# An Open Letter to TiVo From a Long-Time Customer



## konakahuna (Mar 3, 2006)

This may achieve nothing, but in hopes that someone close to TiVo might stumble upon this and take some of it to heart, here it goes....

Dear TiVo,

For years, I've been an enthusiastic TiVo supporter. I bought several series2 models not only for myself, but for my parents and for my mother-in-law. I recommended TiVo to anyone wanting a DVR. When I went HD, i upgraded both myself and my parents to a TiVo HD. I even bought a TiVo plush toy for the entertainment center.

But lately, it's getting harder and harder to feel good about TiVo. My father recently asked me if he should upgrade from a TiVoHD to a new premiere. For the first time ever, I told him to stay away. The reasons are varied, but taken together...they paint a picture of a company that has lost its will as well as its way.

I was initially excited about the possibilities for the TiVo premiere, until I saw that the basic functionality is largely unchanged and nearly all of the new features are themselves little more than fixes to longstanding problems. More recording space? I should hope so. A native HD UI? After years of limping along with a stretched, ugly hacked version of your old interface this is long long overdue. A capacity meter? Yes, I'm glad it's finally there, but people have been begging for this since the series2 debuted a decade ago. online scheduling? it's been there for years.

More distressing to me is what TiVo chose to leave out of the new model. No extra tuners. No enhanced networking or transfer capability. My 8 year old digital camera can be retrofitted with a wi-fi memory card easier and cheaper than my state-of-the-art TiVo can. I understand the need to keep costs in line, but which do you think costs more in the long run, a $20 wi-fi chip or a long line of annoyed customers generating reams of bad press when they discover they have to pay for an outboard adapter?

The same holds true for your new QWERTY remote. It's arguably the best feature on the new premiere and it's something that you decided was best left out of the box. Which do you think is more damaging to TiVo in the long-term...a slightly more expensive box or a less-compelling DVR? People whose primary consideration is price aren't going to buy a TiVo. They'll rent a DVR from their local cable company because it's cheaper. People come to TiVo because they're looking for a *better* DVR experience. A more functional remote would have made the TiVo experience better. left out, it's just...cheaper. And the list goes on. TiVo-To-Go functionality for mac users is yet another extra cost add-on. Windows users get this functionality for free. Do you realize that buying this functionality from roxio costs anywhere from $50-$100? How much goodwill do you think that generates for you? What message do you think that decision sends to your mac-using customers?

There are pages and pages here in this forum dedicated to performance problems and glitches with the new box. You probably saw your subscriber base dwindling and knew you had to do something to generate some excitement...so you released a product before it was ready, thinking that the damage done by some rough edges would be preferable to the added delay. At a time when you're trying to make the case for TiVo's relevance and long-term stability, the worst thing you could do is to make products which are either unmemorable or unreliable. TiVo's technical issues can be solved by uploading new software. Unfortunately you can't fix unhappy customers so easily. They have friends. They talk. They blog. They move on.

It may seem after all this that I'm somehow eager to abandon TiVo. The truth is, I'd like nothing better than to stay. My family loves TiVo and it pains me to see its subscriber base dwindling and its market lead being slowly eaten away. I want to be able to recommend TiVo products unreservedly again. I want to feel that TiVo listens to its customers and is truly passionate about delivering a first rate TV experience.

I truly hope you find a way to get back to the company you used to be.

thanks for listening.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

You might want to send this to TiVo if you want the company to see it. This site is not part of TiVo, Inc.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Kablemodem said:


> You might want to send this to TiVo if you want the company to see it. This site is not part of TiVo, Inc.


This is the Tivo Community Forum. It was established with the help and support of Tivo Inc. Some CSRs (I've been told) still recommend it for technical support. The presence of helpful Tivo personnel here has been continuous and effective, until relatively recently.

Of course you are absolutely correct. Today's Tivo probably cares nothing about this place. But I doubt they care about customers or their letters either.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The letter is well-written, and rife with melodrama and unfounded expectations. Send it to TiVo -- they may need some scrap paper to write on the back of.


----------



## konakahuna (Mar 3, 2006)

Wil said:


> This is the Tivo Community Forum. It was established with the help and support of Tivo Inc. Some CSRs (I've been told) still recommend it for technical support. The presence of helpful Tivo personnel here has been continuous and effective, until relatively recently.
> 
> Of course you are absolutely correct. Today's Tivo probably cares nothing about this place. But I doubt they care about customers or their letters either.


i know it's an unaffiliated site...but i know at least some tivo employees used to hang out here. as for sending it to tivo...i would if i had a way. the last time i checked, their "contact" form is still a feature request form with only one little box at the end for actually saying anything.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

konakahuna said:


> i know it's a separate site...but i know at least some tivo people used to hang out here.


Posters were getting progressively more vicious and unreasonable; I think that seriously adversely affected TiVo personnel's participation here.



konakahuna said:


> as for sending it to tivo...i would if i had a way.


TiVo
2160 Gold Street, P.O.Box 2160
Alviso, CA 95002-2160


----------



## jbernardis (Oct 22, 2003)

konakahuna said:


> ...
> 
> My 8 year old digital camera can be retrofitted with a wi-fi memory card easier and cheaper than my state-of-the-art TiVo can. I understand the need to keep costs in line, but which do you think costs more in the long run, a $20 wi-fi chip or a long line of annoyed customers generating reams of bad press when they discover they have to pay for an outboard adapter?
> ...


I sort of agree that the premier has been completely underwhelming. Tivo should have given me the desire to upgrade my series 3's and my TivoHD, but no thanks. I think I'll keep my present hardware thank you very much. There is absolutely no compelling reason to shell out a lot of money to get basically what I already have (except for possibly a future HD interface).

One point where I disagree with the OP, though, is on the wifi adaptor. I see several people make this point, but my network happens to be wired, and I suspect I am not alone in this regard. I do not want the cost of my hardware artificially inflated for a feature I don't want or need. I think the outboard adaptor is a perfect solution. Maybe we could argue over the price - I'm with you on that.


----------



## turbobozz (Sep 21, 2006)

konakahuna said:


> This may achieve nothing, but in hopes that someone close to TiVo might stumble upon this and take some of it to heart, here it goes....
> 
> Dear TiVo,
> 
> ...


Kona, I feel much the same way.
Blame it on CableLabs/Cable Co.s for stifling the market, if you want.
Blame it on TiVo for not investing enough into truly refining their software and actually fixing long standing issues.
It doesn't really matter who you feel like blaming... TiVo has some very real competitors coming in fast, and yet TiVo still seems to be spinning its wheels in the mud lately.
I would love it if TiVo got its act together, but it feels more and more like we will be parting ways soon.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I agree with that 100%.



bicker said:


> Posters were getting progressively more vicious and unreasonable; I think that seriously adversely affected TiVo personnel's participation here.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Wil said:


> This is the Tivo Community Forum. It was established with the help and support of Tivo Inc. Some CSRs (I've been told) still recommend it for technical support. The presence of helpful Tivo personnel here has been continuous and effective, until relatively recently.
> 
> Of course you are absolutely correct. Today's Tivo probably cares nothing about this place. But I doubt they care about customers or their letters either.


TiVo apparently does care less about this place than they did in the past. They even started up their own official forums on their own website.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

"Started up"? Those forums have been there for quite a while.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

TIVO makes money selling the wireless adapter separately, and they hope to make money selling the new remote separately.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> "Started up"? Those forums have been there for quite a while.


You just love being the contrarian, don't you?

When I meant "started up" I didn't mean that they did so yesterday. I meant that they did so a few years ago.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Well, that's the way I would have read it too. It sounded like you're saying that they recently did that and that is the reason why they've not been around here as much.



Raj said:


> You just love being the contrarian, don't you?
> 
> When I meant "started up" I didn't mean that they did so yesterday. I meant that they did so a few years ago.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The letter is well-written, and rife with melodrama and unfounded expectations. Send it to TiVo -- they may need some scrap paper to write on the back of.


 +1



konakahuna said:


> i know it's an unaffiliated site...but i know at least some tivo employees used to hang out here. as for sending it to tivo...i would if i had a way. the last time i checked, their "contact" form is still a feature request form with only one little box at the end for actually saying anything.


TiVo reps will see your post, they may or may not print it. Frankly though if you can not be bothered to find the snail mail address of TiVo inc. and print out a nice looking letter and sign it and buy a stamp then that is just more melodrama on your part.


shwru980r said:


> TIVO makes money selling the wireless adapter separately, and they hope to make money selling the new remote separately.


I thought the OP had made some point that TiVo users are willing to pay more for a better DVR experience but then wants TiVo to include QWERTY remote in box so he does not have to pay as much for the QWERTY remote, hmmm.

Same with a WiFi adapter that can be changed as needed to keep up with new standards and not everyone needs them. For a TiVo wired is really best anyway, so if you can not have wire then get the adapter - if price is not an issue then what is the big deal? Hook up the USB cable (plug in the newest adapter) and go to the screen that lets you enter the stuff - that sounds as simple as a wifi card in a camera to me.

Oh - and the forum at tivo.com is _strictly_ about *official* support. It is a very different thing.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

magnus said:


> Well, that's the way I would have read it too. It sounded like you're saying that they recently did that and that is the reason why they've not been around here as much.


YOu're reading too much into my posts. I've been around here a long time and I've mentioned TiVo's own forums in the past around here...


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

So your Siberian Tiger has reverted to wild behavior and mauled you when you got more familiar with it than one normally should ever expect to get with a wild animal? The surprise is not the mauling -- it's the fact it ever acted so tame to begin with.

There is an analogy to TiVo and its customers in there -- think about it.

Hint: Don't expect businesses to operate as Kum-by-yah charities for the benefit of consumers. If it does happen for a short period with one company, just be thankful for what you got.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

jbernardis said:


> I sort of agree that the premier has been completely underwhelming. Tivo should have given me the desire to upgrade my series 3's and my TivoHD, but no thanks. I think I'll keep my present hardware thank you very much. There is absolutely no compelling reason to shell out a lot of money to get basically what I already have (except for possibly a future HD interface).
> 
> One point where I disagree with the OP, though, is on the wifi adaptor. I see several people make this point, but my network happens to be wired, and I suspect I am not alone in this regard. I do not want the cost of my hardware artificially inflated for a feature I don't want or need. I think the outboard adaptor is a perfect solution. Maybe we could argue over the price - I'm with you on that.


I just bought a Roku box with integrated wifi and dude, the cheap one is only $79.00. I don't think wifi would add much to the cost of the TiVo to include it. I think it's more likely they didn't want to cannibalize sales of a 50.00 adapter.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

Or maybe they wanted to keep their production costs down and simplify the process. Maybe they realize that many people opt for wired connections for video equipment like this.



Stormspace said:


> I just bought a Roku box with integrated wifi and dude, the cheap one is only $79.00. I don't think wifi would add much to the cost of the TiVo to include it. I think it's more likely they didn't want to cannibalize sales of a 50.00 adapter.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

No problem, it's just the way it read to me.



Raj said:


> YOu're reading too much into my posts. I've been around here a long time and I've mentioned TiVo's own forums in the past around here...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

magnus said:


> Well, that's the way I would have read it too. It sounded like you're saying that they recently did that and that is the reason why they've not been around here as much.


Which is exactly why I posted what I posted. Too many people would have been led to believe the wrong thing from what Raj wrote.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I thought the OP had made some point that TiVo users are willing to pay more for a better DVR experience but then wants TiVo to include QWERTY remote in box so he does not have to pay as much for the QWERTY remote, hmmm.


Precisely. I always recommend folks dig down into complaints about lack of fairness or such -- often I feel that such assertions are just cover-ups for excessive miserliness.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Oh - and the forum at tivo.com is _strictly_ about *official* support. It is a very different thing.


Yes, good point. This forum is specifically for *users *helping users.



dlfl said:


> Hint: Don't expect businesses to operate as Kum-by-yah charities for the benefit of consumers. If it does happen for a short period with one company, just be thankful for what you got.


+1 _(How am I doing with the +1's??? )_


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Stormspace said:


> I don't think wifi would add much to the cost of the TiVo to include it. I think it's more likely they didn't want to cannibalize sales of a 50.00 adapter.


TIVO would lose revenue if they integrated the wifi adapter. You can get used TIVO adapters for ~$35. They also support other brands of adapters which can be had for ~$15.


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Yes, good point. This forum is specifically for *users *helping users.


Even the official help forums at the TiVo site are peer support forums. Users are helping users there too. To my mind the main difference is that as an official site, the conversations are limited to support only, and then only to officially supported solutions. Here the conversations can range much more widely and there are very few limitations on what can be discussed in the way of third party solutions and hacks. Plus we get to talk about the shows themselves here and get a genuine community sense that can't be had there.

This site, being more widely read is also better for support of issues that have any complexity. There it is mostly about helping new users find the right menu option to do what they want.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

So the Premiere is not as new and exciting as you had hoped. Sounds like it's nothing more than a personal problem with unrealistic expectations. Those unrealistic expectations have even carried over to the cute little letter that you posted.
It's not about you. It never has been. It never will be.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

The new Tivo box is trash. I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

There are a number of features tivo could have included. Supported by the chipset tivo uses. More then 2 tuners. MoCA. Included wireless. It's obvious tivo's evaluation of the market suggested price will sell more units then features.

JMO but MRV issues with CCI flagged shows is the biggest issue.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

scandia101 said:


> So the Premiere is not as new and exciting as you had hoped. Sounds like it's nothing more than a personal problem with unrealistic expectations. Those unrealistic expectations have even carried over to the cute little letter that you posted.
> It's not about you. It never has been. It never will be.


TiVo said that the Premiere was "reinvented" and "reimagined".

Is it unrealistic to expect that it would have at least one compelling feature to set it apart from the current TiVo HD?

An HD UI is not that compelling, but 4 tuners sure is. And yet it still only has the same 2 tuners. I could have "imagined" more than that.

No thanks.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> I just bought a Roku box with integrated wifi and dude, the cheap one is only $79.00. I don't think wifi would add much to the cost of the TiVo to include it. I think it's more likely they didn't want to cannibalize sales of a 50.00 adapter.


A roku box brings in a single stream one way and you can watch it - no big deal.

TiVo DVR is recording 2 media streams in real time

- possibly watching another media stream
possibly downloading a third media stream (again all ROKU does)

and possibly sending another media stream to another box.

This is like comparing a regular car - goes any speed on a normal carboratuer and wheels
to a NASCAR racer - it needs special fuel and non stock carb. sorry you can not fill it up at the regular gas station


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> There are a number of features tivo could have included. Supported by the chipset tivo uses. More then 2 tuners. MoCA. Included wireless.


ironically even the premiere as is would need a different chip set for any of those.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Personally I think part of the problem is that TiVo doesn't do a hardware refresh every year. Most electronic and/or computer manufactures do and mostly it is evolutionary not revolutionary. The sad fact maybe that TiVo is doing so poorly that they can not afford to have a regular hardware refresh schedule. Instead they have gotten themselves into this mess of doing software updates on hardware that is old and outdated. Which pretty much means they can never be cutting edge again (to much time and money being spent on old stuff).

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

So what I think you're saying is that basically we'd buy our TiVos and they'd essentially never do more than they did the day they were first put into service. TiVo would "fix bugs" but never introduce enhancements (at least none that were not specifically revenue-generating). If you want enhancements, you'd be expected to buy a new TiVo, just like if you want enhancements in your disc player, you'd be expected to buy a new disc player.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 18, 2005)

scandia101 said:


> So the Premiere is not as new and exciting as you had hoped. Sounds like it's nothing more than a personal problem with unrealistic expectations. Those unrealistic expectations have even carried over to the cute little letter that you posted.


Unrealistic Expectations? Where would he have gotten those from concerning the Premiere? Maybe the slogan "Inventing the DVR was just the beginning..." might have had something to do with it.

His letter isn't whining and I don't think it's off-base. I've been a TiVo owner for 10 years now...and unlike the Series 3 or the TiVoHD, the Premiere feels like a let-down. TiVo has been dragging their heels, technology-wise for several years now. When the TiVo HD came out, I felt compelled to purchase 2. When the Premiere came out, not so much. The Premiere is a perfectly valid piece of hardware, but it's more like an answer in search of a question.

If you don't share that view, that's fine. But making the claim that the OP is being unreasonable and narcissistic in expecting TiVo to do better and expressing disappointment with their latest product offering seems disingenuous.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

WizarDru said:


> Unrealistic Expectations? Where would he have gotten those from concerning the Premiere? Maybe the slogan "Inventing the DVR was just the beginning..." might have had something to do with it.


The expectations become unreasonable when the person hearing the vague marketing spiel corrupts that into concrete criteria. Only the most naive children can get away with claiming that they didn't understand that marketing claims are just market claims.



WizarDru said:


> His letter isn't whining and I don't think it's off-base. I've been a TiVo owner for 10 years now...and unlike the Series 3 or the TiVoHD, the Premiere feels like a let-down.


Then why did so many of us not only *expect*, but in the very pages of this forum *predict*, that the TiVo Premiere would be pretty-much what it turned out to be? C'mon -- get real.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> So what I think you're saying is that basically we'd buy our TiVos and they'd essentially never do more than they did the day they were first put into service. TiVo would "fix bugs" but never introduce enhancements (at least none that were not specifically revenue-generating). If you want enhancements, you'd be expected to buy a new TiVo, just like if you want enhancements in your disc player, you'd be expected to buy a new disc player.


bicker - if you are responding to me - yes that is what I would expect. I can tell you I spent enough on my Panasonic TV that I could have bought many TiVos with lifetime. Panasonic has no concerns with trying to make my TV do "more" then when it was offered new. They look forward and each year design a product that is both "better" and has more functions than the year before. If I want a "better" set or more functions then I have to buy the new TV -same for pretty much everything else. Tech changes/improves to fast to do it any other way for most products.

TiVo has tried to not operate this way and bet that software improvements were more important than hardware improvements (or that the software updates were at least good enough keep customers buying old hardware). Maybe they are right but it seems that almost 3 years between a hardware update on a device that is basically a single purpose computer is way too long - just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

bicker said:


> The letter is well-written, and rife with melodrama and unfounded expectations. Send it to TiVo -- they may need some scrap paper to write on the back of.


Its always nice to see the Tivo fanbois taking up for Tivo even tho people who havent drank the Koolaid or have been treated liek crap by Tivo see what's going on. Keep the blind faith, brother.. maybe it will pay off one day.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lew said:


> JMO but MRV issues with CCI flagged shows is the biggest issue.


True that.


----------



## shaown (Jul 1, 2002)

My suggestion, lower the Premiere Price by 100 bucks (yes I know more loss, but more subs), and within the next month 6 months raise the Premiere XL price by 100 bucks with a new name, bundle the qwerty remote, upgrade the hard drive to 1.5 GB, leave the guts the same, but try to tack on a media card reader (enable it later maybe?), and see if u can enable a third tuner, or add the hardware for future enablement of third tuner.

Right now the two boxes are just too similar..
-Shaown


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 18, 2005)

bicker said:


> The expectations become unreasonable when the person hearing the vague marketing spiel corrupts that into concrete criteria. Only the most naive children can get away with claiming that they didn't understand that marketing claims are just market claims.


And who claimed that? Neither the OP or I claimed that we didn't understand the marketing or that it wasn't exactly that. That has little to do with being disappointed with TiVo's utter failure to provide a compelling upgrade this generation. TiVo has sold more dramatic hardware/software changes with far less hyperbole. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that TiVo was going to at least match previous efforts, something they have failed to do.



bicker said:


> Then why did so many of us not only *expect*, but in the very pages of this forum *predict*, that the TiVo Premiere would be pretty-much what it turned out to be? C'mon -- get real.


Well, other than the fact that 'so many' translates to you and that you're prediction was that it was only an update of the TiVo HD hardware (which its more than), I'm not sure. As I recall, your response to said marketing speak was "_By the way, it makes more sense to take that phrase as an indication that the big thing they're going to release is not a DVR._" So you weren't even linking that marketing with what the Premiere turned out to be.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> They look forward and each year design a product that is both "better" and has more functions than the year before. If I want a "better" set or more functions then I have to buy the new TV


Panasonic has far more mfg. capacity than TiVo has or needs. TiVo just does not sell/make that much hardware to make such a constant shift in production work.

Can people Please think through what they are asking for here instead of just throwing out random wishes



KungFuCow said:


> Its always nice to see the Tivo fanbois taking up for Tivo even tho people who havent drank the Koolaid or have been treated liek crap by Tivo see what's going on. Keep the blind faith, brother.. maybe it will pay off one day.


Bicker a TiVo Fanboi 
Now I know people are just throwing out random thoughts versus having any real thought behind the post.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

KungFuCow said:


> Its always nice to see the Tivo fanbois taking up for Tivo even tho people who havent drank the Koolaid or have been treated liek crap by Tivo see what's going on. Keep the blind faith, brother.. maybe it will pay off one day.


Only a self-absorbed cretin would say something like that. I've posted my share of criticisms of TiVo. In this case, the OP is wrong. Get over it.


----------



## puckettcg (Feb 10, 2006)

There is a free application for the Mac - iTivo. And its actually better than the Tivo desktop because you can set it to transfer and convert to other file formats, and strip out commercials if you so desire. Plus, you don't have to buy software to burn to a DVD - which when I had a PC crashed half the time anyway which led to me having to buy a different software package and download a free application - thus making Tivo2Go not really free. 

(But agree - if I didn't know about this forum I would have promptly returned the Premiere in frustration over the crashing and been very p'od over it).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ferrumpneuma said:


> Good point. How about this, if TiVo wants any more of my money they are going to have to do something drastically different. That's language even a corporate officer can understand. :up:
> 
> That's pure business even Bicker would be happy with.(I think)


Part of the problem here is that some people are assuming that there simply must be a way for TiVo to operate profitably. That is simply untrue. TiVo's already moved into the big leagues, so-to-speak, by being the cable company rental DVR of choice for RCN. This retail business is really just an entry ramp to the real business. Anyone who is thinking that they're so special that they deserve to have TiVo bend over or kowtow to them is deluding themselves. We consumers are a tool, nothing more.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Panasonic has far more mfg. capacity than TiVo has or needs. TiVo just does not sell/make that much hardware to make such a constant shift in production work.
> 
> Can people Please think through what they are asking for here instead of just throwing out random wishes


TiVo doesn't need any mfg capacity they can contract that out. What they need is design capacity both in hardware and software. I believe a 3 year refresh rate on a DVR/computer is ridiculous. TiVo has trained us to expect updates and continuing improvements for outdated hardware, in order to do that they have to continue to spend time and money on outdated hardware. Unless they have unlimited resources this has to cut down on the development of new and innovative products.

I am not asking for anything I am just stating they might be better off spending more time and effort doing continuous evolutionary hardware and software development (which is supported by routine hardware refreshing and not spending time updating old products). I understand this might not be popular with some TiVo long time owners because of past history but it is how most of the electronics world works.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

WizarDru said:


> And who claimed that?


I didn't say anyone did. I made a statement. Take it at face value. If I meant to say that someone claimed something, I'd be explicit about it. Just asking around -- folks will tell you that I don't pull punches.



WizarDru said:


> That has little to do with being disappointed with TiVo's utter failure to provide a compelling upgrade this generation.


Disappointment is fine. Expectation is not.



WizarDru said:


> TiVo has sold more dramatic hardware/software changes with far less hyperbole.


Why says that less hyperbole is better for the business? Maybe that's why TiVo's never been profitable for more than a quarter in a row.



WizarDru said:


> It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that TiVo was going to at least match previous efforts


Yes it would. Expectations are only reasonable if based on valid foundation.



WizarDru said:


> Well, other than the fact that 'so many' translates to you and that you're prediction was that it was only an update of the TiVo HD hardware (which its more than), I'm not sure. As I recall, your response to said marketing speak was "_By the way, it makes more sense to take that phrase as an indication that the big thing they're going to release is not a DVR._" So you weren't even linking that marketing with what the Premiere turned out to be.


Your memory is ridiculously faulty.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Can people Please think through what they are asking for here instead of just throwing out random wishes


I think history has shown us that that is highly unlikely.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Bicker a TiVo Fanboi
> Now I know people are just throwing out random thoughts versus having any real thought behind the post.


Incredible eh? It would be far more likely that TiVo, really most companies, cringe when I post something. Most of what I posted exposes the rights they have that they'd rather people not know or think about them having.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 18, 2005)

bicker said:


> Your memory is ridiculously faulty.


A fact to which my wife can attest, certainly. However, that was a direct quote from two months ago.


----------



## nycityuser (Dec 30, 2004)

I have the same feelings about TiVo as the OP. A friend asked me when I was upgrading to the Premiere and I asked (rhetorically) why I should. Obviously there is no compelling reason.

I watched CNET's interview with TiVo's CEO Tom Rogers (on my TiVo) last week and was deeply disappointed. He sounded like nothing more than a carnival barker. Long-winded non-answers of spin to every question. No wonder the company is going nowhere.

And where, per chance, is the DirecTivo HD? It's the same answer as a year ago - "the end of the year." Yeah, right.

Two steps forward and three back.

TV manufacturers have turned televisions into large computers. Eventually the DVR function will be embedded in the set and TiVo will be irrelevant.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

WizarDru said:


> A fact to which my wife can attest, certainly. However, that was a direct quote from two months ago.


Your faulty memory was not the direct quote, but rather the completely different context you flagrantly tried to cast it in.

This is what I said, that you so conveniently "forgot".

*If you're going to judge what they release based on your preconceived notions of what you want them to announce, then you're setting yourself up to be disappointed. *


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

ferrumpneuma said:


> Good point. How about this, if TiVo wants any more of my money they are going to have to do something drastically different. That's language even a corporate officer can understand. :up:


Taken as a pure statement of fact, them is my sentiments also, although probably based on different reasons in my case. (It would take equipment that doesn't use CableCARD and Tuning Adapters to interest me in a change.)


ferrumpneuma said:


> That's pure business even Bicker would be happy with.(I think)


Well at least he didn't seem unhappy in his response.  Your phrasing could suggest a tone of unreasonable expectations, and it appears bicker responded to that -- maybe.

Anyway, +1 to all, and don't worry, be happy!


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

nycityuser said:


> TV manufacturers have turned televisions into large computers. Eventually the DVR function will be embedded in the set and TiVo will be irrelevant.


Or TiVo could be successful in getting TV manufactures to embed TiVo software into the TVs.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> So what I think you're saying is that basically we'd buy our TiVos and they'd essentially never do more than they did the day they were first put into service. TiVo would "fix bugs" but never introduce enhancements (at least none that were not specifically revenue-generating). If you want enhancements, you'd be expected to buy a new TiVo, just like if you want enhancements in your disc player, you'd be expected to buy a new disc player.


That's pretty much how it's been since the Home Media Option was released on the Series 2.(HME included) Since that time the only enhancements have been those that line TiVo's pockets rather than feature requests. New features have only been included with each generation of hardware.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 18, 2005)

bicker said:


> Your faulty memory was not the direct quote, but rather the completely different context you flagrantly tried to cast it in.
> 
> This is what I said, that you so conveniently "forgot".
> 
> *If you're going to judge what they release based on your preconceived notions of what you want them to announce, then you're setting yourself up to be disappointed. *


I didn't forget it, I didn't assume the two statements were linked directly. I didn't see anything else resembling a prediction about the Premiere except (and I would agree with you) that any improvements on the back-end, such as lowered power consumption (or as turned out, a revised interface using a different back-end technology, re:flash) would generally be viewed as not terribly impressive achievements to the consumer, regardless of how impressive they actually were from a technical standpoint.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

It seems to me what so many people miss is that just because *they* want something, doesn't mean every one else does. If TiVo were to implement every single suggestion in the OP's "letter", I would recommend to everyone in sight they run screaming to get away from such a dog of a DVR. I purchased a Series I TiVo back in 1999. I liked it so much I bought one for my Sister for Christmas. I did not buy any Series II TiVos, and I never recommended to anyone they buy one. When the S3 came out, I bought it immediately, and before long I bought two more Series III class machines. I heartily recommnd it to many people who want a top notch DVR. Although I have yet to see any really relevant reviews of the S4, so far I see nothing to recommend it. Once I come across a truly useful review, I may change my mind.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

WizarDru said:


> I didn't forget it, I didn't assume the two statements were linked directly.


I'm glad, then, to have been able to clear that up. :up:


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> *If you're going to judge what they release based on your preconceived notions of what you want them to announce, then you're setting yourself up to be disappointed. *


Wishing for anything always sets one up for disappointment. It also sets one up for fulfillment.

As far as rating the release, how else would one judge it? If one has desires and they wind up being met, then one would ordinarily be pleased. If not then one is usually going to be disappointed.

That's the nature of anticipation.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

WizarDru said:


> Unrealistic Expectations? Where would he have gotten those from concerning the Premiere? Maybe the slogan "Inventing the DVR was just the beginning..." might have had something to do with it.


True, but then anyone who believes marketing hype deserves what they get.



WizarDru said:


> His letter isn't whining


Well, not much. It's much better than average.



WizarDru said:


> and I don't think it's off-base.


I think it's way off base.



WizarDru said:


> I've been a TiVo owner for 10 years now...and unlike the Series 3 or the TiVoHD, the Premiere feels like a let-down.


I do definitely think it could have been better. To me, at least, it's not a let-down, though. I wasn't expectiong anything in the first place.



WizarDru said:


> TiVo has been dragging their heels, technology-wise for several years now. When the TiVo HD came out, I felt compelled to purchase 2. When the Premiere came out, not so much. The Premiere is a perfectly valid piece of hardware, but it's more like an answer in search of a question.


Not from what I have seen.


----------



## xboard07 (Dec 16, 2007)

bicker said:


> The letter is well-written, and rife with melodrama and unfounded expectations. Send it to TiVo -- they may need some scrap paper to write on the back of.


He is making some points on how he feels. I don't see the melodrama at all. Tivo screwed up with the release of the Premiere. It is a largely unfinished product.

Go carnivore


----------



## angel35 (Nov 5, 2004)

We all went for it or did we ???


----------



## konakahuna (Mar 3, 2006)

scandia101 said:


> So the Premiere is not as new and exciting as you had hoped. Sounds like it's nothing more than a personal problem with unrealistic expectations. Those unrealistic expectations have even carried over to the cute little letter that you posted.
> It's not about you. It never has been. It never will be.


sounds to me like you're the one with the personal problems, friend.

it's all about you. it always has been. it always will be.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> I purchased a Series I TiVo back in 1999. I liked it so much I bought one for my Sister for Christmas. I did not buy any Series II TiVos, and I never recommended to anyone they buy one. When the S3 came out, I bought it immediately, and before long I bought two more Series III class machines. I heartily recommnd it to many people who want a top notch DVR. Although I have yet to see any really relevant reviews of the S4, so far I see nothing to recommend it. Once I come across a truly useful review, I may change my mind.


TiVo is following the Star Trek movie odd/even model.

Series I -- Cool!
Series II -- not so much.
Series III -- AWESOME!
Series IV -- Meh.
Series V -- ???


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

Konakahuna,

This was very well written and expresses what many long standing Tivo's users are feeling right now. I really hope Tivo listens and gets their act together soon before they lose us and ultimately disappear. 

When I first heard Tivo was coming out with a Series 4 box, the Premiere, I had such high hopes. Then when I saw pictures of it I thought, it didn't look to bad, even though I still missed the OLED screen of the Series 3. But then when I read that the Premiere really wasn't that much better than a Tivo HD, I felt let down. All I kept saying was, "is that it.....really?". I currently own a Series 2 Single Tuner, Series 3 and a Tivo HD. The Premiere isn't that much of an improvement to push me over the edge to buy one.


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

Right on the money. (Don't listen to people who just...bicker with you)

I was on Panasonic's website today and it's new TV's with Viera link (VT25 for me) have...

Netflix
Amazon on Demand
Pandora
Twitter
Skype
Fox Sports Links
Bloomberg + weather
Picasa
YouTube
Videophone capabilities

tru2way ready (yup, that's right)

And a pretty slick looking interface, that I think they actually finished.

That's a lot of things that used to make TiVo special and a few extras. Now you can get it WITH your TV. And they haven't had a ten year head start.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Just to be clear you are comparing something with the suggested retail price of $2599 to something with the SRP of $299? On top of that something that you have to pay $150 or so for a second person to be able to watch if you have the set in 3d?


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

You forgot to mention the TV is a......TV. That COULD be a BIG part of the cost. I think you are missing the point. 

How about the concept that the TV has all this BUILT IN. You DO have a TV, even if you have a TiVo........right? 

Also, nobody pays only $299 for a TiVo; unless they just need something to hold a door open or keep papers from blowing off a desk. Without that monthly fee or $400 lifetime a TiVo is basically useless.

P.S. What does 3D have to do with the extra functionality built in to TV's in relation to TiVo's? That's not really the point, again.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

I don't know how big of the production run TiVo orders, but the minimum economical run should be about 200K units. With TiVo sales at about 10K units a month they can not afford to upgrade hardware that often. They need to sell most of the previous model before they introduce the new one.
IPad sold 300K units first day it was out. It takes TiVo 2 years to get to the same point. I don't know how many TVs Panasonic sells, but I bet it is at least order of magnitude more than TiVo.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Wishing for anything always sets one up for disappointment. It also sets one up for fulfillment.


Except I wasn't talking about "wishing". I was talking about imposing unfounded expectations. There's a difference. "Wishing" ends either with fulfillment or gracious disappointment. Unfounded expectation ends either with fulfillment or angry frustration.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

xboard07 said:


> He is making some points on how he feels. I don't see the melodrama at all. Tivo screwed up with the release of the Premiere. It is a largely unfinished product.


No adult "feels" in such an over-the-top manner about a consumer product. And the Premiere is a finished product. Get over it.



xboard07 said:


> Go carnivore


Gross.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> TiVo is following the Star Trek movie odd/even model.
> 
> Series I -- Cool!
> Series II -- not so much.
> ...


It would be interesting to know which ones were the worst from a financial standpoint. I would bet that it is the exact opposite.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> Just to be clear you are comparing something with the suggested retail price of $2599 to something with the SRP of $299?


But that's just a reflection of the innate lack of reasonable consideration going on here. It shouldn't be surprising.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

deandashl said:


> You forgot to mention the TV is a......TV. That COULD be a BIG part of the cost. I think you are missing the point.
> 
> How about the concept that the TV has all this BUILT IN. You DO have a TV, even if you have a TiVo........right?
> 
> ...


If the TV is a TV why are you comparing it to a TiVo?

As far as all this built in functionality, how long did it take for TV manufacturers to add it? TiVos definitely haven't been around for as long as TV has. TVs definitely had more than a 10 year head start.

No one pays for just the TV either or it is just a paperweight just much more expensive then a TiVo. All the features you mention all require an internet subscription to work and even some of the features have their own fees or require additional hardware like Skype.

As far as the 3D goes, it goes back to the OP's complaint which you seem to agree with and that is the extra hardware should have been included. I can only imagine the backlash to TiVo if they only came with a single pair of $150 glasses that were required to take advantage of the main feature.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

bicker said:


> But that's just a reflection of the innate lack of reasonable consideration going on here. It shouldn't be surprising.


Yeah I just had to make sure I was reading it correctly this late at night. The rum wasn't helping either.


----------



## net114 (Dec 29, 2000)

steve614 said:


> TiVo is following the Star Trek movie odd/even model.
> 
> Series I -- Cool!
> Series II -- not so much.
> ...


Hey, I guess I'm the only geek who got this one. LOL.

Seriously, though, I think there are a range of opinions here on the Premiere. They seem to get stereotyped like this:

1. People who wanted wanted everything, "Why doesn't it have a touch screen like my iPad? Tivo you're so far behind!!!"

2. People who pretty much forgive the Premiere's faults, and who are defensive as heck, "Leave Tivo alllllonnnne! Just leave them alooonnneee!!!"

3. People who are somewhere in between (said in Gollum's voice), "We loves the Premiere. We hates the Premiere!"

I think the reality is that those (like me) who were looking forward to the Premiere, wanted something that at least came close to what was billed as a serious upgrade. (When I heard they were using flash, at the same time that Apple is abandoning it, I got worried). Let's face facts, Tivo overbilled what they were going to deliver.

Those who are satisfied don't mind the Premiere's deficits, and are hopeful that things that can be improved, will be improved. They like the new interface, and don't mind that everything isn't in HD.

As for the OP's letter, a stamped letter, no more than two short paragraphs in length, will be much more effective. But I'm sympathetic to the letter's tone.


----------



## konakahuna (Mar 3, 2006)

bicker said:


> No adult "feels" in such an over-the-top manner about a consumer product. And the Premiere is a finished product. Get over it.


thanks for deputizing yourself and dispensing a little frontier justice.

i was worried that this conversation was becoming too polite, too respectful and too friendly.

it's a good thing that you're so quick on the trigger or people might share opinions and values that differ from yours, and then where would we be? the whole forum would be drenched in wrongness...and nobody wants that.

so thank you for your tireless efforts. i'm sure it's frustrating being the only right-thinking, informed adult in the room. if our positions were reversed, i'm not sure i could stand us....but then maybe that's why you're the one with the badge.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

konakahuna said:


> thanks for deputizing yourself and dispensing a little frontier justice.


No problem. Unfounded entitlement is a big, societal issue.



konakahuna said:


> i'm sure it's frustrating being the only right-thinking, informed adult in the room.


Actually, there are a lot of such people. Hopefully you'll join us before it really bites you in the butt.


----------



## mchief (Sep 10, 2005)

Why bicker with bicker? He is a pot stirrer. If you say the sun rises in the east, he will argue it's west. Ignore him.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The sun rises in the east.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bicker said:


> The letter is well-written, and rife with melodrama and unfounded expectations. Send it to TiVo -- they may need some scrap paper to write on the back of.


I can guess where this is going, next you're going to tell him that he's setting himself up for profound disappointment, eh? 

To the OP, I agree 100%. I am a long-time customer of Tivo, ever since the original Philips box. I'm the prime example of the sort of Tivo fan that should have run out and bought a Pemeire, but I didn't. I can't put my finger on one single aspect of the problem, I think it's a collection of many things. One of them is of course the subscription fees and my spare room filling up with leftover Tivos that have turned into useless bricks. Another is the lack of anything that seems remotely innovative in the Premiere. It looks like it'll do exactly what my S3/HD does, but with an even slower interface. Still considering buying a Moxi, but am certainly in no rush to do so.

Like the last thread I participated in, this one seems to be filled with people complaining about how long term customers have "unfounded expectations". That kind of thinking puts a company out of business. The long-term customers are the ones that should be listened to the most.

I don't find your letter full of "melodrama" as some do. I think you've honestly tried to outline your frustration with the product line and it's future.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

A pot stirrer? He's just telling it like it is.



mchief said:


> Why bicker with bicker? He is a pot stirrer. If you say the sun rises in the east, he will argue it's west. Ignore him.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

I really don't want my TV to have all that sh** built into it.

Why don't they just add skype to my PS3 instead of trying to get everyone to go out and buy a new TV.

Not mention all of this 3D sh**.... why didn't they come out with this before for TVs?? It's not like it's something new.... 3D has been out since the 50's or longer.

I'll tell you why... .it's because they just want you to spend more money for just a few new gotta have features. No thanks.



deandashl said:


> You forgot to mention the TV is a......TV. That COULD be a BIG part of the cost. I think you are missing the point.
> 
> How about the concept that the TV has all this BUILT IN. You DO have a TV, even if you have a TiVo........right?
> 
> ...


----------



## konakahuna (Mar 3, 2006)

magnus said:


> A pot stirrer? He's just telling it like it is.


or at least how he thinks it is....which may or may not be the same thing.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It is pitiful how emotionally invested some people have gotten into a consumer product. It reminds me a lot of the prototypical Trekkies, sometimes.


----------



## nycityuser (Dec 30, 2004)

bicker said:


> It is pitiful how emotionally invested some people have gotten into a consumer product. It reminds me a lot of the prototypical Trekkies, sometimes.


You seem pretty emotionally invested in this dialogue. Why is it so important to you that we understand how wrong we were to expect the Premiere to be something different than it is? Why do you care so much? It reminds me a lot of the prototypical Trekkies...


----------



## T1V0 (Jun 14, 2006)

nycityuser said:


> Why is it so important to you that we understand how wrong we were to expect the Premiere to be something different than it is?


nothing better to do?

low self-esteem?

trouble at work/home?

lack of sex life?

vegetarianism

hell, who knows


----------



## Resist (Dec 21, 2003)

Isn't the point really about Tivo letting us down by doing baby step product releases? Tivo can't possibly believe they will stay on top with such minor improvements. As fast as technology is moving, someone else might just fly past them. I'm just saying.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

samo said:


> I don't know how big of the production run TiVo orders, but the minimum economical run should be about 200K units. With TiVo sales at about 10K units a month they can not afford to upgrade hardware that often. They need to sell most of the previous model before they introduce the new one.
> IPad sold 300K units first day it was out. It takes TiVo 2 years to get to the same point. I don't know how many TVs Panasonic sells, but I bet it is at least order of magnitude more than TiVo.


Thanks Samo - that is exactly where I was going with the statement that comparing what Panasonic does on high end TVs to what TiVo does competing in slim to none margin of DVR land is apples and oranges.

Oh BTW - anyone want to tell me how many places that Tru2way on the panny can be used?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

net114 said:


> Let's face facts, Tivo overbilled what they were going to deliver.


right, TiVo threw out some silly marketing hype and there were those that considered the market TiVo was in and the fact that TiVo has to stay in the 299$ MSRP or forget it - and pretty much knew the hype was overblown and TiVo would deliver upgraded hardware (BTW the chips in the TiVo are pretty new to the market) and software that was not done.

Others want it all and they want it now - I would suggest they go to TV forums then as that is the only place margins neede to meet such expectations exist. TiVo tried the 800$ original S3 and long term sales told TiVo that people were not interested in *paying for* high end DVRs.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> The long-term customers are the ones that should be listened to the most.


when a company has sufficient market share to sustain itslef that is correct. TiVo needs new customers to buy the premiere not upgrades.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> when a company has sufficient market share to sustain itslef that is correct. TiVo needs new customers to buy the premiere not upgrades.


They more or less invented the DVR. They created a new verb in the english language, "to tivo". How much market share do they need??? Sometimes it just seems like excuses excuses excuses. If market share is being lost to the competitors then there's a reason. It's not lack of brand recognition. Either the price point is wrong or the company has been sitting on its hands for the last 5 years instead of innovating. I'm thinking it's a bit of both.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

nycityuser said:


> You seem pretty emotionally invested in this dialogue. Why is it so important to you that we understand how wrong we were to expect the Premiere to be something different than it is?


The difference is that I'm emotionally invested in moving our society back to a society of producers instead of consumers -- back to a society where people held reasonable expectations, rather than regularly practice entitlement mentality. What the Premiere does or doesn't do is trivial as compared to the issue of the toxic mindset that has developed in a lot of consumers. That has spread from merely annoying self-motivated self-interest to the point now where unfounded expectations and entitlement mentality are regularly used as justification for transgressions ranging from copyright violation for music and video to outright cable theft.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> They more or less invented the DVR. They created a new verb in the english language, "to tivo". How much market share do they need???


Caché value doesn't feed the family, pay the mortgage, or keep the investors from having you fired.



smbaker said:


> Sometimes it just seems like excuses excuses excuses.


Profit is not an "excuse". It is the overriding obligation of the enterprise. That's why they call it a "for profit" enterprise.



smbaker said:


> If market share is being lost to the competitors then there's a reason. It's not lack of brand recognition. Either the price point is wrong or the company has been sitting on its hands for the last 5 years instead of innovating.


Again, you aren't seeing the big picture. Your statement, here, assumes that there is a profitable business plan for a DVR along the lines of what you want. *There is no guarantee that there is.* The longer you ignore that, the longer you're going to be confused about the situation, and the longer your vision is going to be erroneous because it is based on an incomplete understanding of the situation.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> They more or less invented the DVR. They created a new verb in the english language, "to tivo". How much market share do they need??? Sometimes it just seems like excuses excuses excuses. If market share is being lost to the competitors then there's a reason. It's not lack of brand recognition. Either the price point is wrong or the company has been sitting on its hands for the last 5 years instead of innovating. I'm thinking it's a bit of both.


You do realize market share is based on numbers and that cable has a supreme edge in the fact of just 'including' a DVR on the monthly bill. So yes price point is everything with TiVo and you do not get both low price/margin and lots of innovation in the box.

Cmon guys these are not excuses, just an attempt to frame the conversation in actual business/economic terms that make sense.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Xerox invented the copier market. Few (any?) current copiers are made by Xerox. Inventing the DVR (by itself) doesn't mean much. 

We see threads regarding SDV issues. AFAIK a single SDV and can only handle 2 tuners. I wonder if that's at least one of the reasons tivo stuck with a 2 tuner model. It would make sense to me (but probably not to the average customer) nor would it be supportable to limit the extra tuners to channels that will never be SDV (broadcast). That's a feature that would appeal to some of us but wouldn't be worth the issues.

A unit that accepted more then one SDV may result in issues with cable systems not wanting to supply 2 SDVS for one outlet. Tivo would probably want more then 2 USB ports for that unit.

It would be nice to at least some of us if tivo at least added more features to the XL model. I'm sure cost (pricing analysis) suggested the need to basically market the same model with a larger hard drive.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Oh BTW - anyone want to tell me how many places that Tru2way on the panny can be used?


Chicago, Denver, and Atlanta - Comcast only. DC was supposed to be added last year, not sure if it made the cut.

As much of a non-event as the Comcast Tivo DVR, in other words. Tru2way in its current Cablecard form will be a flop for the retail consumer.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

lew said:


> Xerox invented the copier market. Few (any?) current copiers are made by Xerox. Inventing the DVR (by itself) doesn't mean much.
> 
> We see threads regarding SDV issues. AFAIK a single SDV and can only handle 2 tuners.


SDV can support more than 2 tuners. The SA TAs are limited to 2 however.

Xerox makes plenty of copiers. Our color copiers at work are Xerox.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

SullyND said:


> SDV can support more than 2 tuners. The SA TAs are limited to 2 however.
> 
> Xerox makes plenty of copiers. Our color copiers at work are Xerox.


So some brands of SDV adapters can support more then 2 tuners and some are limited to 2 tuners. That sounds like it would be easy to program (and support)


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bicker said:


> Again, you aren't seeing the big picture. Your statement, here, assumes that there is a profitable business plan for a DVR along the lines of what you want. *There is no guarantee that there is.* The longer you ignore that, the longer you're going to be confused about the situation, and the longer your vision is going to be erroneous because it is based on an incomplete understanding of the situation.


I'm not confused. *Tivo produced a new DVR. I didn't buy it. There are reasons why I didn't buy it.* If I state those reasons, I'm greated with outright hostility as if my decision not to buy a product is due to my 'sense of entitlement' (quoting you here). It's my money. I decide what to spend it on. If Tivo wants my money, spend some time innovating, improve the product, and move away from this outdated monthly subscription fee system.

This is America. There's only one product that I as a consumer am required to buy and that is health insurance, not the Tivo.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Personally I don't see why some existing S3/HD owners are upset about there not being enough new features to justify upgrading to a Premiere. This is very similar to when the original single tuner S2 was released. We had 2 S1 units and did not see any reason to go out and upgrade but I certainly wasn't disappointed or upset with TiVo for not releasing a new model that made me want to upgrade.

We continued to be happy using our S1's for what we bought them for and did so for 7 years until the S3's were released at which time HD was the added feature which for us justified upgrading and we took advantage of the upgrade option to transfer lifetime from our 2 S1's to 2 S3's.

We're still happy with our S3's after 3 years and I hope we'll get at least another 3-4 years out of them. Maybe when the S5's come out there will be some new feature that will make it worth upgrading for us.

Scott


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

smbaker said:


> I'm not confused.


Yes you were, because...


smbaker said:


> Tivo produced a new DVR. I didn't buy it. There are reasons why I didn't buy it.


Then you should just say *that*, instead of what some posters in this thread did, getting into whether TiVo made good decisions.



smbaker said:


> If I state those reasons, I'm greated with outright hostility as if my decision not to buy a product is due to my 'sense of entitlement' (quoting you here).


*Bull*. If people just stated those reasons -- i.e., "I didn't buy the Premiere because it didn't offer me enough more than my TiVo S3/HD," then no one would have said _boo _in response... no -- I take that back -- I would have written, "+1".


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

HerronScott said:


> Personally I don't see why some existing S3/HD owners are upset about there not being enough new features to justify upgrading to a Premiere. This is very similar to when the original single tuner S2 was released. We had 2 S1 units and did not see any reason to go out and upgrade but I certainly wasn't disappointed or upset with TiVo for not releasing a new model that made me want to upgrade.
> 
> We continued to be happy using our S1's for what we bought them for and did so for 7 years until the S3's were released at which time HD was the added feature which for us justified upgrading and we took advantage of the upgrade option to transfer lifetime from our 2 S1's to 2 S3's.
> 
> ...


Yours is a rational point of view, but some people feel entitled to a DVR that does everything they think it should and are upset that TiVo did not create that DVR for them because they were promised such a DVR based on a few words in a marketing promo.


----------



## AntiPC (Jul 22, 2005)

I'm tired of the sense of entitlement of some corporations. Instead of valuing and working for customer loyalty, they attempt to parley it into short term profit by offering little innovation, dubious value over competitors, capricious pricing, and hyped new product releases that are retreaded versions of existing products with new and more numerous bugs.

Apple made the decision to bundle a mouse with the original macintosh because it was central to the UI and truly a game changer. Everyone who bought a mac got that experience. Tivo left out the peanut slider.

Hard drive space is reasonably inexpensive, and moxi upped the ante with a 3 tuner box. Following suit with more tuners and larger storage would have accentuated the "Tivo suggestions" feature that's missing on other DVRs. Tivo held down the cost instead.

I hate to keep referring to Apple, but if I posted an email address and said you could get an iPad for $299 if you requested one, most people would be dubious. Tivo subscription promotions seem to crop up whenever they feel like trading in profit margin for cash, and it's a crapshoot to get them.

They say "don't hate the player hate the game." I don't hate either; I had just hoped to see a better performance out of a participant that used to be a standout.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

AntiPC said:


> I'm tired of the sense of entitlement of some corporations. Instead of valuing and working for customer loyalty, they attempt to parley it into short term profit by offering little innovation, dubious value over competitors, capricious pricing, and hyped new product releases that are retreaded versions of existing products with new and more numerous bugs.


That's just not the case though. Rather, they're fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to their owners, to focus on the enterprise's long-term shareholder value above what consumers might want them to do.

Consumers abrogated any value of so-called "customer loyalty" when they decided that loyalty, to them, meant being willing to make purchases only if they could get a cheap price, when customer loyalty is actually the willingness of the consumer to make the purchase at a premium.



AntiPC said:


> Apple made the decision to bundle a mouse with the original macintosh because it was central to the UI and truly a game changer. Everyone who bought a mac got that experience. Tivo left out the peanut slider.


TiVo works fine with the regular remote control. It's just not as easy. The slider remote is a premium feature, which consumers who are actually loyal would be happy to pay extra for. Customers complaining about having to pay extra for the slider remote aren't really loyal customers -- they're just opportunist customers.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> That's just not the case though. Rather, they're fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to their owners, to focus on the enterprise's long-term shareholder value above what consumers might want them to do.


Where is your sense of social responsibility? The new-age concept of a business is one where investors are willing to lose their money if that's necessary for the betterment of society (i.e., for consumers). I'm sure all the posters here complaining about how poorly TiVo is running its business would be happy to make such investments. Actually there already are huge enterprises running on these principles in which they could invest: Federal and state governments. Perhaps they should consider making voluntary tax contributions.

Seriously, I'm amazed at how ready some people are to assume that the fact that TiVo doesn't do what they want must imply that either (1) TiVo is stupid, or (2) TiVo is evil, failing to acknowledge that there are other less damning, and more likely, possible explanations.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Some customers may not want an extra remote. Tivo doesn't have a unit that appeals to loyal customers who are willing to pay a premium price for a unit that has more then 2 tuners, includes the slider remote etc. Tivo seems to have decided there aren't enough of those customers to justify such a product.

I don't think the new unit offers enough to motivate many of us to upgrade our existing HD units.

I agree, we don't know if there is a market for a stand alone DVR. It looks like tivo thinks whatever market there is wants a lower priced unit. For whatever reason tivo decided to let Moxi surpass tivo with some features.

Bicker--Features like extra tuners may only interest a limited number of customers. Maybe not enough to justify a small production run and or support issues. I suspect SDV issues may be a factor.

Working around issues with CCI flagged shows is the kind of feature I would have expected tivo to address. I would have thought the new hardware could support streaming. Alternately implement a move command. Try to get Cable Labs agree to let tivo transfer a show but give it 03X03. The current rule is a copy can't exit on both DVrs at the same time. This approach would have the video on both tivos, but only for 90 minutes.

No reason to write a letter. Tivo already knows this.



bicker said:


> TiVo works fine with the regular remote control. It's just not as easy. The slider remote is a premium feature, which consumers who are actually loyal would be happy to pay extra for. Customers complaining about having to pay extra for the slider remote aren't really loyal customers -- they're just opportunist customers.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

It seems like many people expected Tivo to produce another high end DVR. Unfortunately Tivo appears to making boxes for small cable companies like RCN now where cost is the dominant concern.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Where is your sense of *social *responsibility?


With regard to *social *issues... *that's* where.

And contrary to what some people believe, having a TiVo is not a basic human right. 



dlfl said:


> The new-age concept of a business is one where investors are willing to lose their money if that's necessary for the betterment of society (i.e., for consumers).


Bull. You just made that up. There *is *social conscience in business, but it has *nothing* to do with kowtowing to consumerism. Rather, "the betterment of society" means having care and concern about our ecology and broader environmental issues; about making provisions for the most basic essentials of life, such as addressing hunger, inadequate medical care, and other aspects of poverty; about giving folks in other countries a fair shake, for a change.

The idea that you'd consider _consumerism _something related to "the betterment of society" is shockingly offensive IMHO.



dlfl said:


> I'm sure all the posters here complaining about how poorly TiVo is running its business would be happy to make such investments.


You mean that they'd only support social issues if they were the beneficiary? Gosh, I guess I can't disagree with that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> Some customers may not want an extra remote.


They can sell the extra on eBay.



lew said:


> Tivo doesn't have a unit that appeals to loyal customers who are willing to pay a premium price for a unit that has more then 2 tuners, includes the slider remote etc.


Perhaps because the folks you call "loyal" customers aren't really loyal, since they're not willing to pay enough for it to make it a good use of TiVo's resources to offer it.



lew said:


> Tivo seems to have decided there aren't enough of those customers to justify such a product.


Yes that's another likely possibility.



lew said:


> I don't think the new unit offers enough to motivate many of us to upgrade our existing HD units.


Surely not I. Saying _that_, though, is a far cry from some of the scurrilous things that some posters have been saying.



lew said:


> I agree, we don't know if there is a market for a stand alone DVR. It looks like tivo thinks whatever market there is wants a lower priced unit.


And we know that they have relatively recent market data, since they can compare the reception of the TiVo S3 against the reception of the TiVo HD.



lew said:


> Bicker--Features like extra tuners may only interest a limited number of customers. Maybe not enough to justify a small production run and or support issues. I suspect SDV issues may be a factor.


Yes that sounds reasonable.



lew said:


> Working around issues with CCI flagged shows is the kind of feature I would have expected tivo to address.


However, they never gave you any reason to believe that. Therefore your expectation was unfounded.



lew said:


> I would have thought the new hardware could support streaming.


I suspect the hardware can -- the question is when will it be profitable enough to spend scarce resources on implementing and testing the software for it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> It seems like many people expected Tivo to produce another high end DVR. Unfortunately Tivo appears to making boxes for small cable companies like RCN now where cost is the dominant concern.


Yes, I alluded to the recent news vis a vis RCN deploying the TiVo HD earlier in the thread, and your point here is right on-target: Many of us have projected, for years now, that the most likely best path forward for TiVo was peddling their software to service providers for their leased equipment.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Bicker--I have FiOS, the CCI flag issue doesn't affect me. I think it's a reasonable to assume a company would at least attempt to ensure a feature that's being promoted (MRV) works for most of their customers. 

I'd at least expect tivo would work to ensure features that are being promoted work as a reasonable consumer expects them to work.

There is a difference between a wish list of new features (extra tuners, fancy remotes, Hulu) and making sure current features work as well as can be reasonably expected.

Cableco DVRs can stream. Moxi can stream. At some point tivo needs to either work with the CCI limits or put the limitations in big type. Tivo promotes multi-room viewing. They don't promote copying a video from one tivo to another tivo.

I suspect a number of of us might be willing to pay a price premium ($100?) for an upgraded unit. Tivo might be able to produce a unit at that price point, if there was enough demand to cover the cost of a production run.

Some of the posters may be right. The market for customers who want higher end features may wind up being met with HDPCs. Some customers may go with DIY. Others may buy units from computer companies. It wouldn't take much for Dell to put a Centon card in a HTPC and sell it. Pretty easy to include builtin wireless.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> *Bull*. If people just stated those reasons -- i.e., "I didn't buy the Premiere because it didn't offer me enough more than my TiVo S3/HD," then no one would have said _boo _in response... no -- I take that back -- I would have written, "+1".


+1


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ........Bull. You just made that up. There *is *social conscience in business, but it has *nothing* to do with kowtowing to consumerism. Rather, "the betterment of society" means having care and concern about our ecology and broader environmental issues; about making provisions for the most basic essentials of life, such as addressing hunger, inadequate medical care, and other aspects of poverty; about giving folks in other countries a fair shake, for a change.


LOL ! You got that right -- I made it up. You didn't recognize it as satire?


bicker said:


> ........The idea that you'd consider _consumerism _something related to "the betterment of society" is shockingly offensive IMHO.


The idea you apparently took the first part of my post seriously rather than as the intended satire is shocking to me! I guess I should have put in some helpers like  or .

Did you read the last part of my post that started with "Seriously,.." ?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

AntiPC said:


> Apple made the decision to bundle a mouse with the original macintosh because it was central to the UI and truly a game changer. Everyone who bought a mac got that experience. Tivo left out the peanut slider.


now when I get a PC I throw the mouse and keyboard into a junk box because I bought the ones I really wanted though they would have been too expensive to include with every PC.
Many people use universal remotes with their TiVo and will likely end up using a USB wireless keyboard versus the QWERTY remote


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> Working around issues with CCI flagged shows is the kind of feature I would have expected tivo to address. I would have thought the new hardware could support streaming. Alternately implement a move command. Try to get Cable Labs agree to let tivo transfer a show but give it 03X03. The current rule is a copy can't exit on both DVrs at the same time. This approach would have the video on both tivos, but only for 90 minutes.
> 
> No reason to write a letter. Tivo already knows this.


TiVo could have created a nice Buzz with streaming but it likely would have been limited to the new premiere and many would have *****ed about *having* to upgrade. 

A longer term outlook TiVo may have is getting the FCC to _clarify_ the cable card rules to simple hardware issues like the FCC seems to have meant in the first place and then TiVo can tell cable to stuff their CCI [email protected] until cable decides to use it correctly.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> The idea that you'd consider _consumerism _something related to "the betterment of society" is shockingly offensive IMHO.
> 
> You mean that they'd only support social issues if they were the beneficiary? Gosh, I guess I can't disagree with that.


better slow down Bicker - that one ZOOMed by you


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lew said:


> ......... I think it's a reasonable to assume a company would at least attempt to ensure a feature that's being promoted (MRV) works for most of their customers.
> 
> I'd at least expect tivo would work to ensure features that are being promoted work as a reasonable consumer expects them to work.
> .........


I agree with this and was involved in a "long and vigorous discussion" defending this position in **another thread**, recently.

A valid counterpoint raised in that discussion is that TiVo does have a footnote on its web page that touts MRV that says it could be limited by copyright protection.

And although it's reasonable to expect TiVo to "at least attempt" and to "work to ensure", MRV for all, these terms correctly leave the matter of level of such efforts open, and it is only valid to hope they will succeed (not to expect it).


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo could have created a nice Buzz with streaming but it likely would have been limited to the new premiere and many would have *****ed about *having* to upgrade.


True but it would have given some tivo customers a real reason to upgrade. A new GUI and faster processor doesn't motivate me.

Right now cable is using it "correctly". The "correct" way lets them do whatever they want. Tivo could lobby and try to change the policy. Only allow the content owner to specify a CCI flag. That doesn't change the fact that some customers may want to use MRV for HBO. Streaming or a move option may be needed. Allowing transfer of a show with a 90 minute automatic delete sounds like a fair resolution to me. Getting that through the FCC is another matter.



dlfl said:


> I agree with this and was involved in a "long and vigorous discussion" defending this position in **another thread**, recently.
> 
> A valid counterpoint raised in that discussion is that TiVo does have a footnote on its web page that touts MRV that says it could be limited by copyright protection.
> 
> And although it's reasonable to expect TiVo to "at least attempt" and to "work to ensure", MRV for all, these terms correctly leave the matter of level of such efforts open, and it is only valid to hope they will succeed (not to expect it).


I don't know how many customers are affected by the CCI flag issue. At some point tivo has an obligation to put the disclosure in large print, not just a footnote. Particularly when MRV offered by other DVR vendors (Moxi and cable company) aren't affected by CCI flags. JMO but "fine print", footnotes and reference to terms and condition should be clarifying items. It shouldn't be used to contradict the point.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lew said:


> .......I don't know how many customers are affected by the CCI flag issue. At some point tivo has an obligation to put the disclosure in large print, not just a footnote. Particularly when MRV offered by other DVR vendors (Moxi and cable company) aren't affected by CCI flags. JMO but "fine print", footnotes and reference to terms and condition should be clarifying items. It shouldn't be used to contradict the point.


Nobody knows how many users are affected, although perhaps TiVo has some idea. In **this post** in the thread I previously linked I made a rough estimate of the percentage of digital cable subscribers that have CCI=0x02 set on all but their local channels, which was about 25%. (Time Warner alone accounts for most of that.) But the missing, and unknown, factor is what percentage of TiVo users have multiple TiVo's and want to use MRV. (This missing factor was pointed out ad nauseum in the linked thread. )

Of course the question of "what point" defines where TiVo is "obligated" to make it more obvious is subject to (probably endless) argument.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> Bicker--I have FiOS, the CCI flag issue doesn't affect me. I think it's a reasonable to assume a company would at least attempt to ensure a feature that's being promoted (MRV) works for most of their customers.


Bad assumption, and inadequate data to even support your bad assumption. Working backwards:

You haven't presented any data showing that MRV doesn't work for "most" customers. TWC and Cox, combined, does not constitute "most" cable subscribers, so there is no reason to believe that they represent "most" TiVo customers.

Beyond that, remember, SDV isn't an unknown quality. They know exactly how to overcome it, and probably have a very good idea how much doing so would cost them in terms of money, materials and labor. I'm sure you wouldn't assume that they didn't think it through. It seems obvious that they simply determined that the resolution was not worth it given all the factors that they had to take into consideration.



lew said:


> I'd at least expect tivo would work to ensure features that are being promoted work as a reasonable consumer expects them to work.


They do work as a reasonable consumer would expect them to work, i.e., MRV doesn't work with SDV. Only an unreasonable consumer would expect a feature to work in a manner inconsistent with how the company says it works.



lew said:


> There is a difference between a wish list of new features (extra tuners, fancy remotes, Hulu) and making sure current features work as well as can be reasonably expected.


No question, but again expecting MRV to work with SDV is unreasonable for the reasons outlined above.



lew said:


> Cableco DVRs can stream. Moxi can stream. At some point tivo needs to either work with the CCI limits or put the limitations in big type.


"Big type"? Please provide proof that there is such a requirement, or any foundation for such an assertion other than your own personal preference and that of other consumers. Promotional materials are supposed to tout a product's strengths. There is no legitimate foundation for an assertion that something that doesn't cause physical harm should be mentioned any more prominently than TiVo addresses SDV.



lew said:


> I suspect a number of of us might be willing to pay a price premium ($100?) for an upgraded unit.


However, you're assuming both that that's enough money and that there are enough of you to warrant that driving TiVo's actions. That's an assumption that you haven't, and cannot defend.



lew said:


> Tivo might be able to produce a unit at that price point, if there was enough demand to cover the cost of a production run.


Correct, and therefore the fault for it not happening is most logically placed on a consumer-base generally unwilling to play along with you and folks like you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> LOL ! You got that right -- I made it up. You didn't recognize it as satire?
> 
> The idea you apparently took the first part of my post seriously rather than as the intended satire is shocking to me! I guess I should have put in some helpers like  or .
> 
> Did you read the last part of my post that started with "Seriously,.." ?


I'm not feeling the happy, this weekend. My constant companion of the last 18 years passed away on Saturday, so without smilies, I will absolutely take comments seriously.

Heck, even aside from losing my cat, I generally will assume that if you type something and don't indicate that it is a joke, then it isn't. I respect posters so I to take what they write at face-value, even if I think it is idiocy, unless they choose to clearly indicate that it a joke.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

bicker said:


> Perhaps because the folks you call "loyal" customers aren't really loyal, since they're not willing to pay enough for it to make it a good use of TiVo's resources to offer it.


:up::up:

I really like that point - A loyal customer being one who is willing to pay a premium for a product and service - a price that covers the true costs of the product and service provided.

Many are loyal to a brand only if they feel they are getting at least 'something' out if it for nothing. How many, who have a Series 3 platform, paid the true cost of the box (at least upfront)?

I think most consumers are loyal to their particular price point. If the product and service fits in the range they are willing to pay, they buy - regardless of the brand. Brand loyalty is being willing to pay more for the brand you want, even if the perceived features and benefits may not initially appear to be any better. Even then, brand loyalty for most is limited by their particular price point for purchase.

Being a good business dictates you find the maximum people are willing to pay for a particular product or service, and you set the price at that point. Time will tell if TiVo has set the right price for these latest boxes with the current feature set. And I think many are also buying based upon some expected features and improvements.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

My understanding is some brands of SDV will handle more then two tuners and other brands of SDV will only handle 2 tuners. I may be wrong but this sounds like a potential support issue. Possibly a programming issue. The software would have to know how many SDV adapters are required. I assume tivo did think it through. I suspect (speculate if you prefer) this may be one of the reasons why tivo decided not to offer a unit with more then 2 tuners.

Pricing for a "deluxe" unit is going to depend on how many units tivo think it can sell. None of us would be willing to pay the $$$$ if we're going to be the only purchaser. I agree with your point. The fact that tivo isn't offering such a unit suggests tivo doesn't think they'll sell enough units to offer then at a price the market is willing to pay.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> Right now cable is using it "correctly". The "correct" way lets them do whatever they want. Tivo could lobby and try to change the policy. Only allow the content owner to specify a CCI flag.


The FCC as part of the new hearings on cable card are looking to limit cable card certification to hardware only - they said it was incorrect to make software requirements part of it (such as honoring the CCI bit).

From that I surmise that the FCC does not think cable companies are using the CCI flag as intended.

and sure I am not at all against streaming as a feature, I am just pointing out the full environment that any DVR maker is working within. Businesses always need to take in the full environment, not just a limited view.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> I'm not feeling the happy, this weekend. My constant companion of the last 18 years passed away on Saturday, so without smilies, I will absolutely take comments seriously.
> 
> Heck, even aside from losing my cat, I generally will assume that if you type something and don't indicate that it is a joke, then it isn't. I respect posters so I to take what they write at face-value, even if I think it is idiocy, unless they choose to clearly indicate that it a joke.


Condolences on the passing of your constant companion (at a ripe old cat age, I would note).

Sorry but I can't accept that as an excuse for not bothering to read my entire post, which would have made the satirical aspects obvious even without smileys.

No, I think ZeoTivo got it right:


ZeoTiVo said:


> better slow down Bicker - that one ZOOMed by you


I guess expecting an apology for, or even an admission of, your imperfection would be unreasonable!


----------



## nycityuser (Dec 30, 2004)

Regarding CCI flags and cablecards - it is interesting that RCN decided to use the CCI flag on their RCN-branded TiVo boxes. So they are applying the flag even to customers who use equipment rented directly from them.

And what is odd is that RCN imposed no copyright protection at all until a couple of months ago. Now they are using it for TiVo owners and TiVo renters for many of their premium channels.


----------



## TroyM (Mar 11, 2003)

+1 to the OP. 

Don't let the anti-consumer movement deter you. Without the "consumer" there would be no consumption of the product, no sales, and no business to maintain. A wise business will make every effort to maximize the happiness of the biggest marjority of consumers possible. We all know that not everyone can be made happy. 

As consumers, we allow a business to succeed or fail by our purchases or non-purchases. I'd encourage you to write a snail mail letter to the CEO. While he may not agree with all of your points, I'm sure he would want to know what you do want from the product. Since he'll want to sell as much product as possible, he'll want to entice the greatest number of "consumers" as possible. Thus, if enough of the market demand the same features, he would know where to focus efforts. 

On the other hand, he may deem all points meritless and dismiss them. However, it can't hurt and may well be just the extra feedback needed to justify one or more of the items you discuss. 

For the record, I've been a Tivo subscriber since the Series 1. I currently have 3 Tivo HD's. I have no incentive to buy the Premiere. So I won't. They lost my upgrade dollars because they offered nothing to encourage me to upgrade. It can be considered money left on the table. When they are interested in providing something I find of value, I'll give it to them. It's there. They just have to earn it. For now, they get my monthly subscription and not more.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

TroyM said:


> They lost my upgrade dollars because they offered nothing to encourage me to upgrade. It can be considered money left on the table. When they are interested in providing something I find of value, I'll give it to them. It's there. They just have to earn it. For now, they get my monthly subscription and not more.


they do not make money from you upgrading S3 to Premiere. They make money from monthly subs.
TiVo is just fine with you keeping the S3 monthly subs for now as they would have put money on the table instead of picking it up if you upgraded.


----------



## nycityuser (Dec 30, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> they do not make money from you upgrading S3 to Premiere. They make money from monthly subs.


Well, that's just ridiculous. They make money from both - hence the constant ads for the Premiere on my TiVo HD. Obviously TiVo wants me to upgrade or they wouldn't be constantly throwing the idea in my face.

Those here who so strongly defend TiVo by refuting those who are unhappy or "entitled" are missing something. There is another name for those entitled folks - "paying customers." They are also marketers of TiVo by telling and showing their friends. When they are not happy, it is not a good thing for TiVo. They, by definition, are right because the customer is always right. Companies that ignore that do so at their own peril.


----------



## ovenbird (Apr 26, 2010)

I agree with the original open letter post. As a Tivo user for a decade, I have followed the UI and changed media suppliers just to stick with Tivo. I have written letters to media providers and left DirecTV due to their decision to recall Tivo's. I am the one who has bucked up (for several rooms) every time there is a better Tivo hardware solution. 

But... not this time. I started to question my loyalty when I began to see ads that I can't avoid and program extra's on the search bar that can't be turned off. I pay more for my monthly subscription service (for several rooms) than I do for basic cable access. What is wrong with this picture. Tivo is a premium paid service with premium hardware and it (and I) are feeling a bit dumbed down so to speak. Perhaps my loyalty is misguided.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> they do not make money from you upgrading S3 to Premiere. They make money from monthly subs.
> TiVo is just fine with you keeping the S3 monthly subs for now as they would have put money on the table instead of picking it up if you upgraded.





nycityuser said:


> Well, that's just ridiculous. They make money from both - hence the constant ads for the Premiere on my TiVo HD. Obviously TiVo wants me to upgrade or they wouldn't be constantly throwing the idea in my face...


From the fourth quarter earnings report:

```
Three Months Ended     Twelve Months Ended
                                  January 31,             January 31,
                            ----------------------  ----------------------
                               2010        2009        2010        2009
                            ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Subscription Acquisition              (In thousands, except SAC)
 Costs
Sales and marketing,
 subscription acquisition
 costs                      $    2,022  $    1,690  $    5,048       6,038
Hardware revenues              (23,190)    (10,712)    (47,907)    (41,133)
Less: MSOs/Broadcasters-
 related hardware revenues      12,818         362      14,497       9,333
Cost of hardware revenues       27,962      15,764      65,909      57,742
Less: MSOs/Broadcasters-
 related cost of hardware
 revenues                      (12,064)       (385)    (13,706)     (8,590)
                            ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
    Total Acquisition Costs      7,548       6,719      23,841      23,390
                            ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========
    TiVo-Owned Subscription
     Gross Additions                46          59         148         187
    Subscription Acquisition
     Costs (SAC)            $      164  $      114  $      161  $      125
                            ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========
```
Please review the Hardware revenues line item. It indicates a loss. ZeoTivo is correct. TiVo makes it's money from subscriptions. TiVo pushes the hardware to gain (or retain if using the Premiere Upgrade Program) the subscription.


----------



## nycityuser (Dec 30, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> Please review the Hardware revenues line item. It indicates a loss. ZeoTivo is correct. TiVo makes it's money from subscriptions. TiVo pushes the hardware to gain (or retain if using the Premiere Upgrade Program) the subscription.


This doesn't show the marginal profit of selling one more unit. In other words, they lose money in aggregate but there are fixed costs included in that. Selling more units likely reduces the total loss. Else why would they want existing customers to buy a new unit? They are already getting subscriptions from them.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

<sigh>


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> From the fourth quarter earnings report:
> ...............(snip)
> Please review the Hardware revenues line item. It indicates a loss. ZeoTivo is correct. TiVo makes it's money from subscriptions. TiVo pushes the hardware to gain (or retain if using the Premiere Upgrade Program) the subscription.


orangeboy, your point is correct but your post doesn't prove it. You quoted the Subscription Acquisition *Cost* data. The Hardware revenue line item, although in parens, is actually the gross revenue (positive, or a "negative cost").

The first chart in the linked press release is the one to use:

```
TIVO INC.
              CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
             (In thousands, except per share and share amounts)
                               (unaudited)
                          Three Months Ended       Twelve Months Ended
                              January 31,               January 31,
                        ------------------------  ------------------------
                           2010         2009         2010         2009
                        -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Revenues
  Service revenues      $    38,442  $    44,115  $   159,772  $   188,408
  Technology revenues         6,821        4,353       29,907       20,126
  Hardware revenues          23,190       10,712       47,907       41,133
                        -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
Net revenues                 68,453       59,180      237,586      249,667
Cost of revenues
  Cost of service
   revenues (1)              10,876       11,180       40,878       44,603
  Cost of technology
   revenues (1)               4,434        2,740       20,703       12,300
  Cost of hardware
   revenues                  27,962       15,764       65,909       57,742
                        -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
 Total cost of revenues      43,272       29,684      127,490      114,645
                        -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
     Gross margin            25,181       29,496      110,096      135,022
```
Using, for example, the 12 mos ended Jan 31, 2010, the Hardware revenues are $47.907M and the Cost of hardware revenues is $65.909M. Subtracting costs from revenues gives a $28.002M loss as the "Gross margin" for hardware only.

The same calculation applied to Service revenues yields $118.894M gain as the Gross Margin for Service revenues.

I would note there are likely other, indirect, values of selling hardware beyond boosting subscriber base. DVR software is a main stock in trade for TiVo. Deploying upgraded hardware serves as a test bed for proving out and refining the software, and also establishes public recognition of the value of the software -- useful in future TiVo deals.

Also, note that some percentage of hardware upgrades will result in additional subscriptions either because (1) the prior box is sold to a new user, or (2) the user keeps the prior box in operation in another room.

To understand TiVo's business plan, you have to accept the likelihood that selling TiVo hardware probably isn't the main thrust. As bicker and others have pointed out, there may not be commercial viability for a TiVo-featured standalone DVR.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

There is evidence that suggests the manufacturing costs is lower for the Premiere then the Tivo HD. The price is similar. That suggests the hardware subsidy is reduced (or eliminated).

That said I agree with the PP. Tivo is more interested in selling new subscriptions then upgrading existing subscribers.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

dlfl said:


> <stuff>


Thanks for the clarification. It's been noted time and again that TiVo does not make money from it's hardware. I appreciate you posting the correct chart! :up:


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dlfl said:


> Using, for example, the 12 mos ended Jan 31, 2010, the Hardware revenues are $47.907M and the Cost of hardware revenues is $65.909M. Subtracting costs from revenues gives a $28.002M loss as the "Gross margin" for hardware only.


yeah, but they make it up on volume 

Good point on the standalone market simply being the proving ground for the main revenue model for TiVo these days which is to sell to MSOs as aprt of a deal. The MSOs worry about the hardware and TiVo looks at an actual profit margin.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I agree with the pp but I'm not sure we can accept tivo's numbers at face value. I don't know how much of the marketing cost is included in the cost of hardware revenue and how much (if any) is included in the cost of service revenue.

Again I agree tivo isn't making money on hardware sales but the numbers may be overstated.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> I agree with the pp but I'm not sure we can accept tivo's numbers at face value. I don't know how much of the marketing cost is included in the cost of hardware revenue and how much (if any) is included in the cost of service revenue.
> 
> Again I agree tivo isn't making money on hardware sales but the numbers may be overstated.


TiVo used to put the rebates in marketing costs that ended up in cost of hardware - TiVo does not put much in marketing now, they have deals with Best Buy to cover most of marketing.
I think it pretty safe to say that the bulk of that number are fixed costs of R&D on hardware design coupled with incremental costs of making the actual box


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The FCC as part of the new hearings on cable card are looking to limit cable card certification to hardware only - they said it was incorrect to make software requirements part of it (such as honoring the CCI bit).
> 
> From that I surmise that the FCC does not think cable companies are using the CCI flag as intended.


That's a pretty self-serving over-interpretation. LOL


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Condolences on the passing of your constant companion (at a ripe old cat age, I would note).


Thanks.



dlfl said:


> Sorry but I can't accept that as an excuse for not bothering to read my entire post, which would have made the satirical aspects obvious even without smileys.


That's incorrect. Expecting someone to understand the underlying tone of written communications is ridiculous.

Use smilies. That's what they're there for.



dlfl said:


> I guess expecting an apology for, or even an admission of, your imperfection would be unreasonable!


It surely would be unreasonable to expect more of an apology than you yourself gave for neglecting to include smileys. We're even in that regard. More properly, we mutually recognized it as a miscommunication, and you should have left it at that.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Thanks.
> 
> That's incorrect. Expecting someone to understand the underlying tone of written communications is ridiculous.
> 
> ...


LOL ! Folks, behold a new sin in the "book of bicker": Failure to use smilies when they are critical to his understanding of your post! (Although not critical for most, or perhaps all, other readers.)

At least you are gruff on an equal opportunity basis -- to those who agree with you as well as those who don't! 

Hope I didn't lose you here by leaving out a critical smiley!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> That's a pretty self-serving over-interpretation. LOL


over interpreted perhaps - I am definitely trying to read between the lines here - but the tone is clearly one of cable cards implementation is NOT acceptable and that cable labs _clearly went beyond the intent_ of licensing simply to make sure 3rd party *hardware* did not adversely impact cable infrastructure


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> LOL ! Folks, behold a new sin in the "book of bicker": Failure to use smilies when they are critical to his understanding of your post! (Although not critical for most, or perhaps all, other readers.)


Stop being obtuse. My beef with what you did was not your leaving out the smilies, but your criticizing me for not getting your joke without them. Take responsibility for your part of the miscommunication, as I have for mine, and stop being such a cretin about this.



dlfl said:


> At least you are gruff on an equal opportunity basis -- to those who agree with you as well as those who don't!


Of course. I'm annoyingly unbiased.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> over interpreted perhaps - I am definitely trying to read between the lines here - but the tone is clearly one of cable cards implementation is NOT acceptable and that cable labs _clearly went beyond the intent_ of licensing simply to make sure 3rd party *hardware* did not adversely impact cable infrastructure


Given how the authorities tend to make things sounds more consumer-friendly than they're actually going to end up being (Which poster was it who was waving the gateway banner for so long, who after reading the recent details released by the FCC said, "If that's the case, then I'm not interested in the gateway anymore"?), if you're going to "over-interpret" then you're safer over-interpreting in the opposite direction, since what ends up being the reality is almost always less consumer-focused than consumers seem to think it is going to be from the earlier statements.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Stop being obtuse. My beef with what you did was not your leaving out the smilies, but your criticizing me for not getting your joke without them. Take responsibility for your part of the miscommunication, as I have for mine, and stop being such a cretin about this.


Behold the bicker defense when he's caught being obtuse and a cretin about something.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Given how the authorities tend to make things sounds more consumer-friendly than they're actually going to end up being (Which poster was it who was waving the gateway banner for so long, who after reading the recent details released by the FCC said, "If that's the case, then I'm not interested in the gateway anymore"?), if you're going to "over-interpret" then you're safer over-interpreting in the opposite direction, since what ends up being the reality is almost always less consumer-focused than consumers seem to think it is going to be from the earlier statements.


I was not waving a gateway banner - I was noting that cable cards sucked and something better was needed for 3rd party companies to compete. Nope - no consumer in that sentence.
I noted that the technical detail of having to have the tuners in the gateway sucked - it negated the whole idea of 3rd parties being easily added to a house where TVs are already hooked up. Eg limiting a house to 6 tuners when it has 6 occupants and 4 TVs makes the gateway as ineffective in spurring 3rd party sales as cable cards now. - nope no consumer in that part.
You forget it seems that I was the one who said it would be possible to meter the number of streams for a house so that the cable company could charge based on number of outlets - which is fair and decidedly not pro-consumer

I am using logic in thinking that the FCC will not make the mistake of ceding their responsibility to cable companies again, given all the items listed on why cable cards are ineffective at realizing the mandate of spurring 3rd party innovation - again no consumer oriented thought in this part either.

the logic might break down, but getting something better than cable cards is not about consumerism to the FCC or Congress - it is about 3rd party innovation and jobs


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Behold the bicker defense when he's caught being obtuse and a cretin about something.


*I'm* not the one having a hissy-fit about an already-mutually-acknowledged miscommunication.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I noted that the technical detail of having to have the tuners in the gateway sucked - it negated the whole idea of 3rd parties being easily added to a house where TVs are already hooked up. Eg limiting a house to 6 tuners when it has 6 occupants and 4 TVs makes the gateway as ineffective in spurring 3rd party sales as cable cards now. - nope no consumer in that part.
> 
> I am using logic in thinking that the FCC will not make the mistake of ceding their responsibility to cable companies again, given all the items listed on why cable cards are ineffective at realizing the mandate of spurring 3rd party innovation - again no consumer oriented thought in this part either.


How does putting the tuners in the gateway suck? I.e., where are you going to put them? Whether it's cable or satellite, that has to be some specific hardware that pulls the signal off of RG6 and outputs it to a device. If that means tuners, so be it - the whole point of the gateway is to isolate that provider-specific signal delivery from what the display/recording device sees, and to output it to all devices using a standard protocol like DLNA. If you need more than 6 tuners, rent/buy more than one gateway. No different than where we are at today with STBs, in other words, but much better in the end result (hopefully).

I am very much hoping that the FCC does not cede any control over the standards to cable/satellite/telco. This is one area where they have to step in and enforce a common interoperable output standard for all. If it's done via a MVPD/CE industry consortium with oversight by the FCC, that's fine. But none of this expensive and drawn-out CableLabs certification type stuff just to make sure your end-user device is DLNA compliant.


----------



## Krandor (Jun 10, 2004)

TroyM said:


> +1 to the OP.
> For the record, I've been a Tivo subscriber since the Series 1. I currently have 3 Tivo HD's. I have no incentive to buy the Premiere. So I won't. They lost my upgrade dollars because they offered nothing to encourage me to upgrade. It can be considered money left on the table. When they are interested in providing something I find of value, I'll give it to them. It's there. They just have to earn it. For now, they get my monthly subscription and not more.


I am in the same spot. I have been dissapointed for a while in how long it has taken TiVo to add new hardware but so far they have been the best game in town. I upgrade when I see something worth upgrading to. I did not upgrade to the S3 when it first came out becasue I wanted MRV and only when it was available did I upgrade. Right now, I see nothing in the Premier worth upgrading to. Maybe a future software update will add something and I will reconsider at that time. While I don't see anything else out there currently better then TiVo at the rate I see other hardware improving compared to TiVo I think the time may be coming where I will move to another platform. I don't want to, but if somebody else offers features TiVo doesn't then it is something I will have to look at. MRV is the feature on TiVo I love the most and what has kept me with TiVo for a long time but it is starting to look like other companies are starting to implement similar features.

The gap between TiVo and its competitors is getting smaller and when there is already a hurdle over convicing people to buy a standalone box instead of just renting from the cable company that makes for a tough sell.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> How does putting the tuners in the gateway suck? I.e., where are you going to put them? Whether it's cable or satellite,


thus my use of the phrase "Having to"

the suck part is that I ahd dreams of a gateway that just worked and I did not have to call the cable company to get another gateway but simply hit a website to get another full stream of signal outputted.
So if I bought a DVR that could record 12 things at once, no problem just hook up the cable from the gateway and let the tuners in the DVR do their thing. Now it sounds like instead we will have the new limiting technology because of that detail of _having_ to put the tuners in the gateway


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

How does what you're saying here jive with what you said to me before, that your concerns were *not *about having to pay extra for extra outlets?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> How does what you're saying here jive with what you said to me before, that your concerns were *not *about having to pay extra for extra outlets?


it is not about paying . If they have control of the tuner then I am worried it is a way for them to introduce some kind of technical limitation again that reduces 3rd party innovation - such as the 12 tuner DVR I mentioned though I will bet the cable company will be much more creative in finding some limitations.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

So basically you want unlimited tuners, but somehow they still would be able to charge your for each. 

AFIAK, that' infeasible, so since that's your requirement you've basically taken yourself off the customer list.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> So basically you want unlimited tuners, but somehow they still would be able to charge your for each.
> 
> AFIAK, that' infeasible,..........


For the present yes, however perhaps doable some time in the future. If you could digitize the cable signal at say 4 GHz sampling rate, then implement tuners with software (digital processing algorithms). Implementing a new tuner would amount to launching a new software thread (or several). The number of tuners would be limited just by the computing horsepower of the device. Not saying when, if ever, this would be practical at acceptable cost.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> So basically you want unlimited tuners, but somehow they still would be able to charge your for each.
> 
> AFIAK, that' infeasible, so since that's your requirement you've basically taken yourself off the customer list.


no - I am fine with say 6 digital outlets - and at that outlet I may have a 2 tuner TiVo, a 3 tuner Moxi or a 4 or 6 tuner win7Media Center. Each of those digital outlets is the equivalent of a cable card today which is how they track and bill the digital outlets along with STBs. I would rather they come up with a gateway that allows for 3rd parties to sell a multi tuner device still. Note - That may be possible in the chipset that premiere has now. Lets just keep the cable company from limiting how many tuners a household can have

It is simply what is in place today - with the change over then something that works today like a TV with cable card would have to get something else or else be grandfathered.

I can see them mucking with it in some way that the current cable card device would need an adapter box again - or even worse limitations I can not even imagine yet.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> no - I am fine with say 6 digital outlets - and at that outlet I may have a 2 tuner TiVo, a 3 tuner Moxi or a 4 or 6 tuner win7Media Center. Each of those digital outlets is the equivalent of a cable card today which is how they track and bill the digital outlets along with STBs. I would rather they come up with a gateway that allows for 3rd parties to sell a multi tuner device still. Note - That may be possible in the chipset that premiere has now. Lets just keep the cable company from limiting how many tuners a household can have


Nothing in the FCC proposal prevents 3rd parties from creating gateways (which could be a simple set back box with a couple of tuners, or a DVR), however, I'm sure they will have to go through some sort of provider-specific cert process just like Cablecard devices and sat receivers do today. Cable will still be using Cablecard for a long time anyway, so it's not like you can't keep using Tivos as extra devices.

I honestly don't care if it has 6 tuners, as long as uses a standard IP protocol for output and control (e.g., DLNA). Wouldn't you like to be able to use a Premiere with cable, satellite, or U-Verse and switch services whenever you want?

There's a lot of details that remain to be worked out though, and a lot of questions that the FCC asks of the players in the Notice of Inquiry. It's a good read if you get a chance, and only 30 pages or so.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> .......There's a lot of details that remain to be worked out though, and a lot of questions that the FCC asks of the players in the Notice of Inquiry. It's a good read if you get a chance, and only 30 pages or so.


The technical possibilities are mouth-watering. However, like ZeoTiVo, I will be pleasantly amazed if it isn't either (1) watered down to where it isn't so great, or (2) effectively killed by cable operator foot-dragging (because it threatens their profits). But hope springs eternal.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> So basically you want unlimited tuners, but somehow they still would be able to charge your for each.
> 
> AFIAK, that' infeasible, so since that's your requirement you've basically taken yourself off the customer list.


Did you purchase the tuners ? No , so why should you benefit from my spending ? I cant think of a justifiable reason , why a per tuner change is legitimate. when the internet is unlimited.


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

bicker said:


> How does what you're saying here jive with what you said to me before, that your concerns were *not *about having to pay extra for extra outlets?


can you post once without using bold ?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slowbiscuit said:


> I honestly don't care if it has 6 tuners, as long as uses a standard IP protocol for output and control (e.g., DLNA). Wouldn't you like to be able to use a Premiere with cable, satellite, or U-Verse and switch services whenever you want?


yes - the ultimate goal is worth the effort, no question. After seeing how cable card went from good to bad so easily I am just concerned when I hear the MSO has any control over the spec. 



dlfl said:


> The technical possibilities are mouth-watering. However, like ZeoTiVo, I will be pleasantly amazed if it isn't either (1) watered down to where it isn't so great, or (2) effectively killed by cable operator foot-dragging (because it threatens their profits). But hope springs eternal.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> Did [they] purchase the tuners ? No , so why should [they] benefit from my spending ?


That's nonsense thinking.



Videodrome said:


> I cant think of a justifiable reason , why a per tuner change is legitimate. when the internet is unlimited.


Then get your video through the Internet.

The justifiable reason is because it value you perceive. If you don't perceive the value, then don't patronize the service.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Videodrome said:


> can you post once without using bold ?


Stop *****ing about typography because your can't make your point compelling enough to trump the reality of the marketplace.

Or should I spend a whole bunch of bandwidth criticizing your failure to capitalize and the fact that you put in extra spaces?

Get a grip, V.


----------

