Oh well - too late now!


Sadly, I would bet DTV and maybe Comcast would have a big problem with an App store. They like to control everything.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

dlfl said:


> We'll just have to switch to other superior DVR's, right? BTW, which ones are those?


I'm still waiting for that myself. Better DVR? Yeah, try again.



csell said:


> Tivo does an awesome job of just being a DVR - they are simply the best by far. Unfortunately, that is not enough to survive.


In YOUR OPINION it's not enough to survive. Maybe a few people have joined you in that opinion, but there's STILL enough life in this business for Tivo to put out new products (hence: premiere elite, new cableco products, etc).



csell said:


> Back to the App Store.


Been there, done that, it's not unique, and you're really limited as to what you can actually DO on a TV.

My ONLY complaint about the Elite is that it will be based off of Premiere, which (almost) anyone who's owned them knows has some pretty serious issues with shutting down and freezing. I've been a Tivo customer since '05, '06. They've still got a good business model going, but they need to pick up the pace. Unfortunately, with the economy the way things are going, you can not really afford to be terribly inventive. Invention costs major cash and research, something I'd suspect Tivo doesn't have a ton of.

Are they still good? Absolutely. They're TRYING to keep up (4 tuners is proof of that), we'll see just how well they do with the elite when it comes out.


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

twhiting9275 said:


> In YOUR OPINION it's not enough to survive. Maybe a few people have joined you in that opinion, but there's STILL enough life in this business for Tivo to put out new products (hence: premiere elite, new cableco products, etc).


Just look at their subscription numbers - that tells the whole story.



twhiting9275 said:


> Been there, done that, it's not unique, and you're really limited as to what you can actually DO on a TV.


The point was when they came out with their SDK, it WAS unique. They HAD the chance to make something special and be all alone in that field... At one time, I'm sure many people said you are limited to what you can do on a cell phone. And I think its safe to say apps have been a success on cell phones... If you make it a profitable industry for developers, they will find a way to make awesome apps.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

twhiting9275 said:


> I'm still waiting for that myself. Better DVR? Yeah, try again.


Fios's 1.9 update puts TiVo's HD UI to shame. While it doesn't have things like wishlist searches/hiding channels/etc, it is really close to dethroning TiVo as the best DVR.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

twhiting9275 said:


> Been there, done that, it's not unique, and *you're really limited as to what you can actually DO on a TV*.


Limited? I disagree. Tell that to Roku.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

csell said:


> I'm sure many people said you are limited to what you can do on a cell phone. And I think its safe to say apps have been a success on cell phones... If you make it a profitable industry for developers, they will find a way to make awesome apps.


Nice try, but wrong answer.
Of course, app stores are successful on cell phones. HOWEVER, if you still had to deal with the controller on the cell phones being keypad based, or even stylus based (instead of touch/swipe/gesture based), you'd have no app store. The app store was invented and created AFTER the touchscreen phones, BY the people that created the touchscreen phones.

Now, take that, and apply that in reverse here. Tivo isn't ABOUT to invent an app store based on television tech of today. Why? Because it's clunky as all hell. Even with the slide remote, you're STILL going to have some major issues with control. It's clunky, it's slow, it's horrible. TV and apps have very, very limited reality. Phones and apps, of course, even from the days of the PDA, that was a reality, it was a matter of "when".



rainwater said:


> Fios's 1.9 update puts TiVo's HD UI to shame. While it doesn't have things like wishlist searches/hiding channels/etc, it is really close to dethroning TiVo as the best DVR.


Nice try, but wrong answer, for one simple reason:
LOCALIZATION

If I decided to pick up and move from IA to WA, or AK, or DC, or WHEREVER, my Tivo box(es) would go with me. Sure, I'd have to rescan, sure, I'd have to re-add my subs (bad, but still possible).

If I decided to pick up and move from say Seattle to another area, I couldn't simply DO so with Fios (or any other cable box). I'd lose my content, my subscriptions, my pretty UI, etc, etc, etc.

If I decided to drop Verizon because their service sucks, guess what? I get to give BACK the Fios box, and lose my content.

Sorry, you can't compare TIVO and local cable boxes. They're completely different beasts.



djwilso said:


> Limited? I disagree. Tell that to Roku.


Did I say it was IMPOSSIBLE? I said it's LIMITED.Who wants to spend all day long scrolling through fake keyboards on a TV just so you can login to facebook, flickr, etc, etc? Who wants to spend all day long just playing with your TV remote so you can play some ridiculous game? Yeah, pass.

The possibility for TV apps is always there. The reality though is that it is extremely LIMITED. There's NOT a ton of market space here.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I just don't see anything here to criticize. If a 4 tuner cable DVR is what you want, show me something better than this. If this isn't what you want, so what, get whatever it is you do want. I think TiVo DVRs are still the best and still rock solid. All of the internet access options that can be handled better by something else, I would just use something else for that purpose. This DVR doesn't have OTA tuners, again, so what, get something with OTA tuners if that is what you need. I don't want this product but I am pretty impressed with what it is and know it will work great for the market that does want the things it does.

For some odd reason, no matter what TiVo does, so many here feel it is important to try to make the new product sound bad or make the company appear inept. All TiVo boxes to date are first a DVR then offer some additional non DVR features that are of interest to some percentage of the market. I remain a loyal customer and fan of the products but I sure understand others may want more or something different than TiVo offers. For me, nothing else I have used or seen is as good for the primary purpose of recording TV programming and watching it at my convenience.

I think TiVo has responded nicely to a market niche with this product and I hope it is a big success.


----------



## dcooper2025 (Sep 28, 2008)

According to recent TiVo SEC filings, their current customer base is 1.7M, down from 4M in 2007. 

Doing the rough math, TiVo is losing customers at an avg rate of 575,000 customers per year.

If that attrition rate continues, TiVo will reach 0 customers in just 35 months. Of course, there is likely a bottom threshold of N customers with lifetime subscriptions who will continue to be counted as customers.

But the attrition rate according to TiVo's own filings don't bode well for longevity of the company.


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

twhiting9275 said:


> Nice try, but wrong answer.


Wow, you are quite a know-it-all.

I'm a software developer and I will tell you this - developers quickly learn the limitations of the hardware devices and innovate on ways to work around it and make anything possible. You learn what works and makes sense on a platform and what doesn't.



twhiting9275 said:


> Tivo isn't ABOUT to invent an app store based on television tech of today. Why? Because it's clunky as all hell.


You are right about that - others beat them to it. Tivo was one of the first (if not the first) to come up with an SDK for developers to make apps for the televisions - its just they didn't take it to the next level and profit off of it. If you don't think there is a market out there - just check out every new TV or Blu-Ray player coming out. They all advertise their apps. That's today - 2011. Tivo could have done that in 2008. Imagine that...


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

Chris Gerhard said:


> I just don't see anything here to criticize. If a 4 tuner cable DVR is what you want, show me something better than this. If this isn't what you want, so what, get whatever it is you do want. I think TiVo DVRs are still the best and still rock solid. All of the internet access options that can be handled better by something else, I would just use something else for that purpose. This DVR doesn't have OTA tuners, again, so what, get something with OTA tuners if that is what you need. I don't want this product but I am pretty impressed with what it is and know it will work great for the market that does want the things it does.
> 
> For some odd reason, no matter what TiVo does, so many here feel it is important to try to make the new product sound bad or make the company appear inept. All TiVo boxes to date are first a DVR then offer some additional non DVR features that are of interest to some percentage of the market. I remain a loyal customer and fan of the products but I sure understand others may want more or something different than TiVo offers. For me, nothing else I have used or seen is as good for the primary purpose of recording TV programming and watching it at my convenience.
> 
> I think TiVo has responded nicely to a market niche with this product and I hope it is a big success.


I am as big of a Tivo supporter as anyone. I absoultely love my Tivo and have been a happy customer for about 10+ years. The problem with just being an awesome DVR and staying just in that niche is that it no longer is good enough. They are simply losing too many subscribers and if that doesn't change, there will be no Tivo in a few years (unless bought out). If they stay the course, they will fail. They need something major to shake things up and I don't know what that is at this point. This new 4 tuner Tivo is nice, but its still staying the same course. Not a game changer.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

This new box is just another TiVo. It's nothing special. It's only slightly different from a Premiere.

As for comparing cell phones with TV's. I don't even think you can use the remote control "clunky" excuse. Smart phones already work with TiVo. If they had a app store, developers would find a way to make things work.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> I disagree. Your PS3 is not running 24/7. TiVo is costing most people more money unless you are using your PS3 excessively.


if I compare one TiVo Premiere to one PS3, the Premiere uses 25 watts and the PS3 slim uses around 75 watts while playing videos.
If I used my PS3 for streaming content instead of using my other devices I would be close to even on power usage, probably a little more with my PS3 slim. With a PS3 Fat I would definitely be using alot more.
I use my streaming devices on a daily basis so they are on many hours each day.

But in my personal use I have five Premieres constantly drawing 25 watts each and one PS3 Slim constantly on standby drawing whatever power standby uses.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

rainwater said:


> Fios's 1.9 update puts TiVo's HD UI to shame. While it doesn't have things like wishlist searches/hiding channels/etc, it is really close to dethroning TiVo as the best DVR.


can you transfer the recordings to a PC for permanent storage or for burning to Blu-ray Disc? Until you can do that with a FiOS DVR it is not coming anywhere close to dethroning the TiVo.
I'm thinking about checking out the FiOS DVR(and hopefully 1.9 soon) since they offered me one for free for several months. As long as it's free I don't mind having it, but there is no way I'm going to pay for it.

Maybe 1.9 will finally stop my neighbors from contanstly complaining about missing shows because their FiOS DVR didn't record them?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dcooper2025 said:


> According to recent TiVo SEC filings, their current customer base is 1.7M, down from 4M in 2007.
> 
> Doing the rough math, TiVo is losing customers at an avg rate of 575,000 customers per year.
> 
> ...


the vast majority of subscribers loses have been from DirecTV subs. Of course even if you remove them they are still losing people.
But their loses have subsided a lot. Part of that is probably because there aren't as many DirecTV subs to lose any more.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

csell said:


> I am as big of a Tivo supporter as anyone. I absoultely love my Tivo and have been a happy customer for about 10+ years. The problem with just being an awesome DVR and staying just in that niche is that it no longer is good enough. They are simply losing too many subscribers and if that doesn't change, there will be no Tivo in a few years (unless bought out). If they stay the course, they will fail. They need something major to shake things up and I don't know what that is at this point. This new 4 tuner Tivo is nice, but its still staying the same course. Not a game changer.


If a DVR/internet access/media player at a price the market would accept was possible, somebody else would be doing it and I think it is folly to piss away resources now trying to make this all-in-one box that doesn't exist. Use a DVR and a second box that covers the things needed is my recommendation. If you don't want a DVR, no problem, use whatever it is you do want. For my needs, TiVo with a separate Logitech Google TV works great and the Google TV is very inexpensive. Building a single box with processing power to constantly handle the never ending DVR needs of writing and decoding data plus whatever internet function processing is ongoing is apparently something nobody wants to mess with. My guess is there is no market willing to pay the price necessary to make it a profitable product.

At some future date, it may be possible but even then I don't understand the importance of putting it all in one box but I do understand the difficulty to make this multipurpose box suit everybody's needs. So many here think Roku is so great, not me, it doesn't do much I want so a TiVo with Roku box would be a piece of crap for my needs. Others think Google TV is crap, it would be silly making this single box to suit me. Whatever TiVo does isn't going to make a pretty big share of the target market happy but it will make the box more expensive than it needs to be for those that don't want the additional features.

I would say TiVo should wait until there is an internet access box that is a clear market winner. Guessing now on Apple TV or Google TV or Boxee or Roku would be pretty stupid but when that happens, license that technology and see if that will work, rather than make a TiVo too expensive for the majority of its market now with features far too many don't want or features that don't work well enough.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

csell said:


> I am as big of a Tivo supporter as anyone. I absoultely love my Tivo and have been a happy customer for about 10+ years. The problem with just being an awesome DVR and staying just in that niche is that it no longer is good enough. They are simply losing too many subscribers and if that doesn't change, there will be no Tivo in a few years (unless bought out). If they stay the course, they will fail. They need something major to shake things up and I don't know what that is at this point. This new 4 tuner Tivo is nice, but its still staying the same course. Not a game changer.


I could not agree more. If TiVo wants to survive, they need a major shakeup in management. Take some of those huge checks they are going to get for IP battles and invest it in new innovative products that have a glimmer of hope of being on the market in the next 12-18 months.

The window for TiVo to actually be relevant in this industry is shutting quickly. The reality is that while TiVo does most things better than other DVRs, that's not "good enough" to attract new customers with the premium pricing... remember that the joe schmoe who is renting a cable company DVR is paying on average about $18 a month and he gets free replacements and upgrades every time a new machine becomes available from his cable co.

The absolutely mind bogglingly stupid thing about TiVo right now is that they put all of their eggs in the Premier basket when the platform had such short legs and already appears to be more or less maxed on capability.

I agree with the OP, even if they sold better and more capable boxes at a loss, but limited them to more lucrative new subscribers, they would have built more of a customer base and could have easily put something into the users home that would have had an easy time getting major new features and upgrades.

As it is, I still don't have anything compelling to replace my TiVo with, which says a lot, but I don't think that will be the case for long. Between Google (who just bought out Motorolla's entire set top box business), Apple, and MS, they are going to carve the set top box market up completely and all TiVo is likely to have in another few years is the crumbs, and continued litigation to get payouts for tech they patented (and have been riding the coat-tails of) years ago.


----------



## uw69 (Jan 25, 2001)

If you could put a Roku inside a Tivo Elite...........


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

uw69 said:


> If you could put a Roku inside a Tivo Elite...........


Pass. When Roku can play my high def Blu-ray rips, then we can talk. How about putting XBMC inside of a TiVo, now that would be worth getting excited about.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> can you transfer the recordings to a PC for permanent storage or for burning to Blu-ray Disc? Until you can do that with a FiOS DVR it is not coming anywhere close to dethroning the TiVo.


I highly doubt there is a big market for doing that. In fact, TiVo's Desktop software is embarrassing but you hardly hear people complain because the number of people using it is pretty abysmal.



aaronwt said:


> Maybe 1.9 will finally stop my neighbors from contanstly complaining about missing shows because their FiOS DVR didn't record them?


They should probably upgrade to the newer boxes (w/ 500gb drives).


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Chris Gerhard said:


> If a DVR/internet access/media player at a price the market would accept was possible, somebody else would be doing it and I think it is folly to piss away resources now trying to make this all-in-one box that doesn't exist. Use a DVR and a second box that covers the things needed is my recommendation.


This sounds exactly like how for years we heard that an all in one phone that was good enough to be a phone, PDA, media player, etc was a PIPE DREAM. Until Apple released the iPhone and changed the rules for what was possible (motorola and RIM executives actually thought that the iPhone was impossible or would have horrible battery life).

The only reason we don't have a wonderful all in one box that marries q TiVo to a powerful Internet media player is because the companies in the tv business don't want to change the status quo. No vision.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> I disagree. Your PS3 is not running 24/7. TiVo is costing most people more money unless you are using your PS3 excessively.


I thought even a "turned off" PS3 used a crapload of power. (Newer models a slightly lower crapload.)


----------



## mumpower (Jul 24, 2003)

I logged in simply to applaud the original poster for such a well thought out series of comments. As someone who had a 14-hour original and now has 6 TBs of Premieres, I understand where you are coming from. 

TiVo feels like it has been stuck in neutral for a long time now. It's capable of so much more as a living room dominating device but each iteration of new hardware feels like they settled rather than went for it. The series 3 is the only one since the devices became dual tuner that I felt was a strong attempt to excel rather than marginally evolve. 

I've had over 30 units over the years and proudly give them to friends to spread the word about the product (I used to rack up on TiVo Rewards when that program was active). Still, I am frustrated that they miss the obvious so often. As an example, Amazon Streaming should have been prioritized the instant it went live. Since Hulu Plus took forever (and still doesn't work worth a damn for me), I know that it's going to be a while, though. 

I love TiVo. I just wish they prioritized the user experience more.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

mattack said:


> I thought even a "turned off" PS3 used a crapload of power. (Newer models a slightly lower crapload.)


Newer PS3 uses 0.4 watts in standby. Older ones 1.5 watts.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

jmpage2 said:


> Pass. When Roku can play my high def Blu-ray rips, then we can talk. How about putting XBMC inside of a TiVo, now that would be worth getting excited about.


Sounds like you want an HTPC. It can play Blu-Rays as well as anything a Roku can do and more. You can also increase the storage capacity to whatever you want and increase the number of tuners as well.

I didn't realize the Elite does not have ATSC tuners until I read this thread. I can't believe Tivo would leave out something as important as that.

I started using an HTPC with OTA/ATSC tuners about five years ago to supplement my HDTivos with DirecTV. I continued to use them when I switched to FIOS over 3-1/2 years ago. When Ceton introduced the InfiniTV4 digital cablecard tuner I jumped on it. My HTPC now sports four ATSC tuners and eight cablecard tuners. Both S3 Tivos were quickly retired from DVR use after that. One was sold on ebay and the 2nd unit with lifetime now serves as a digital tuner for my 42" Sony HD monitor. The cost of two cablecards for the S3 @ $2.99 each is still cheaper than renting an HD box from Verizon.

The current cost of the Elite plus lifetime would buy you a pretty decent HTPC with an InfiniTV4 tuner and probably a couple of ATSC tuners as well. You'd need to fork out at least another $800-900 for a 2nd Elite with lifetime if you wanted any streaming capability. Considering that you could buy a Media Extender for the HTPC for about $100-$200 or even another PC for sharing tuners for under $500, Tivo has completely priced themselves out of the market.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Do alot of people want to go the HTPC route with extenders? Ten years ago I was recording/watching my HD content from a couple of HTPCs with my HiPix cards. And when they came out with USB OTA tuners I used several for concurrent recording too. But this was in addition to the HDTiVos I got in 2004, and then the S3 boxes in 2006, etc. And eventually my HTPC use went to zero. And especially now since I'm not reliant on OTA HD like I was ten years ago and that I can transfer any of my TiVo recordings to a PC for permanent storage. I don't want to go back to the HTPC route. I would much rather have multiple TiVos than HTPCs and extenders.

But everyone has their own preferences.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I have zero desire to use an HTPC as my DVR. Zero. I have been to friends homes who have spent $1500 on high end PCs that they are using as DVRs and it is a PITA and not family friendly at all. And multi-room viewing? Right.

I do use a media streamer currently that I have contemplated replacing with an HTPC basically due to the crappy quality and low end hardware in use by all of the media streamer companies at this time.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> ... Tivo has completely priced themselves out of the market.


A HTPC that you have to build, configure and maintain yourself is not in the same market as a stand alone DVR appliance. I priced buying a HTPC appliance (one built, warrantied, configured, and support by someone else). It cost $2000 with a 4 tuner cable card tuner, dual ATSC tuner, blu-ray player and 2TB storage.

The reality is that there is virtually no other players in the Stand Alone DVR market and none providing what a great many people on this forum claim they want and what they believe TiVo should be providing. Which is a stand alone DVR that does everything that a good HTPC does and costs next to nothing.

Thanks,


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

When will we know if the TiVo Preview will be offered as a companion to the Premier? Would it also have to get its own waiver?


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

jmpage2 said:


> When will we know if the TiVo Preview will be offered as a companion to the Premier? Would it also have to get its own waiver?


If it includes a digital only tuner it will require a waiver. It's known the cable version of the preview includes a tuner. Perhaps since it doesn't need multiple tuners that it includes an analog tuner but according to the press release it doesn't. So it isn't really clear if a waiver is required. However, the fact that TiVo didn't ask for a waiver and didn't announce it with the Elite is a bit troublesome.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> ......The reality is that there is virtually no other players in the Stand Alone DVR market and none providing what a great many people on this forum claim they want and what they believe TiVo should be providing. Which is a stand alone DVR that does everything that a good HTPC does and costs next to nothing. ......


Awww.... Are you trying to spoil all the fun of those who want to blast TiVo for not giving them what they want?


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

rainwater said:


> If it includes a digital only tuner it will require a waiver. It's known the cable version of the preview includes a tuner. Perhaps since it doesn't need multiple tuners that it includes an analog tuner but according to the press release it doesn't. So it isn't really clear if a waiver is required. However, the fact that TiVo didn't ask for a waiver and didn't announce it with the Elite is a bit troublesome.


Yes, I agree. I don't plan to buy multiple Premieres and pay the monthly expense when the four tuners in the Elite would suit my needs. I would just want to couple the single Elite with a couple of Previews for streaming my recorded shows to other rooms.

TiVo, why oh why do you always fail to get what your damn customer base wants?


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

jmpage2 said:


> The absolutely mind bogglingly stupid thing about TiVo right now is that they put all of their eggs in the Premier basket when the platform had such short legs and already appears to be more or less maxed on capability.


While I agree with most of what you said, I don't with this - the box itself is not maxed out on capability, the software is. Tivo's biggest problem with the Premier seems to be with hiring programmers that can properly use the hardware. Having the second CPU core disabled is proof of that.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> A HTPC that you have to build, configure and maintain yourself is not in the same market as a stand alone DVR appliance. I priced buying a HTPC appliance (one built, warrantied, configured, and support by someone else). It cost $2000 with a 4 tuner cable card tuner, dual ATSC tuner, blu-ray player and 2TB storage.


Yeah and you can build one yourself for less than the cost of an Elite with lifetime. I get what you're saying, but most anyone looking for HTPC alternatives is not looking to spend $2k on an overpriced one. They're willing to roll their own and work with what that entails.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> While I agree with most of what you said, I don't with this - the box itself is not maxed out on capability, the software is. Tivo's biggest problem with the Premier seems to be with hiring programmers that can properly use the hardware. Having the second CPU core disabled is proof of that.


Enabling the 2nd core on the Premier is not going to do much. I have never seen multi-threading dramatically speed things up, unless you are talking about raw number crunching like encoding audio or video (something that the TiVo would never do).

If I understand correctly, TiVo sent all of their development to India or China and, well, there ya go.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

crazywater said:


> And those are what?


Engadget did a good comparison;

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/05/tivo-premiere-vs-windows-7-media-center/

There are many advantages to Media Center, just like there are advantages to TiVo over media center.

The point is that instead of resting on their laurels, TiVo should be innovating in this space, not playing "me too" which is what we've been seeing for about 3-4 years now.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> Sounds like you want an HTPC. It can play Blu-Rays as well as *anything* a Roku can do and more.


False. An HTPC can't:


Stream Netflix in high definition with the Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 audio with subtitles (Roku2-only for the DD+ and subtitles)
Stream Amazon Instant Video in high definition with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio

Accessing either of these services on a computer does not deliver the same video and audio quality that the Roku does.

For $99, the Roku (and now Roku2) does it better than an HTPC can.

For me, the combination of TiVo + Roku + Blu-Ray player does what I want.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> Do alot of people want to go the HTPC route with extenders?


I think it isn't so much that people want to, but that Microsoft somewhat forces that model on you. There are no tools just like with TiVo for cooperative scheduling. Copy Once content can only be played back on the original HTPC or streamed to an extender. You can't stream copy once to another HTPC.

As many TiVos as you use and with your server, you might consider a HTPC to feed your TiVos like my setup. I have TiVos and 360s at every TV which you wouldn't need, but my main PC at my desk also has the Ceton InfiniTV 4. I use two programs that automatically rename the WTV files to include the season and episode number and then convert the WTV to MPG which can of course be pulled or pushed to the TiVo. This will also group the shows into show and season folders.


----------



## yoheidiho (Mar 31, 2011)

ReplayTV made a better DVR. Unfortunately, they last the war. Just as Betamax lost to VHS.

Tivo needs monthly subscribers to survive for cash flow reasons. They don"t receive anything other than a one-time payment. One day they will shut-down their servers leaving numerous owners with useless out-dated boxes.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> A HTPC that you have to build, configure and maintain yourself is not in the same market as a stand alone DVR appliance. I priced buying a HTPC appliance (one built, warrantied, configured, and support by someone else). It cost $2000 with a 4 tuner cable card tuner, dual ATSC tuner, blu-ray player and 2TB storage.
> 
> The reality is that there is virtually no other players in the Stand Alone DVR market and none providing what a great many people on this forum claim they want and what they believe TiVo should be providing. Which is a stand alone DVR that does everything that a good HTPC does and costs next to nothing.
> 
> Thanks,


You can easily build a basic HTPC for $500 or less that even supports HD audio (Intel Sandy Bridge CPU and motherboard with 2GB memory for about $250-300, a 2TB drive for about $100 or so, and a basic case and power supply for $100). The AverTV HD Duet dual ATSC tuner can be bought new for well under $100. A four tuner InfiniTV4 cablecard tuner (either internal or USB) can be bought for $300. Blu-Ray drives for a PC can be bought for as little as $50. My math tells me this PC can easily be configured for $1000 or less, which is what I indicated previously. Software may add another $100-200, depending on what you put into it, but that should still keep it at or near the targeted budget. You could always go with a less expensive cablecard tuner, but that also means fewer tuners. You can go with more expensive components, but that's not really necessary unless you plan on building a powerful gaming rig.

I'm not trying to imply that HTPCs are perfect devices because they aren't. They are prone to the same issues and problems as any other PC. The thing is, if you've got one setup and working the way you want, it's a pretty awesome device. I'm no fan of extenders either. With the latest tuner sharing app from Ceton, there's no longer a need for extenders. Almost any barebones Windows 7 PC with Media Center can be used as an extender.

I've got a Dell Zino HD connected to my family room PC and I can stream recorded shows from my primary HTPC over my network. I'm on FIOS so I don't have the copy flag issues that many providers impose on their subscribers, making it possible to playback any recorded shows from the primary HTPC on any other PC. I will probably be setting up one or two tuners from the main HTPC for sharing with the Zino to allow me to replace the one remaining Tivo that's still in use.

Most people simply don't have the patience to deal with something that's as cutting edge as a HTPC. I can't imagine living without one anymore and I certainly wouldn't downgrade by going back to a Tivo.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> You can easily build a basic HTPC for $500 or less that even supports HD audio (Intel Sandy Bridge CPU and motherboard with 2GB memory for about $250-300, a 2TB drive for about $100 or so, and a basic case and power supply for $100). The AverTV HD Duet dual ATSC tuner can be bought new for well under $100. A four tuner InfiniTV4 cablecard tuner (either internal or USB) can be bought for $300. Blu-Ray drives for a PC can be bought for as little as $50. My math tells me this PC can easily be configured for $1000 or less, which is what I indicated previously. Software may add another $100-200, depending on what you put into it, but that should still keep it at or near the targeted budget. You could always go with a less expensive cablecard tuner, but that also means fewer tuners. You can go with more expensive components, but that's not really necessary unless you plan on building a powerful gaming rig.
> 
> I'm not trying to imply that HTPCs are perfect devices because they aren't. They are prone to the same issues and problems as any other PC. The thing is, if you've got one setup and working the way you want, it's a pretty awesome device. I'm no fan of extenders either. With the latest tuner sharing app from Ceton, there's no longer a need for extenders. Almost any barebones Windows 7 PC with Media Center can be used as an extender.
> 
> ...


I pretty much don't disagree with anything you said and I do agree that you or I and I am guessing the majority of the people posting on this forum could put together and setup a real nice HTPC for $1000 or less that included cable card tuners.

What I am saying that you can not compare the cost of a home built self support HTPC to a warrantied and supported appliance device like a TiVo. To get that in the HTPC world that $1000 turns into $2000 real fast.

Thanks,


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

djwilso said:


> For me, the combination of TiVo + Roku + Blu-Ray player does what I want.


I think that is about optimal at the moment. Given TiVos inability to duplicate the Roku's abilities I am thinking the unit with the most chance of actually combining streaming with something is the blu-ray player, so at some point we may just need a TiVo and "smart" blu-ray player.

It will be interesting to see where we are a year or 2 from now.

Thanks,


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

a year or two from now Blu-ray will be on it's way towards rapidly being a niche format for collectors and enthusiasts.

You will note that neither Apple nor Google have shown any interest of any kind in supporting optical media, they don't even support streaming of someone's backup media (ISOs, MKVs, etc).

A year or two from now it will be a question of which internet connected STB you want to buy (Apple, Google or MSFT), and maybe if you are a serious HT enthusiast you will still have a BD player.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Or at least a media player that can play the BD ISOs or MKVs. Even though I still own a half dozen Blu-ray Disc players, I very rarely play a disc. I prefer to play the BD ISOs over my network.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

TiVo has 1.7M subscribers. I wonder how many of those are lifetime. If you figure 1.7M X $120 a year that's ~$200M in subscription revenue. Newer subscribers pay more than that. An engineer in Silicon Valley costs about $150k salary + benefits. 20 of them is $3M, ~1.5% of revenue, very low for a firm like TiVo.

From TiVo's feature output, they sure as hell don't have 20 engineers working on anything, because if they did they'd actually get new product (and especially new software) out at better than a snail's pace. I could probably do better by myself. Either they've basically fired their entire engineering staff, or TiVo has the most unproductive engineers in the history of engineering. So where is all this money going?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Have at it...

Available Jobs at TiVo


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> Have at it...
> 
> Available Jobs at TiVo


So many vacant QA positions......that explains a lot.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> What I am saying that you can not compare the cost of a home built self support HTPC to a warrantied and supported appliance device like a TiVo. To get that in the HTPC world that $1000 turns into $2000 real fast.


I'll stack my tech support against Tivo's tech support any day of the week. Sure, you can get a refurbished Tivo as a replacement unit if your Tivo has issues, but I can replace just about any major component in my HTPC for less than the $150 Tivo usually charges. Every component I put into a homebrew HTPC each comes with it's own warranty anyway. Chances are they all have a far better warranty than what Tivo offers, although I can't vouch for whatever tech support they may supply, which admittedly may be spotty with some manufacturers. The only issue I've ever had with a PC component was an Intel motherboard, which they replaced at no cost.

The real fly in the ointment is that with a Tivo you have no recourse but to go through their tech support and pathetic warranty system if you encounter a problem you can't resolve on your own. If you're lucky they'll offer to swap out your dead Tivo for a hefty fee. If you can't get satisfaction from a PC component manufacturer you can always replace the faulty component at a much lower cost. You can also get a replacement component from a different manufacturer if you decide you don't like dealing with the original unit's maker. You have no such options with a Tivo.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

You can get an extended warranty from TiVo or the merchant where it was purchased. Then if for some reason you have a dead TiVo it will be replaced for a minimal fee if any.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

With a Tivo, you can just buy a second Tivo without service for close to what a warranty would cost. Then you can just swap parts if there is a problem.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

So long as the problem isn't on the mainboard. All of TiVo's parts are soldered down. 

Unlike a PC which at least the CPU, RAM, and tuner(s) can be swapped out. The PSU can be replaced with one "off the shelf", on a PC.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

tivogurl said:


> TiVo has 1.7M subscribers. I wonder how many of those are lifetime. If you figure 1.7M X $120 a year that's ~$200M in subscription revenue. Newer subscribers pay more than that. An engineer in Silicon Valley costs about $150k salary + benefits. 20 of them is $3M, ~1.5% of revenue, very low for a firm like TiVo.
> 
> From TiVo's feature output, they sure as hell don't have 20 engineers working on anything, because if they did they'd actually get new product (and especially new software) out at better than a snail's pace. I could probably do better by myself. Either they've basically fired their entire engineering staff, or TiVo has the most unproductive engineers in the history of engineering. So where is all this money going?


Most technology companies invest 15-20% of revenues into R&D. I wonder what TiVos R&D investments are.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

jmpage2 said:


> Most technology companies invest 15-20% of revenues into R&D. I wonder what TiVos R&D investments are.


No amount of R&D is going to get Tivo a satellite subscription or overcome the cable card and tuning adapter hurdles.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

shwru980r said:


> No amount of R&D is going to get Tivo a satellite subscription or overcome the cable card and tuning adapter hurdles.


And there in lies the problem. The "masses" want a plug and play appliance that takes no effort to use. TiVo (nor anyone else) is ever going to be able to sell millions of DVRs to the "masses" while those issues still exist.

TiVo might be able to sell a few thousand more DVRs if their streaming media features were excellent instead of mediocre but that is about it. If someone really wants streaming media they can spend less than $100 and have a simple appliance. Even if TiVo did an excellent job of adding media streaming to their stand alone DVRs the process of using a stand alone DVR just causes to many hassles and increased costs for the normal Joe out there to buy into it. So it looks to me like TiVo's stand alone DVRs are and will continue to only be a small niche market no matter what TiVo does.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

let see..

not sure why all the talk of HTPC's - didn't MS recently say they are basically bailing on media center- begrudgingly leaving it in windows 8 without improvements?

for those amazed it's missing OTA- i'm pretty sure it's been hashed out elsewhere here that they can't really do more than 4 tuners in the box with current chipsets without basically building 2 dvr's in one box. So you get 2 cable+ 2 OTA, 4 cable, 4 OTA, or that 3cable + 1 OTA thing that moxi tried. Considering cable/Fios is probably close to half the market and OTA is only like 15% its understandable that they decided to do a 4 cable vs doing 4 OTA.

on the app- stores. That's a great point. Tivo really missed the bus there. sure the typical current input methods on a tv are limiting- but tivo cold innovate. My sony google tv's remote has a trackpad that runs a pointer (not sure if logitech has that?)- you could do gestures with that as an example. So stop sitting back and innovate like they used to- if you dont think the trackpad will work come up with something that does. Hec - why can't they stick a connect camera on the tv and i use gestures to control it? wii remotes? or find something else...

Sadly- in my opinion the OP seems to be about spot on big picture. Tivo is slowly dying. Not getting in front of the curve. As others love to use as a defense, tivo is great DVR- but they miss the point the other half make in these threads that- a stand lone dvr which does nothing else isn't going to keep tivo in business long term. Tivo can innovate- they could add good quality "apps" or they can come up with a better mousetrap of some sort whatever that might be. But incremental lipstick on the dvr pig isn't going to cut it. I guess neither looks possible to tivo management so they're just trying to be SCO. 

The pathetic pace of software development really amazes me....

I'll probably wait for the early adopter tax to wear off then I'll pick up an elite for the sole purpose of never having to deal with scheduling conflicts again. And when I do it I'll hope they eek out another 3-4 years to make the investment worth my while.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> let see..
> 
> not sure why all the talk of HTPC's - didn't MS recently say they are basically bailing on media center- begrudgingly leaving it in windows 8 without improvements?


Not sure where you got that. They said nothing of the sort. They merely confirmed it is in Windows 8 because they got a bunch of people asking since it wasn't in the leaked builds. They didn't give details either way on what if any changes will be coming. They only said it wouldn't be in the early builds. We don't even know at this point if it will be shown at BUILD next week.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

innocentfreak said:


> Not sure where you got that. They said nothing of the sort. They merely confirmed it is in Windows 8 because they got a bunch of people asking since it wasn't in the leaked builds. They didn't give details either way on what if any changes will be coming. They only said it wouldn't be in the early builds. We don't even know at this point if it will be shown at BUILD next week.


think it was in the ed bott blog post that 'dvrs are dead becasue tivo and htpc's are dying'.

Let me see if i can find the link- i go to it from a post here....

_edit- found it here's the link and summary:_

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/the-decline-and-fall-of-tivo-and-media-center/3869



> Given those factors, Microsoft has correctly declared Media Center a legacy application. Yes, enthusiasts will be able to use Media Center on Windows 8, but I don't expect any significant new features, nor do I expect the interface to change from what is currently in Windows 7. Microsoft disbanded the Media Center team after the release of Windows 7 and dispersed those engineers and designers and testers into the teams working on Windows Phone 7, the Zune/Xbox marketplaces, and new digital media experiences in Windows 8.


_not sure i'm interpreting correctly- when i read the article again seems like they are killing media center to make a new platform for all their devices maybe? xbox, htpc, phone? feel free to explain what it means_


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> let see..
> 
> not sure why all the talk of HTPC's - didn't MS recently say they are basically bailing on media center- begrudgingly leaving it in windows 8 without improvements?


With the introduction of the latest cablecard tuners, an HTPC is a viable competitor to Tivo. Hence, it is frequently brought up in comparison to Tivo in both features and cost of ownership. The inclusion of Media Center in Windows 8 has already been addressed by others.



> for those amazed it's missing OTA- i'm pretty sure it's been hashed out elsewhere here that they can't really do more than 4 tuners in the box with current chipsets without basically building 2 dvr's in one box. So you get 2 cable+ 2 OTA, 4 cable, 4 OTA, or that 3cable + 1 OTA thing that moxi tried. Considering cable/Fios is probably close to half the market and OTA is only like 15% its understandable that they decided to do a 4 cable vs doing 4 OTA.


I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers but lots of people use OTA instead of subscribing to some other form of TV service. I have FIOS and I still record all of my local HD channels via OTA because the quality is better. Not including ATSC tuners in an HD DVR is a severe shortcoming, IMHO.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> TiVo might be able to sell a few thousand more DVRs if their streaming media features were excellent instead of mediocre but that is about it.


Let's say a subscriber is worth $100. 5000 is $500k a year. Two full-time engineers doing nothing but streaming is ~$300k. My point is that under a wide range of assumptions, excellence is accretive to profits even for such "minor" features.

Since TiVo can't even fix long-standing non-showstopper bugs or finish important features (the UI being the most emblematic of this flaw) they can hardly be expected to be forward-thinking about things like streaming.

Then there's my "favorite" reason not to upgrade: TiVo hasn't managed to come up with any kind of automated migration in the 11 years I've been a TiVo customer. I have 61 season passes and auto-recording wishlists. My channel list is finely honed to delete the many channels I don't get or don't watch. Recreating that on a new TiVo is many hours of unnecessary pain.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

yoheidiho said:


> ReplayTV made a better DVR. Unfortunately, they last the war. Just as Betamax lost to VHS.
> 
> Tivo needs monthly subscribers to survive for cash flow reasons. They don"t receive anything other than a one-time payment. One day they will shut-down their servers leaving numerous owners with useless out-dated boxes.


I owned both ReplayTV and TiVo during the DVR format war and although I liked ReplayTV, I liked TiVo better and I believe that placed me with the majority opinion. My opinion is that Beta was slightly better than VHS based on owning both but not so much that it mattered.

I sure hope that TiVo service won't end until there is no need for the service. I don't think anything will cause TiVo to become obsolete for many years but I do see the financial condition is deteriorating and there may be some consequences as a result.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

tivogurl said:


> Then there's my "favorite" reason not to upgrade: TiVo hasn't managed to come up with any kind of automated migration in the 11 years I've been a TiVo customer. I have 61 season passes and auto-recording wishlists. My channel list is finely honed to delete the many channels I don't get or don't watch. Recreating that on a new TiVo is many hours of unnecessary pain.


Actually, season passes can easily be "transferred" to a new box using tivo.com.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> ...
> 
> I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers but lots of people use OTA instead of subscribing to some other form of TV service. I have FIOS and I still record all of my local HD channels via OTA because the quality is better. Not including ATSC tuners in an HD DVR is a severe shortcoming, IMHO.


the number of people that are OTA only is ~15%- or it was when the switch from analog to digital occured. It could be lower now because people gave up with converter boxes and got cable or it could be higher now because people see that digital with sub channels is a decent high quality 'basic' cable package. In any event it's still not likely in any way to be larger than cable.

As far as how many have cable or fios- that's more nebulous and so I left it at "around half" because of the 85% that pay for TV, Directv, Dish, and ATT have decent counts. (Directv if i recall correctly is about the size of comcast as an example).

Not including OTA might be a sever shortcoming but the limits of the chipsets is what it is- 4 tuners - period. So tivo offers people that want cable+OTA the 2+2 configuration of the S3/THD/premiers.

the other alternative for more OTA tuners is 4 OTA ONLY and as above considering that's only 15% of the population and tivo is already a niche it doesn't make much business sense. If Tivo was rolling in the dough and could increase their world domination some more by coming out with an 4 OTA only model then so be it. But at the moment with their cable centric offerings they are drowning. So the reality is they choose the alternative that hits the biggests market share. Maybe the 4 tuners is all that is needed for tivo to take off and next year they can do a 4 tuner OTA only- but i wouldn't hold my breath.

If you read my whole post- I'm no tivo apologist and i think they have messed up big time. But picking cable over OTA isn't a crazy decision to me based on the realities of their options.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Chris Gerhard said:


> I owned both ReplayTV and TiVo during the DVR format war and although I liked ReplayTV, I liked TiVo better and I believe that placed me with the majority opinion. My opinion is that Beta was slightly better than VHS based on owning both but not so much that it mattered.
> 
> I sure hope that TiVo service won't end until there is no need for the service. I don't think anything will cause TiVo to become obsolete for many years but I do see the financial condition is deteriorating and there may be some consequences as a result.


I'm also a big fan of ReplayTV. They were far ahead of Tivo in so many areas. I think they got too aggressive with their innovations and it did them in in the end. I also liked Beta better than VHS, but the lack of a 6-hour recording mode was their ultimate undoing. Even at the best recording speed they could only get 1.5 hours of recording on a tape. Ironically, when Sony decided to start making VHS VCRs they did it better than anyone else.


----------



## camera2000 (Sep 13, 2011)

I think TiVo DVRs are still the best and still rock solid. All of the internet access options that can be handled better by something else, I would just use something else for that purpose.


----------



## shadowplay0918 (May 16, 2011)

jmpage2 said:


> a year or two from now Blu-ray will be on it's way towards rapidly being a niche format for collectors and enthusiasts.
> 
> You will note that neither Apple nor Google have shown any interest of any kind in supporting optical media, they don't even support streaming of someone's backup media (ISOs, MKVs, etc).
> 
> A year or two from now it will be a question of which internet connected STB you want to buy (Apple, Google or MSFT), and maybe if you are a serious HT enthusiast you will still have a BD player.


I read this often in forums and though I agree at some point it will be true but we are at least 5 years away (probably more) from this happening.

Download caps aren't going away anytime soon and the battle is just beginning....


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Unless some new format is introduced that will supplant Blu-Ray as the highest definition format for distributing movies, it's not going away anytime soon. I suspect it will at some point, but probably not for at least a decade, if not longer.

We already have methods of distributing music via iTunes and mp3's, yet music stores are still selling huge quantities of CD's. The demise of that format has been predicted countless times, yet it still perseveres. Heck, you can still find music being distributed on vinyl if you look hard enough. Formats will last as long as there is still a demand for them.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> .......TiVo might be able to sell a few thousand more DVRs if their streaming media features were excellent instead of mediocre but that is about it. ........


Then why the huge emphasis in TiVo ads on the "one box" concept?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> the number of people that are OTA only is ~15%- or it was when the switch from analog to digital occured. ...........


I too would like to know where you got this number. Sorry if I missed it in a previous post.


----------



## Unix_Beard (Dec 22, 2003)

I'm a long time Tivo user and own 4 of them. They perform their functions beautifully.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I've been a long time Tivo user and advocate. Unfortunately, Tivo is a prime example of yesterday's technology.


Yesterday's technology is often superior to today's. As an example, despite all the hype and hoopla, no modern frying pan can from an overall perspective compete with the cast-iron frying pan, developed more than 150 years ago. Despite all the extra features, no keyboard of which I know has yet to match or exceed the feel of the IBM 101 keyboard which was bundled with the IBM XT. For small farms, modern tractors are not as efficient or effective as a draft horse, used by farmers for more than 3000 years. The design of industrial diesel engines for use in generators, pumps, and other fixed installations has not changed significantly in more than 70 years, a number of the original units manufactured at that time still being in use.

I for one am totally unimpressed, even put off by glitz, and I offer no credits to a shiny new toy simply because it is shiny or new. Quite the contrary, whenver looking at a tool, implement, or toy, I am impressed if it shows signficant signs of extensive wear. It speaks of something that gets used a lot. To the same point, I am not impressed by individuals who parade around with bright, shiny, hardly used toys, whether new or not. Give me a 30 year old pickup truck, beaten and battered, over a pampered show car with a gleaming finish and glossy wheels any day.



mr.unnatural said:


> Technology aside, I'm the type of person that likes to get the most bang for my buck


It's not my first consideration, by any means. Certainly I do not want to pay more than I have to for any given set of requirements, but I am more than willing to pay a premium for a superior feature set, provided the additional features are ones I consider important. I do not wish to pay more for features for which I have little use. Prime example: multiple tuners. I have no wish to pay for more than 2 tuners in a box. Better example: HDUI. I would be willing to pay extra to NOT have what most manufacturers are calling an HDUI. The best UI is one that does not exist at all. Any requirement for the user to interact with a box represents a failure on the part of the box. Relativiely few units meet this ideal, but diverging further from the ideal is not acceptable, let alone a good idea. WRT a DVR, I want to *watch* TV, not spend any time setting up recording or fiddling with the DVR in any way at all. Any time spent searching for videos to record or managing the DVR is a waste. I surely don't want to look at any guide or endless lists of 10s of thousands of titles in which I have no interest.



mr.unnatural said:


> and Tivo falls way short in this area. The new bells and whistles they keep adding amount to nothing more than band-aids to cover a gaping wound.


What wound? With the exception of network performance and a stable alternative to a TA, there is nothing offered by any new proposals from TiVo or anyone else that interests me in the least. I am *NOT* going to dump my 2002 Camaro Convertible just because some newer automobile has a better sound system or a fresh car smell, and I certianly am not going to get rid of my TiVo to move to a system that offers me nothing I want and fails to offer me what I do.



mr.unnatural said:


> The new quad tuner models may help to stimulate sales, but it's a case of too little, too late, IMHO. For any serious TV watcher (i.e., diehard couch potato like me), even four tuners is insufficient.


I have six tuners. It is very rare that three of the six are active recording non-duplicate programming. Nonetheless, they typically are recording more than 14 hours a day in unique programming, seven days a week. It is not possible for any human being to watch that much programming while maintaining anything even remotely resembling a normal or useful life. On the very rare occasion that one of the TiVos has an irreconcilable conflict, I simply go to one of the other TiVos to record the third program. It would be somewhat nice to be able to handle such conflicts from a single location (preferrably not on the TiVo, actually), but getting up from the recliner and walking into the other room to set a recording every four or five months is just not a big deal. If it really were, a $20 video capture card installed in the PC next to each TiVo would handle it nicely enough.



mr.unnatural said:


> I built an HTPC originally to record OTA channels using six ATSC tuners. The idea was to supplement my DirecTivos rather than pay a monthly fee for something I could already get for free.


*YOU DO NOT GET IT FOR FREE!!!!* It costs you upwards of $500 a month to receive those channels, and everry time you change channels to one of them, the price goes up. The utterly lousy content broadcast on those channels aside, if you want to save some money, stop watching OTA, and convince three other people to also stop watching OTA and convince three of their friends, etc. As a bonus, you will no longer be bombarding yourself with nearly as much mind-numbing, morally reprehensible, socially unredeeming crap.



mr.unnatural said:


> Besides, DirecTV doesn't offer all locals in any given market regardless of what they claim.


Good for them. If this were anything like a reasonable or ethical society, the local broadcast channels would have been shut down decades ago. That said, it is a good thing their market share is dwindling fast.



mr.unnatural said:


> With the introduction of the Ceton InfiniTV4 last year and my switch to FIOS almost four years ago, my HTPC now includes four ATSC tuners and eight digital cablecard tuners (i.e. two InfiniTV4's). Windows 7 Media Center does everything I need it to and does it at least as well as any of my Tivos ever did.


Geez. Network TV. Windows. Have you also removed your front door and put up a sign on the curb saying, "Please come steal everything I have."? So much for your getting any bang for your buck, at all. From what I can tell, you prefer to have evreythihng cost 10 - 100x as much as it reasonably should.

As far as the HTPC "doing everything I need", that's not a terribly difficult proposition as long as one doesn't need much. An HTPC cannot handle the top 10 things I demand of my TiVos, five of which are deal breakers.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Just can't refrain from wasting bandwidth by bashing everything you don't agree with, can you? You say you only want two tuners and then proclaim you have six. The entire world already knows you don't like network TV or Microsoft so give it a rest already, willya? 

Your claim that TV costs us upwards of $500 per month is complete BS, unless of course you buy every product advertised on TV. I rarely, if ever, watch commercials and even more rarely do I buy any of the products that I do see advertised. I've never bought a car or brand of beer based on an advertisement, regardless of the media it was presented in.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Then why the huge emphasis in TiVo ads on the "one box" concept?


Because marketing is completely disconnected from the technical reality, as usual.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> Then why the huge emphasis in TiVo ads on the "one box" concept?


Take a look at the thread of thought that was being talked about instead of pulling words out. The thought process was why TiVo couldn't sell stand alone HD DVRs. First 25 million + house holds are gone because they use satellite or AT&T U-verse, second was the limitations, cost, and problems associated with cable cards, third was the problems with tuning adapters. If the Premiere were a perfect streaming device it still has those issues which end up making Joe six pack go with their provider's DVR and if they really want streaming media add it with a low cost device like a Roku.

Ask yourself is streaming media selling more "smart" TVs or "Smart" blu-ray players? Look around the web and it appears the answer is no. So why would it sell more "smart" DVRs?

Thanks,


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

jmpage2 said:


> Enabling the 2nd core on the Premier is not going to do much. I have never seen multi-threading dramatically speed things up.


The biggest speedup you get from multi-threading is responsiveness; with a well-written systen the UI is never held up waiting for a background task.

But adding that later (if you didn't design it in from day one) is difficult.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Then why the huge emphasis in TiVo ads on the "one box" concept?





atmuscarella said:


> Take a look at the thread of thought that was being talked about instead of pulling words out. The thought process was why TiVo couldn't sell stand alone HD DVRs. First 25 million + house holds are gone because they use satellite or AT&T U-verse, second was the limitations, cost, and problems associated with cable cards, third was the problems with tuning adapters. If the Premiere were a perfect streaming device it still has those issues which end up making Joe six pack go with their provider's DVR and if they really want streaming media add it with a low cost device like a Roku.
> 
> Ask yourself is streaming media selling more "smart" TVs or "Smart" blu-ray players? Look around the web and it appears the answer is no. So why would it sell more "smart" DVRs?


I appreciate your clarification and have no strong disagreement with it. However the point of my post was the inconsistency between that picture and TiVo's marketing approach.


slowbiscuit said:


> Because marketing is completely disconnected from the technical reality, as usual.


This reply addresses my point. I would like to hear TiVo's rationale before deciding whether it's just bad market analysis or perhaps TiVo knows something that atmuscarella doesn't, although my gut leans toward the former. (Of course we'll never hear TiVo's rationale!)


----------



## b_scott (Nov 27, 2006)

agree with original post.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> .......*YOU DO NOT GET IT FOR FREE!!!!* It costs you upwards of $500 a month to receive those channels, and everry time you change channels to one of them, the price goes up. ........


You've said this more than once on this forum and I haven't seen your breakdown to justify that figure, which seems very high. Sorry if I missed it.

Are you talking about the advertising cost built into every product? And if so, how do you come up with that figure?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I appreciate your clarification and have no strong disagreement with it. However the point of my post was the inconsistency between that picture and TiVo's marketing approach.
> 
> This reply addresses my point. I would like to hear TiVo's rationale before deciding whether it's just bad market analysis or perhaps TiVo knows something that atmuscarella doesn't, although my gut leans toward the former. (Of course we'll never hear TiVo's rationale!)


I do agree with you that TiVo's marketing hype for the Premiere was way out of line. They might just as well have said it cured cancer. It was also released with unacceptably buggy software. What we have know should have been what it was day one and it still needs improving.

I have less problem with TiVo's current marketing where they call it a "smart" DVR. It falls in line with "smart" TVs and "smart" blu-ray players.

Thanks,


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

dlfl said:


> I appreciate your clarification and have no strong disagreement with it. However the point of my post was the inconsistency between that picture and TiVo's marketing approach.


His point is valid though that marketing is never insync with the tech. Look at the PS3 marketing. It only does everything is their slogan, which is nice except for the fact it doesn't do everything or even come close.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

An obvious shill on this forum.

Tivo is becoming a going concern. As the ship sinks more will bail out and flee to other platforms that are becoming superior. D* and Dish DVRs have been excellent for a couple of years now and now cable company and Uverse offerings are stepping up. Once more of them allow external drives it will be a lot easier for more of the loyal tivo base to flee like the rest of the rats already have. Tivo's days are numbered. Enjoy it as long as it lasts.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

dlfl said:


> You've said this more than once on this forum and I haven't seen your breakdown to justify that figure, which seems very high. Sorry if I missed it.


It certainly costs money to produce the programming, to build the towers, and to power the broadcast equipment. That money has to come from somewhere, and it's probably us who are paying for it, even if indirectly.

However, I'd also like to know where he came up with the $500 number.

The costs the advertisers are paying the networks for commercials does eventually cost us in higher product prices, but it's not clear to me that if broadcast television disappeared tonight that the advertisers wouldn't find some other medium to spend advertising dollars on.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> Your claim that TV costs us upwards of $500 per month is complete BS, unless of course you buy every product advertised on TV. I rarely, if ever, watch commercials and even more rarely do I buy any of the products that I do see advertised. I've never bought a car or brand of beer based on an advertisement, regardless of the media it was presented in.


I believe the point is that the cost of ANY product you buy is higher than it needs to be. The cost of advertising (among other things) is passed on to the consumer one way or the other.



dlfl said:


> You've said this more than once on this forum and I haven't seen your breakdown to justify that figure, which seems very high. Sorry if I missed it.
> 
> Are you talking about the advertising cost built into every product? And if so, how do you come up with that figure?


I too don't think it's THAT high, but I would be interested if lrhorer has some hard data to share.



smbaker said:


> It certainly costs money to produce the programming, to build the towers, and to power the broadcast equipment. That money has to come from somewhere, *and it's probably us who are paying for it, even if indirectly*.


Yep.



smbaker said:


> However, I'd also like to know where he came up with the $500 number.


As would I.



smbaker said:


> The costs the advertisers are paying the networks for commercials does eventually cost us in higher product prices, but it's not clear to me that if broadcast television disappeared tonight that the advertisers wouldn't find some other medium to spend advertising dollars on.


I don't think it would matter one way or the other. The price of the product would not be affected. If the manufacturer didn't have to spend money on ads, that would just mean more profit for them. They certainly would not pass the savings on to the consumer.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

steve614 said:


> If the manufacturer didn't have to spend money on ads, that would just mean more profit for them. They certainly would not pass the savings on to the consumer.


If this is true, then the converse would also be true -- if they had to spend more money on ads, that would just mean less profit. I seriously doubt that is true. 

The cost of doing business (be it advertising, taxes, payroll, whatever) does directly impact the price of goods.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dlfl said:


> I too would like to know where you got this number. Sorry if I missed it in a previous post.


The 4million threads here and at avs at the time of the analog shutdown with everyone kvetching whenever they postponed it. Forget if the initial source was the FCC or some third party survey.

Its not a major algebraic equation to get an estimate. Google around for the total number of households with tvs from neilson then get subscriber numbers from big cable directv and dish and youll get in tje ballpark of who is left. Trying to figure who has paytv AND ota is a lot harder.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

How about only 9% are OtA only in 2010 according to neilson
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdt...nly-tv-households-slip-below-10-percent-0504/

Ota only is a small market even with cord cutters increasing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yes, the whole network system should be abolished. It really is something from another century.

The OTA numbers aren't relevant to TiVo, as most of the OTA subs are low-income households or senior citizens, so it's not that relevant to TiVo.

The biggest problem that TiVo has is that they don't have a DVR system. They have a DVR. Even though they invented the original MRV, they have not embraced the streaming model with a master/slave device. Maybe the Elite with it's little streamer will be the solution.

TiVo is facing an uphill battle in the first place. The Series 2 was an amazing device because it provided functionality that nothing else could, and it was revolutionary. Fast forward to today, and every MSO has their own DVR system, even in areas with two cable providers (either overbuilt or Verizon). In my own case, my family's TiVo died, Comcast added HD channels, and we got an HDTV all at about the same time. The TiVo Premiere just didn't add any value over the Comcast DVR, and now with AnyRoom, the Comcast DVR does MORE than TiVo would be able to do.

TiVo should have had a streaming system out several years ago. They could have been market leaders with this, not market laggards. What I think they also could have done is make a hardware/software solution with something like the Ceton card, PC software, and $100 extenders with all of the additional web functionality, in order to serve the enthusiast/hobbyist community. There is currently no well-integrated extender system, and something like this would be amazing. Plus, you would have had, even a year ago, something like a quad i7 at the center of it all to offload processing on to, so the system would be FAST.

They have dropped the ball on numerous other fronts. One that comes to mind is ClearQAM. That should be simple to implement.

From a company and public image perspective, however, the single worst thing that they did was sue Echostar. They turned themselves into a bunch of corrupt scumbags to chase down money with a ridiculous lawsuit. I would be extremely hesitant to ever buy from them again because of their reckless and obnoxious behavior in regards to the Echostar case.

As it remains now, MCE7 is the closest thing to the perfect DVR solution, the only thing it is really missing is a good extender solution that is compact, cheap, and has Netflix and everything else on it. It's hard to make a case for TiVo when MCE7 offers so much.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Bigg said:


> TiVo is facing an uphill battle in the first place. The Series 2 was an amazing device because it provided functionality that nothing else could, and it was revolutionary. Fast forward to today, and every MSO has their own DVR system, even in areas with two cable providers (either overbuilt or Verizon). In my own case, my family's TiVo died, Comcast added HD channels, and we got an HDTV all at about the same time. The TiVo Premiere just didn't add any value over the Comcast DVR, and now with AnyRoom, the Comcast DVR does MORE than TiVo would be able to do.


Are you claiming that ALL of your recordings are DRMed?

If not, then the Comcast DVR doesn't do more, as in a superset, of what the Tivo can do.. you can't download (some) shows to a computer for example.

..and the UI is still far worse (e.g. autorecording wishlists)

Don't get me wrong, I'm slightly even thinking about dealing with a "worse" UI (even more VCR-like) to save money.. but I still think the existing UI of the Tivos is still better than what I've seen on other systems.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

steve614 said:


> I believe the point is that the cost of ANY product you buy is higher than it needs to be. The cost of advertising (among other things) is passed on to the consumer one way or the other.


The price that any product should be sold for is the price that maximizes profits for the company producing it. Cost has nothing to do with it other than to determining if the product will continue to be offered for sale in the future or not. In an open market ultimately demand sets price, companies that can increase demand for their products can sell at higher prices and make more profits, Apple is a good example of a company that has successfully caused higher than normal demand for their products allowing them to have significantly higher profit margins than their competition.



steve614 said:


> I don't think it would matter one way or the other. The price of the product would not be affected. If the manufacturer didn't have to spend money on ads, that would just mean more profit for them. They certainly would not pass the savings on to the consumer.


While marketing over all is fairly complicated advertising is not. If a company spends a $1 on advertising they expect to increase profits not just revenue otherwise there is no reason to spend the money on advertising. I am sure there are times where they guess wrong and advertising does not increase profits but over all it does. The goal of advertising (and marketing in general) is to increase demand which should allow for a higher selling price and increased volume.

So while advertising hopefully does increase the price of products this is not necessarily a bad thing for consumers because without advertising the demand for many products would be too low to sustain their production. Meaning we actually have many more products to choose from because of advertising.

Where advertising hurts the consumer the most is in markets where advertising doesn't increase the over all demand for a type of product but just shifts sales from one producer to another.

Thanks,


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> How about only 9% are OtA only in 2010 according to neilson
> http://broadcastengineering.com/hdt...nly-tv-households-slip-below-10-percent-0504/
> 
> Ota only is a small market even with cord cutters increasing.


That sounds more like it. I used to know alot of people that were OTA only. But after the switch to digital, most of them went to FiOS, Comcast, and DirecTV. Of course my girlfriend is still OTA only which sucks since she also only has a 1.25Mbps DSL connection. And she is the opposite of the lower income group.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> Are you claiming that ALL of your recordings are DRMed?
> 
> If not, then the Comcast DVR doesn't do more, as in a superset, of what the Tivo can do.. you can't download (some) shows to a computer for example.
> 
> ...


DRM has nothing to do with anything, and no, I don't think they are.

The point is, we have a master/slave system, whereas with TiVo, we'd have ONE box. Yeah, theoretically we could have two, but for $1200 for two boxes, the ~$23/mo for the Comcast boxes makes a lot more sense, and we have a true master/slave system with OnDemand, not two full boxes like TiVo would require. The only system that I know of that can mix master/slave and master/master is the DirecTV HR series.

The UI on the Comcast boxes is actually faster to navigate through once you learn it. It's ugly as anything, but it's fast and functional. I will admit though, that for a larger family the Comcast system would crumble pretty quick, and the only scalable systems out there would be MCE7 or the DirecTV system. TiVo wouldn't be a contender, as at $600/box, it wouldn't make sense to outfit a whole house with TiVos. They also all have to run all the time, which isn't energy efficient in the least bit (nor are Comcast's boxes though).


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

They aren't using that much power. Many people still have incandescent bulbs in their homes wasting power. And anyone that is still using a few incandescent bulbs cannot complain about a device that uses 25 or 35 watts of power.


----------



## poppagene (Dec 29, 2001)

No OTA and no DLNA = No Sale. My Sony Blu ray player does a better job of accessing media on my network and internet content either through playon software or through built in apps. I don't need a device that is so heavily dependant on a cable subscription on top of the money paid for the Tivo service. I'll keep my two series 3 and plain premiere for OTA time shifting and get most of my content through my Sony blu rays.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> They aren't using that much power. Many people still have incandescent bulbs in their homes wasting power. And anyone that is still using a few incandescent bulbs cannot complain about a device that uses 25 or 35 watts of power.


+1 The average home uses 908 kWh per month while a 35-watt device uses 25 kWh per month. I would guess the average TiVo-using home exceeds that national average by a substantial amount, too (not because of their TiVo's but because their homes are upscale from the average home).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> They aren't using that much power. Many people still have incandescent bulbs in their homes wasting power. And anyone that is still using a few incandescent bulbs cannot complain about a device that uses 25 or 35 watts of power.


Well people need to get rid of their ancient incandescents, but that's another story.

My point is that if you have several TiVo Premieres running all the time, it adds up to a significant amount of power. If you have 4+ TV's, you're looking at 140+ watts of continuous power. Considering that light bulbs aren't on all the time, that starts to add up to quite a bit. For a system of that size, a single server that uses <100 watts is a better option, since it can serve all users in the house. Better yet would be a server that uses less.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

aridon said:


> An obvious shill on this forum.
> 
> Tivo is becoming a going concern. As the ship sinks more will bail out and flee to other platforms that are becoming superior. D* and Dish DVRs have been excellent for a couple of years now and now cable company and Uverse offerings are stepping up. Once more of them allow external drives it will be a lot easier for more of the loyal tivo base to flee like the rest of the rats already have. Tivo's days are numbered. Enjoy it as long as it lasts.


FYI phrasing nitpick. "Going concern" means doing ok, no major difficulties in the forseeable future. Basically the opposite of what the rest of your post was saying.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Well people need to get rid of their ancient incandescents, but that's another story.
> 
> My point is that if you have several TiVo Premieres running all the time, it adds up to a significant amount of power. If you have 4+ TV's, you're looking at 140+ watts of continuous power. Considering that light bulbs aren't on all the time, that starts to add up to quite a bit. For a system of that size, a single server that uses <100 watts is a better option, since it can serve all users in the house. Better yet would be a server that uses less.


To paraphrase a line from near the beginning of "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", anyone who would pay $4/gallon for gas would surely pay for 140+ watts of continuous power!


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

Jonathan_S said:


> FYI phrasing nitpick. "Going concern" means doing ok, no major difficulties in the forseeable future. Basically the opposite of what the rest of your post was saying.


They probably meant "growing concern" rather than "going concern".

Just a guess though.


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

Lots of people keep saying these boxes are old technology. Well, they are correct but there is a reason for that. Tivo needs to make an affordable box, both for the customer as well as any loss that they may take on each sale. If you want the latest processors, more tuner, larger harddrive, and so on - it ends up being the cost of a new PC. And its difficult to market a DVR at a $600 - $700 price. As a result, they need to use older technology to get the price to a reasonable range. Unfortunately this also effects what the software can do... It's a touch call for Tivo (and other similar companies and products) - you want top of the line hardware, but it has to be reasonably priced.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dlfl said:


> +1 The average home uses 908 kWh per month while a 35-watt device uses 25 kWh per month. I would guess the average TiVo-using home exceeds that national average by a substantial amount, too (not because of their TiVo's but because their homes are upscale from the average home).


I would love to have that. I live in a condo and my average monthly usage for the last 18 months has been around 1350kWh. Year over year my usage is lower although my average goes up some for the month I had some water damage last year and had fans and dehumidifiers running for a few days . I used around 2000kWh that month.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> To paraphrase a line from near the beginning of "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", anyone who would pay $4/gallon for gas would surely pay for 140+ watts of continuous power!


That's almost $1200 over five years of use! Granted, you have to use something, but that's a LOT! Based on $.19/kwh.

As to the cost of TiVo, the entry level box is $600, and now the Elite is $1K!!! Compare that to $15/mo from Comcast and the breakeven point is 3.5 years out. That being said, TiVo's only way to compete is based on features, and yet they don't even have a streaming system out there!!!!

1000kWh is a lot for the average house. At home, I think we were using between 700 and 1700kWh depending on season, but the house is more than 2x as big as average.


----------



## rayik (Feb 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> The OTA numbers aren't relevant to TiVo, as most of the OTA subs are low-income households or senior citizens, so it's not that relevant to TiVo.


That is not true in our household. I would not be surprised if more people who can afford satellite / cable decide to cut the cord. Why spend $80 - $100 for satellite / cable if you can watch the same shows with OTA and internet streaming for a small fraction of the cost.



Bigg said:


> The biggest problem that TiVo has is that they don't have a DVR system. They have a DVR. Even though they invented the original MRV, they have not embraced the streaming model with a master/slave device.


On the contrary, I wish TIVO would simply remain a DVR. Pluses for simple OTA viewers are:

two week guide in nice formats
searchable guide
UI (while others think it is dated, it does work)
Recording of shows

The basics of a nice guide, DVR and UI can not be underestimated for OTA when compared with the programing information available in the OTA broadcast.

I wish TIVO would remain only a DVR if they continue their present path of half baked internet streaming apps. (If TIVO implemented streaming with the same functionality / appearance as their DVR functions, then an all in one box would be a good thing.)



Bigg said:


> As it remains now, MCE7 is the closest thing to the perfect DVR solution, the only thing it is really missing is a good extender solution that is compact, cheap, and has Netflix and everything else on it. It's hard to make a case for TiVo when MCE7 offers so much.


I am tech savy. Set up a Media Center PC and liked it. Tech simple family did not like it. Family decided they preferred TIVO / ROKU combo to Media Center PC. If my non-tech family is any indication, there will be a market for OTA TIVO even in the internet streaming age.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

rayik said:


> That is not true in our household. I would not be surprised if more people who can afford satellite / cable decide to cut the cord. Why spend $80 - $100 for satellite / cable if you can watch the same shows with OTA and internet streaming for a small fraction of the cost.


I agree. I have always thought of cord cutters as middle upper class people. They are people who have discovered streaming boxes. They aren't really marketed to lower income people or senior citizens. They have found that Netflix/iTunes/Amazon/Hulu can more than meet their entertainment needs for MUCH less than a cable provider.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> ...only 9% are OtA only in 2010 according to neilson
> http://broadcastengineering.com/hdt...nly-tv-households-slip-below-10-percent-0504/
> 
> Ota only is a small market even with cord cutters increasing.





Bigg said:


> ..
> The OTA numbers aren't relevant to TiVo, as most of the OTA subs are low-income households or senior citizens, so it's not that relevant to TiVo.....





rayik said:


> That is not true in our household. I would not be surprised if more people who can afford satellite / cable decide to cut the cord. Why spend $80 - $100 for satellite / cable if you can watch the same shows with OTA and internet streaming for a small fraction of the cost.
> ....


No matter how one slices it- Folks with OTA only are a small segment. Whatever percentage are "poor" or "old" just takes away from the already tiny percentage. Cablecard tuning is multiples of OTA only. So if the choice is OTA -OR- Cablecard tuners anyone wanting to be mass market is going to be building cablecard.

that said-

here's another link with some more interesting numbers on OTA only:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/...Lang=en&newsId=20110606006638&div=-1063439563

these people say it's 15% OTA only with 4% cord cutters. The majority of cord cutters- 71% did so to be Cost Cutters- so they at least were thinking about money. 30% said pay tv didn't have value so those might be interested in a tivo?

they say poor folks making less than 30K are OTA only at twice the rate of those making over 30k. Those people aren't coming up with the money to buy a tivo.



> Lower-income households also trend towards broadcast-only television, with 23% of homes with an annual income under $30,000 receiving TV signals solely over-the-air. In comparison, 11% of homes with incomes greater than $30,000 rely exclusively on broadcast signals.


Interesting that not only is there % different from neilson (which i think MIGHT be because neilson measures different things )- but these people say it went up a percent last year instead of down a percent like neilson says.

Even if it is creeping up and is higher than neilson says it's still not a huge market and is probably somewhat economically challenged compared to people paying for TV.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> +1 The average home uses 908 kWh per month while a 35-watt device uses 25 kWh per month. I would guess the average TiVo-using home exceeds that national average by a substantial amount, too (not because of their TiVo's but because their homes are upscale from the average home).





dlfl said:


> To paraphrase a line from near the beginning of "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", anyone who would pay $4/gallon for gas would surely pay for 140+ watts of continuous power!





Bigg said:


> That's almost $1200 over five years of use! Granted, you have to use something, but that's a LOT! Based on $.19/kwh.


And just one car driven 15K miles per year and averaging 30 MPG will cost $10,000 for gas over 5 years at $4/gallon. Most households probably spend much more than this. And that's only a fraction of the total cost of owning and operating a car. If multiple TiVo's aren't worth $240/yr in electricity cost to you then fine ... don't have them. But keep it in perspective relative to your other expenditures.


Bigg said:


> .........1000kWh is a lot for the average house. At home, I think we were using between 700 and 1700kWh depending on season, but the house is more than 2x as big as average.


Hey, you'll have to argue with the U.S. Energy Information Agency, which I linked as the source for the 908 kWh/month average. That was in 2009, the last year reported, as updated June 1, this year.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> No matter how one slices it- Folks with OTA only are a small segment.


It's a growing segment. Cable is not.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

aadam101 said:


> It's a growing segment. Cable is not.


True point.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

csell said:


> Lots of people keep saying these boxes are old technology. Well, they are correct but there is a reason for that. Tivo needs to make an affordable box, both for the customer as well as any loss that they may take on each sale. If you want the latest processors, more tuner, larger harddrive, and so on - it ends up being the cost of a new PC. And its difficult to market a DVR at a $600 - $700 price. As a result, they need to use older technology to get the price to a reasonable range. Unfortunately this also effects what the software can do... It's a touch call for Tivo (and other similar companies and products) - you want top of the line hardware, but it has to be reasonably priced.


This smacks of almost Mac-like fanboy behavior. Stop apologizing for their ineptitude. I've been a Tivo customer for many years and love it's DVR ease of use and reliability. So don't count me as a detractor. But don't expect me to buy into your nonsense argument.

Yes, at one point chips cost enough to require a lot of cost-cutting. But that was mainly the heavy-lifting chips doing the video processing. Not the bottom-of-the-barrel CPU stuck in a Tivo. That's the weak point now, it can barely get out of it's own way once a lot of programming is stored or scheduled. It's pathetic that Tivo has done next to nothing to address this effectively. No, instead they glop on flash-based crap, making it newer hardware seem almost slower than the old gear!


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> It's a growing segment. Cable is not.


This likely has more to do with cable shooting itself in the foot than any benefits from OTA.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

rayik said:


> That is not true in our household. I would not be surprised if more people who can afford satellite / cable decide to cut the cord. Why spend $80 - $100 for satellite / cable if you can watch the same shows with OTA and internet streaming for a small fraction of the cost.
> 
> On the contrary, I wish TIVO would simply remain a DVR. Pluses for simple OTA viewers are:
> 
> ...


This whole cord-cutting thing is really over-hyped. I think it has and will continue to affect movie channels, VOD, rentals, since Netflix and the like are very good, but it affecting Digital Starter is silly. The fact remains that there is no way to legally get Discovery Networks content online in HD, and the cost of getting History and other channels is high. That, and ESPN is not available online, not are many other channels.

OTA is an even stronger case for MCE, as the tuners are cheaper. MCE7 has a really slick UI that's similar to TiVo and way ahead of any cable box. Not exactly hard to use.

Also, if you don't like the concept of a DVR system, then don't buy it! Hopefully for TiVo, the Elite will be part of a system, although at this point, I'm not really sure I want TiVo to survive. Maybe they should just become a piece of technology history.



dlfl said:


> Hey, you'll have to argue with the U.S. Energy Information Agency, which I linked as the source for the 908 kWh/month average. That was in 2009, the last year reported, as updated June 1, this year.


That number is correct, I am just saying people use a freaking lot of energy for the size of their houses.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> That, and ESPN is not available online, not are many other channels.


Doesn't ESPN have some sort of app that is available on XBOX? I'm not saying this is a great solution but it shows that ESPN is moving into the direction of the internet.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> It's a growing segment. Cable is not.


1) depends on who you beleive- neilson says it's NOT a growing segment.

2) so what if it's growing? It's still ~1/5 the size of the cablecard segment. I dont know what percentage cable is loosing a year. But assuming it loses 1% and OTA gains 1% each year that the second link i posted says. That's still like 15 YEARS till OTA catches up to cablecard served homes. In 15 years we'll have some other new FCC created change to deal with.

despite the OTA only folks dreams and feelings of importance, the segment just isn't worth it for Tivo while they still struggle to make money. (where's Bicker when you need him to explain how people are unreasonable. Gee- haven't seen him post in some time- hope he was just banned and nothing bad happened to him)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

another major draw of Pay TV are the RSN's. There are times of the year with the Yankees yes network has the largest nightly share in the NY DMA. I have thought of bailing on cable but the lack of RSN's and the discount for triple play keeps me stuck on.

ESPN- I'm not really up on too much- so excuse the ignorance.

But i think ESPN is likely the last to do anything that might remotely shake the status quo. Disney uses ESPN like a huge cinder block to bash in cable tv execs head every contract go around. They charge something like 7 bucks a subscriber in the basic tier (even though sports is a big draw plenty dont care at all)- then link it to paying crazy fees for toon disney or the like and finally extort big money with it for rebroadcasting ABC in their owned and operated markets. Bundle bundle bundle.

ESPN is Disney's holy grail of TV. They will be very careful how they proceed with selling that in anything non-traditional. They may be doing it now- but they will be careful to avoid any cannibalization of their cable tv ratings. So I doubt they will do anything that can sizeably allow people to cut the cord.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> despite the OTA only folks dreams and feelings of importance, the segment just isn't worth it for Tivo while they still struggle to make money. (where's Bicker when you need him to explain how people are unreasonable. Gee- haven't seen him post in some time- hope he was just banned and nothing bad happened to him)


Neither of us has enough data to know if what you stated is correct or not.

The article you pointed too in post 125 said they believed there were 17 million households using OTA only. What they didn't comment on is how many more households paying for cable or satellite also use OTA.

I would be willing to bet that TiVo doesn't have to guess what the market for an OTA premium DVR is they know and know if the marketing is growing or not.

The only data I have is that Solid Signal decided that selling the Premiere along with the other OTA DVRs they sell made sense and that TiVo thought it made sense to run an OTA service promotion to kick off Solid Signal's sales effort.

Thanks


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

wkearney99 said:


> This likely has more to do with cable shooting itself in the foot than any benefits from OTA.


Who cares what the reason is? It's growing. That's all TiVo cares about. I would think TiVo is even more attractive to OTA people. They are not spending all their money on cable.


----------



## uw69 (Jan 25, 2001)

aadam101 said:


> Who cares what the reason is? It's growing. That's all TiVo cares about. I would think TiVo is even more attractive to OTA people. They are not spending all their money on cable.


Absolutely correct!


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Who cares what the reason is? It's growing. That's all TiVo cares about. I would think TiVo is even more attractive to OTA people. They are not spending all their money on cable.


I'd think it unlikely someone cutting costs is going to look at the Tivo as an alternative. The naive among them thinking 'that much for, what, just a guide?" Even worse being misled with the whole 'cord cutting' nonsense. So how is Tivo going to appeal to these folks? Surely not with the lifetime option. And given the decline in subscribers it's unlikely they'd try dropping the monthly sub price. Perhaps as a starting period offer, maybe.

But there's still a lot of 'too little, too late' at play here.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

wkearney99 said:


> I'd think it unlikely someone cutting costs is going to look at the Tivo as an alternative. The naive among them thinking 'that much for, what, just a guide?" .........


I don't know how many know that the TiVo/Solid Signal promotion mentioned earlier provides $10/mo. subscriptions IF you stick to OTA only. There is a one year commitment and then monthly at the same rate from then on. Just go to www.solidsignal.com for the details.

To me the difference between $10 and $20 is an obvious Go/No-Go for OTA. Paying the same price for a small fraction of the data just seems obviously unacceptable to most folks.

But it currently is just a promotion, of course, ending 15 Nov.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wkearney99 said:


> I'd think it unlikely someone cutting costs is going to look at the Tivo as an alternative. The naive among them thinking 'that much for, what, just a guide?" Even worse being misled with the whole 'cord cutting' nonsense. So how is Tivo going to appeal to these folks? Surely not with the lifetime option. And given the decline in subscribers it's unlikely they'd try dropping the monthly sub price. Perhaps as a starting period offer, maybe.
> 
> But there's still a lot of 'too little, too late' at play here.


Apparently you have missed the current promotion where OTA users can get service for a Premiere for $10/mo. which is the permanent rate as long as you stay OTA only.

While I agree that some people who are OTA only are poor and can not afford pay TV the people I know using OTA (including me and I have 3 HD TiVos I use for OTA only) find it provides as much TV as they want and see no reason to pay for more.

If someone wants and is willing to pay for a DVR or not also have little to do with their TV source. DVRs are for time shifting and avoiding commercials. Many OTA programs are significantly enhanced when you can skip through the commercials. There are some other OTA DVRs however TiVos are significantly superior and I would say offer more value. Also unlike with cable/satellite you have no provider to rent a DVR from and no issues with cable cards or tuning adapters.

Thanks,


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Of course it makes sense to market to OTA once you have a cable-card-oriented device that can also use OTA. The OTA-only are a small group of people, and will be as long as the vast majority of the content is only available on cable or satellite. The locals are basically a set of mostly junk channels that are somewhere in the lineup.


----------



## solutionsetc (Apr 2, 2009)

TiVo will always cost more than a cable box. To make that existence viable there have to be compelling reasons for a customer to spend the extra money. TiVo lost their way in being able to address this years ago.

I don't want rentals and web content as I can get those in a $50-99 box with no monthly fees. What I want is a better DVR experience and TiVo has not improved this since TiVo Search Beta (which still fails miserably much of the time due to spotty data).

The new hardware could have been a great start, but they chose to bog it down by shortcutting the development of the interface with Flash. Inexplicable decision... unless they just can't cut code anymore.

But many of us here have been saying this for years and it hasn't changed and guess what, it won't. TiVo wants to be a mainstream consumer product instead of a high end device, and this dooms them to failure as the cable boxes are getting better and "appear" to be free.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> Doesn't ESPN have some sort of app that is available on XBOX? I'm not saying this is a great solution but it shows that ESPN is moving into the direction of the internet.


ESPN's newly updated app on the Xbox is absolutely amazing.


----------



## rayik (Feb 4, 2006)

wkearney99 said:


> I'd think it unlikely someone cutting costs is going to look at the Tivo as an alternative. The naive among them thinking 'that much for, what, just a guide?" Even worse being misled with the whole 'cord cutting' nonsense. So how is Tivo going to appeal to these folks?


Here' show to appeal to cord cutters with OTA: A non-DVR TIVO with a single OTA tunner, the current guide (sorting options) and no monthly subscription. No real development needed - reuse parts bin and software.

It would be a simple device for anyone to understand and use (Antenna > box ? HDTV).

If it was $75, I'd buy one today for every TV in the house.

Better yet - why can't TIVO get a partner deal to have that build into HDTVs. Win-win for everyone. No hardware cost for TIVO, selling point for HDTV manufacturer and great interface for the purchaser to see what is being broadcast.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

rayik said:


> A non-DVR TIVO with a single OTA tunner, the current guide (sorting options) and no monthly subscription would be something I'd buy today. No real development needed - reuse parts bin and software.
> 
> It would be a simple device for anyone to understand and use (Antenna > box ? HDTV).
> 
> I'd pay $75 for such a device. At that price and with volume, it would be profitable for TIVO.


Why would anyone buy an OTA Tuner? Pretty much any newer TV has one built in. If your saying to build a Roku competitor with a built in Tuner why do you think TiVo could add a tuner, provide guide data and sell it for less and still make money?


----------



## rayik (Feb 4, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> Why would anyone buy an OTA Tuner? Pretty much any newer TV has one built in. If your saying to build a Roku competitor with a built in Tuner why do you think TiVo could add a tuner, provide guide data and sell it for less and still make money?


Why buy it? For the guide. OTA broadcast guide is very bad.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

rayik said:


> Why buy it? For the guide. OTA broadcast guide is very bad.


That's why they put TV guides in the Sunday Paper . Without a DVR the need for extended detailed guide data for a TV is pretty limited. I do agree that the data you can get through the OTA broadcasts in limited in many areas. That is why a TiVo is so much better than the other 2 OTA DVRs available.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

rayik said:


> Better yet - why can't TIVO get a partner deal to have that build into HDTVs. Win-win for everyone. No hardware cost for TIVO, selling point for HDTV manufacturer and great interface for the purchaser to see what is being broadcast.


They are already partnered with BestBuy, building Tivo software into TVs, are they not?

As far as your $75 OTA-only no-sbscription box, it'll never happen. On direct sales, Tivo makes its money off the subscription fees. I doubt $75 is even enough to fund the development and support costs, let alone make a profit.


----------



## rayik (Feb 4, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> That's why they put TV guides in the Sunday Paper .


Households that "cut the cord" save even more money by getting their news online rather than paper subscriptions. I know what you are saying, there are other ready sources for a TV guide, so there is no need to respond.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

What about the fact good OTA beats that Qam 256 junk in delivering a better picture?


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

rayik said:


> Here' show to appeal to cord cutters with OTA: A non-DVR TIVO with a single OTA tunner, the current guide (sorting options) and no monthly subscription. No real development needed - reuse parts bin and software.
> 
> It would be a simple device for anyone to understand and use (Antenna > box ? HDTV).


This is essentially what the Tivo Preview is, except that the tuner is digital cable (may also be OTA, but don't know). It's designed to be a stand-alone cable box and/or an exender for a Tivo Premiere.

Tivo has announced this box for MSOs, but not for retail (yet).


----------



## csell (Apr 16, 2007)

wkearney99 said:


> This smacks of almost Mac-like fanboy behavior. Stop apologizing for their ineptitude.


Read my posts from the first few pages of this thread - I am doing anything but apologyzing for their ineptitude. I have been saying if they stay the same course, they will be out of business in a few years.



wkearney99 said:


> But don't expect me to buy into your nonsense argument.


. It's anything but a nonsense argument - it is fact. The more powerful a system they build, the more expensive it will be the user. The more expensive the unit, then less buyers. So finding the middle ground is very tricky. This isn't just for Tivo's - its the same for smartphones, touchpads, mp3 players and so on.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

rayik said:


> Here' show to appeal to cord cutters with OTA: A non-DVR TIVO with a single OTA tunner, the current guide (sorting options) and no monthly subscription. No real development needed - reuse parts bin and software.
> 
> It would be a simple device for anyone to understand and use (Antenna > box ? HDTV).
> 
> ...


That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It would be totally pointless, and TV is useless without a DVR anyways.



Joe3 said:


> What about the fact good OTA beats that Qam 256 junk in delivering a better picture?


Bitrate and modulation are two separate things. Cable companies often take the ATSC-8VSB signal and just re-modulate it as ATSC-QAM, and it's bit for bit the same.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Bigg said:


> The locals are Cable is basically a set of mostly junk channels that are somewhere in the lineup that you'll never watch, but have to pay for anyway.


FYP. 



atmuscarella said:


> That's why they put TV guides in the Sunday Paper .


Not anymore, at least around here. The Dallas Morning News stopped printing a weekly guide. AFAIK, now all they provide is a prime time only daily listing in the entertainment section.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Joe3 said:


> What about the fact good OTA beats that Qam 256 junk in delivering a better picture?


It's the same here on FiOS. They look the same and identical recordings from FiOS and OTA will have basically the same file size for each show.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

I am OTA. Maybe someday I will add cable or sat. However, even if I did, I would still want my local network stations OTA HD broadcast. I have seen the locals on Dish and the local cable co. - Just not the same quality. The cable co does reasonably well with the locals, though with faster action there is often some level of artifacts and pixelation. Dish with bad weather and heavy snow can be problematic - and OTA never just disappears like Dish channels apparently can.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> It's a growing segment. Cable is not.


I'd have to agree with this. Once upon a time, before digital TV became mandatory, people could either subscribe to cable or satellite or suffer through the use of an OTA antenna and struggle to try and receive terrestrial broadcasts riddled with snow. Along came HDTV and people started to see that they could get just as good a picture through their old rooftop antenna as they now did by paying high prices for digital cable or satellite. Many folks started to look at their budget and realized they were paying a lot for only a handful of channels they watched when they could get a lot of channels with programming they liked absolutely free.

HDTVs made OTA reception desirable again. CableTV and satellite contains a vast wasteland of unwatched channels that we are forced to subscribe to just to see a handful of channels that we actually want. The realization that the loss of a few channels vs. a sizable increase in monthly income by dropping their monthly TV service has converted many of us to OTA only once again. It's also a valid reason to dump Tivo if you only record OTA channels. The circle is now complete.

OTA-only TV viewers may want to check this out:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Channel-Master-TV-Combines-Free-HDTV-with-Free-DVR.shtml


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

rayik said:


> Here' show to appeal to cord cutters with OTA: A non-DVR TIVO with a single OTA tunner, the current guide (sorting options) and no monthly subscription. No real development needed - reuse parts bin and software.
> 
> It would be a simple device for anyone to understand and use (Antenna > box ? HDTV).
> 
> ...


Best Buy is selling TVs with the Tivo interface and guide information for OTA.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'd have to agree with this. Once upon a time, before digital TV became mandatory, people could either subscribe to cable or satellite or suffer through the use of an OTA antenna and struggle to try and receive terrestrial broadcasts riddled with snow. Along came HDTV and people started to see that they could get just as good a picture through their old rooftop antenna as they now did by paying high prices for digital cable or satellite. Many folks started to look at their budget and realized they were paying a lot for only a handful of channels they watched when they could get a lot of channels with programming they liked absolutely free.
> 
> HDTVs made OTA reception desirable again. CableTV and satellite contains a vast wasteland of unwatched channels that we are forced to subscribe to just to see a handful of channels that we actually want. The realization that the loss of a few channels vs. a sizable increase in monthly income by dropping their monthly TV service has converted many of us to OTA only once again. It's also a valid reason to dump Tivo if you only record OTA channels. The circle is now complete.
> 
> ...


Too many missing features for me. Besides, the HD is too small and it doesn't look like I can pull programs for viewing on other devices. And why pay $400 when I can get a TiVo for less than $100 and pay $9.95 a month with OTA? Or about $100 more with Lifetime and I get a better box with great recording options - not a DVR that requires you to set recordings like it is a VCR? Who wants that? And have you seen 'free' OTA broadcast info? I do not think there are any markets where you can go up to 2 weeks in advance.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> I'd have to agree with this. Once upon a time, before digital TV became mandatory, people could either subscribe to cable or satellite or suffer through the use of an OTA antenna and struggle to try and receive terrestrial broadcasts riddled with snow. Along came HDTV and people started to see that they could get just as good a picture through their old rooftop antenna as they now did by paying high prices for digital cable or satellite. Many folks started to look at their budget and realized they were paying a lot for only a handful of channels they watched when they could get a lot of channels with programming they liked absolutely free.
> 
> HDTVs made OTA reception desirable again. CableTV and satellite contains a vast wasteland of unwatched channels that we are forced to subscribe to just to see a handful of channels that we actually want. The realization that the loss of a few channels vs. a sizable increase in monthly income by dropping their monthly TV service has converted many of us to OTA only once again. It's also a valid reason to dump Tivo if you only record OTA channels. The circle is now complete.
> 
> ...


I have been watch TV from an antenna for whole life (50 plus years). The OTA analog SD picture on my old SD TV was nearly as good as the SD digital picture I was getting from DishNetwork at the time. Yes I had (and still have) reception problems with OTA at times but for the most part it was and is just fine. My parents are over 75 years into watching OTA and since they put an outside antenna up in the early 70s have always had a clear picture.

Regarding not needing a TiVo for OTA. Frankly I don't get why people think watching OTA TV without a DVR is any more acceptable than watching cable/satellite TV without a DVR. Perhaps a DVR is more important to me than some as I have to time shift 100% of my TV viewing but even if I was wiling and able to live my life around a TV schedule having to deal with almost 20 minutes of commercials per hour that you get with live OTA TV would drive me nuts.

Regarding the OTA DVR alternatives to TiVo. I am glad they are available but I don't think they save you enough money to justify giving up TiVo's superior DVR abilities. Specifically the one you pointed too is $100 less ($400) than what I can buy a Premiere with lifetime for. The unit it will be replacing is $200 less ($290) and there is a single tuner unit from another manufacture that is $300 less ($199). The 2 cheaper units are not connect to the Internet and basically have the same functionality level as a VCR. The new $400 unit is a "smart" or internet connected DVR but it is still providing DVR functionality that is closer to a VCR than a TiVo.

Thanks,


----------



## rayik (Feb 4, 2006)

Bigg said:


> rayik said:
> 
> 
> > Here' show to appeal to cord cutters with OTA: A non-DVR TIVO with a single OTA tunner, the current guide (sorting options) and no monthly subscription. No real development needed - reuse parts bin and software.
> ...


You probably do not do internet streaming. Think of internet streaming as a giant DVR with tons and tons of available programs. Now combine that with OTA. There is no longer such a need to record OTA shows.

Of course, we use a TIVO for OTA because we do want to record what is on. However, for 2nd or 3rd TVs in the house, no need to record on those sets and just the TIVO guide would be nice.

No insult taken by your comment.


----------



## rayik (Feb 4, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> I have been watch TV from an antenna for whole life (50 plus years). The OTA analog SD picture on my old SD TV was nearly as good as the SD digital picture I was getting from DishNetwork at the time. Yes I had (and still have) reception problems with OTA at times but for the most part it was and is just fine. My patients are over 75 years into watching OTA and since they put an outside antenna up in the early 70s have always had a clear picture.
> 
> Regarding not needing a TiVo for OTA. Frankly I don't get why people think watching OTA TV without a DVR is any more acceptable than watching cable/satellite TV without a DVR. Perhaps a DVR is more important to me than some as I have to time shift 100% of my TV viewing but even if I was wiling and able to live my life around a TV schedule having to deal with almost 20 minutes of commercials per hour that you get with live OTA TV would drive me nuts.


I'm with you all the way atmuscarella. We have the occasional glitches with OTA (particularly in stormy weather). However, the picture quality is great and most of what we were watching with Satellite is broadcast OTA. I agree a DVR is great to skip the commercials on OTA broadcasts.

I don't know why, but there does seem to be a stigma attached with OTA. People I talk to uniformly are surprised you can get HD with OTA. They also seem to look at OTA as something you do only when you cannot afford satellite or cable.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> I have been watch TV from an antenna for whole life (50 plus years). The OTA analog SD picture on my old SD TV was nearly as good as the SD digital picture I was getting from DishNetwork at the time. Yes I had (and still have) reception problems with OTA at times but for the most part it was and is just fine. My *patients* are over 75 years into watching OTA and since they put an outside antenna up in the early 70s have always had a clear picture.


I am losing patients with your typos, sir! 


atmuscarella said:


> Regarding not needing a TiVo for OTA. Frankly I don't get why people think watching OTA TV without a DVR is any more acceptable than watching cable/satellite TV without a DVR. Perhaps a DVR is more important to me than some as I have to time shift 100% of my TV viewing but even if I was wiling and able to live my life around a TV schedule having to deal with almost 20 minutes of commercials per hour that you get with live OTA TV would drive me nuts.
> 
> Regarding the OTA DVR alternatives to TiVo. I am glad they are available but I don't think they save you enough money to justify giving up TiVo's superior DVR abilities. Specifically the one you pointed too is $100 less ($400) than what I can buy a Premiere with lifetime for. The unit it will be replacing is $200 less ($290) and there is a single tuner unit from another manufacture that is $300 less ($199). The 2 cheaper units are not connect to the Internet and basically have the same functionality level as a VCR. The new $400 unit is a "smart" or internet connected DVR but it is still providing DVR functionality that is closer to a VCR than a TiVo. ........


I think the $199 box you refer to is the Brite-View BV-980H (?). I looked into it a little just out of curiosity. It has a single tuner and a 320 GB drive. On the AVS forum thread concerning it I found a post stating the response of the program guide was extremely slow. It has no internet connection and gets the program info from the EPG data transmitted with the signal. Apparently when you scroll the PG it tunes each channel being displayed and re-loads the EPG data. This has the advantage of simpler, cheaper software and hardware and also ensures the PG data is always updated. This would seem to imply that you can't watch or record a channel and look at the PG simultaneously, which seems lame beyond belief. The other issue is that broadcast EPG is spotty, with quality varying a lot from station to station, according to other posts I've seen.

I know this particular product wouldn't satisfy me just because it has only one tuner and I'm so spoiled by having 2 tuners for years with TiVo's. However I don't find it hard to justify paying way more than $200 for a better 2-tuner OTA PVR since it would eliminate the need for a TiVo subscription, not to mention the Cable TV bill.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I am losing patients with your typos, sir!


 Ya auto correct gets me way to often.



dlfl said:


> I think the $199 box you refer to is the Brite-View BV-980H (?). I looked into it a little just out of curiosity. It has a single tuner and a 320 GB drive. On the AVS forum thread concerning it I found a post stating the response of the program guide was extremely slow. It has no internet connection and gets the program info from the EPG data transmitted with the signal. Apparently when you scroll the PG it tunes each channel being displayed and re-loads the EPG data. This has the advantage of simpler, cheaper software and hardware and also ensures the PG data is always updated. This would seem to imply that you can't watch or record a channel and look at the PG simultaneously, which seems lame beyond belief. The other issue is that broadcast EPG is spotty, with quality varying a lot from station to station, according to other posts I've seen.
> 
> I know this particular product wouldn't satisfy me just because it has only one tuner and I'm so spoiled by having 2 tuners for years with TiVo's. However I don't find it hard to justify paying way more than $200 for a better 2-tuner OTA PVR since it would eliminate the need for a TiVo subscription, not to mention the Cable TV bill.


I have spent a great deal of time looking at all the OTA DVR options and for me I ended up with 3 HD TiVos. The savings going with the lower cost options have just never been worth it for me. However I do see a place for everything out there and would say people should look at them all.

What I find interesting is what you get at various price points. 

$200 = single tuner VCR type DVR with No internet access
$300 = dual tuner VCR tyle DVR with No internet access
$400 = dual tuner VCR+ type DVR with Internet/smart TV access
$400 +/- = used Series 3/TiVo HD with lifetime service & likely a hard drive upgrade. 
$470-$600 = New TiVo Premiere with lifetime service
Not sure what the above says other than anyone who thinks a new Premiere could sell for $3-400 with lifetime is dreaming. Of course there is also the HTPC route which can run anywhere from maybe a low of $500 to however much someone wants to spend.

Thanks,


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The content just isn't there on OTA. History, Discovery, CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, the list just goes on. There's not much on the networks anymore, and I have found that while most reality shows are over-produced and hyper-edited, the ones on the nets are quite a bit worse than the ones on Discovery and History. However, for someone who basically doesn't watch TV, I could see OTA being a good medium between not having TV at all and paying $78/mo for cable.

However, OTA is a good backup. Over labor day I was home and my parents had no Comcast service (TV or internet) even though the power was restored after the storm, so I pulled out my little antenna, and after a few minutes of fiddling with it Voila! there was ~20 channels (including subchannels), so we could watch the local news and such. If I had an MCE box, I'd probably have OTA just to get additional tuners cheaply, have DRM-free content, and add some redundancy into the system.

The price points may make no sense for OTA DVRs, as it is such a small market that devices like TiVo aren't targeted at that market.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> .......What I find interesting is what you get at various price points.
> 
> $200 = single tuner VCR stype DVR with No internet access
> $300 = dual tuner VCR style DVR with No internet access
> ...


I'm curious what units fall into the "$400 = dual tuner VCR+ stype DVR with Internet/smart TV access" category? Not sure what you mean by "smart" but I would like to have season pass capability with ability to exclude reruns, as a minimum. Also, what means "stype DVR" ?

Thanks


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> The content just isn't there on OTA. History, Discovery, CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, the list just goes on. There's not much on the networks anymore, and I have found that while most reality shows are over-produced and hyper-edited, the ones on the nets are quite a bit worse than the ones on Discovery and History. However, for someone who basically doesn't watch TV, I could see OTA being a good medium between not having TV at all and paying $78/mo for cable.


The value of content is in the eyes of the beholder.

I had Dishnetwork for close to a decade and I can count the number of times I watched shows on History, Discovery, MSNBC, & Comedy central on one hand. At the end about the only channels I was watching (beyond surfing) was SyFy, USA, & TNT.

On the other hand my TiVos have about 80 season passes for OTA shows. Sure I didn't and will not watch all of them but I find more than enough to provide 2+/- hrs. of content per day (which is all the time I have to watch TV). Including more news than I can stand watching.

Thanks,


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I'm curious what units fall into the "$400 = dual tuner VCR+ stype DVR with Internet/smart TV access" category? Not sure what you mean by "smart" but I would like to have season pass capability with ability to exclude reruns, as a minimum. Also, what means "stype DVR" ?
> 
> Thanks


I sure seem to be having a bad typing day . AnywayI was talking about the soon to be released Channel Master one being posted about on various blogs and in several threads on this forum.

The term "smart" is now being used to describe TVs, blu-ray players, & DVRs that can access Internet streaming media. As far as I can tell the term "Smart" doesn't have anything to do with the "Smart" DVR's actual DVR features (or in other words is really a marketing term).

From all the reviews I have read it is still unclear how advanced the new Channel Master DVR's actual DVR features will be. I said VCR+ like because it looks like they will be more advanced than the current Channel Master OTA DVR but likely still significantly behind a TiVo's. We should know in a few weeks when reviewers actual get units to test.

Thanks,


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

Bigg said:


> The content just isn't there on OTA. History, Discovery, CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, the list just goes on.


I agree. In fact the part of my TV viewing I could most easily do away with is the OTA stuff - the prime time shows we do watch show up on Netflix et al. fairly quickly, and the current season can usually be found on the network website.

What I would find harder to replace is the cable channels (BBC America, Speed, Versus, and the like) that we watch for news and sports coverage. I didn't include SyFy or USA here, as they fall into roughly the same availability category as the OTA networks.

For entertainment shows, I'm not too bothered if I'm a week (or even an entire season) behind. The same goes for movies, which is why I dropped almost all the premium channels several years ago and switched to Netflix.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

rayik said:


> I don't know why, but there does seem to be a stigma attached with OTA. People I talk to uniformly are surprised you can get HD with OTA. They also seem to look at OTA as something you do only when you cannot afford satellite or cable.


Yeah, I have come across several people who ask if I had seen <some show on cable> and then look at me funny when I say "I don't have cable".
Any show that I care to see that is broadcasted on cable, I can get over the internet. It may be a season behind, but I can still get it.



Bigg said:


> The content just isn't there on OTA.


Matter of perspective. I've never paid for cable* so maybe I don't know what I'm missing.
I am OTA only, and I record WAY more than I can watch. 
One example: I still have 4 seasons of Supernatural to get through.
As stated above, I can get other shows I care about via other means, but those are very few. The vast majority of what I watch comes from the OTA networks.

* I did have basic cable once when a "friend" illegally hooked me up. The extra channels were a nice addition, but I didn't miss them when they went away.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> I agree. In fact the part of my TV viewing I could most easily do away with is the OTA stuff - the prime time shows we do watch show up on Netflix et al. fairly quickly, and the current season can usually be found on the network website.
> 
> What I would find harder to replace is the cable channels (BBC America, Speed, Versus, and the like) that we watch for news and sports coverage. I didn't include SyFy or USA here, as they fall into roughly the same availability category as the OTA networks.
> 
> For entertainment shows, I'm not too bothered if I'm a week (or even an entire season) behind. The same goes for movies, which is why I dropped almost all the premium channels several years ago and switched to Netflix.


Yeah, Discovery is probably the worst in terms of online licensing for stuff. There is almost nothing from them in HD online. A lot of the cable stuff too is a little farther down the curve, so to speak, so it's not always as available (or available at all) online, since there's not as much of a push to get it up as there is for a lot of the network stuff.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

rayik said:


> You probably do not do internet streaming. Think of internet streaming as a giant DVR with tons and tons of available programs. Now combine that with OTA. There is no longer such a need to record OTA shows.


Except:
(1) Shows aren't available on Internet streaming forever (e.g. just last night I tried to find an episode of Parks & Recreation from this season that had the VERY VERY end cut off.. I don't really think I missed any dialogue, but I was willing to let it play through the ads a few times so I could skip to the end to actually make sure.. but that episode wasn't available anymore)... Especially not for free (i.e. commercial supported).

(2) Similar, but you can't get shows "without" commercials (i.e. skip over commercials), at least not for "free" (already recorded them).

I'm turning off Netflix streaming (due to the price increase), but if they had all primetime network shows, even a year after originally airing (e.g. similar to what I did for HBO shows, wait for the DVD), then I would kind of agree with you.


----------

