# How much would you pay for a third-tuner?



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

_Meant for TiVo Premiere forum..._

Suppose TiVo offered a USB dongle with a third OTA/CABLE tuner, similar to that pictured below:










How much would you pay for it?


----------



## tomm1079 (May 10, 2005)

that would be pretty sweet. I always have those times when i am recording 2 things but want to watch a live sporting event of some kind.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

I voted $50-$100, but would probably pay up to $125. At $99, it would be a no brainer, assuming that tuner support was seamless.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

As long as it decrypted digital channels properly via the CableCARD, $100 would be really easy to justify.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

$100 per tuner is what Ceton is charging. That's my price point.

By the way I paid $25 for a HVR-950Q, ironically enough bundled with Nero Liquid TV and one year of TiVo service (which I don't use). Normally the Hauppauge tuner goes for $70. AVermedia has dual tuner for that price, so I'd say $100 is a bit steep but it's the max I would pay.

I don't know how kosher CableLabs would be with it though.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Nothing. I have no interest in a third tuner. Recording TV is slowly but steadily becoming a thing of the past.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Recording TV is slowly but steadily becoming a thing of the past.


Not from what I see. I'd be bold as to say that most people have DVRs now, and most people have DVRs that don't get downloadable internet content.


----------



## t1voproof (Feb 6, 2010)

Up to $100


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I say $100 would be my max with the same logic as Raj. Ceton plans on charging $100 per tuner and Silicon Dust is charging $125 per tuner but it is an external network tuner. I would have paid $699 for a 4 tuner XL model.

Also maybe you can answer bkdtv based off your knowledge, how much do you think it would cost TiVo to add a third or fourth tuner into the actual TiVo assuming this would require no major software revision?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Raj said:


> Not from what I see. I'd be bold as to say that most people have DVRs now, and most people have DVRs that don't get downloadable internet content.


Most people still watch live TV, even those households that have DVRs. But the "on demand" services of cable companies are becoming increasingly popular, I'd not be surprised if more cable subscribers use them instead of using their DVRs.

The DVR simply requires too much work for "the masses" - and for me too these days (in most cases). I usually don't even bother watching the recordings I have of shows if I can watch them online. This season, I have canceled, not set up or stopped watching most recordings of The Simpsons, V, Modern Family, Parks & Recreation, The Office, and FlashForward. Just like TiVo used to make it a lot easier by not making me have to deal with tapes or knowing when a show aired, so has Hulu and the networks' websites made it even more easy, but letting me skip setting up recordings and worrying about conflicts entirely.

Going back from the PC to TiVo to watch TV these days almost feels like it used to when having to go from TiVo to watch live TV.

Obviously, there will continue to be a DVR market, especially for those who want to take recordings with them or archive them - or for those who want to skip commercials. But for the casual viewer, on demand is the way to go.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say this is why TiVo seems to care about better integration of Netflix and Amazon, but not as much about a third tuner.


----------



## TWinbrook46636 (Feb 9, 2008)

... or maybe they just don't listen. We're just now getting a capacity meter after all these years.


----------



## Bsteenson (Jul 30, 2000)

MickeS said:


> Just like TiVo used to make it a lot easier by not making me have to deal with tapes or knowing when a show aired, so has Hulu and the networks' websites made it even more easy, but letting me skip setting up recordings and worrying about conflicts entirely.
> 
> Going back from the PC to TiVo to watch TV these days almost feels like it used to when having to go from TiVo to watch live TV.


Man, I couldn't disagree more. I suppose the day will come soon when online video is as reliable and as high a resolution and as easy as my HD cable, but -- at least in my experience -- we're no where close yet.

Go to Hulu and wade through the menus to find the right episode, then the right parts, then hope it loads correctly, then hope it plays correctly, then wait for the promotions, etc. Then watch it in a small computer screen.

How can that possibly be easier than setting a season pass once and knowing the show will always be there whenever you want to watch it, from the comfort of your recliner, on your great big HD TV?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Bsteenson said:


> Man, I couldn't disagree more. I suppose the day will come soon when online video is as reliable and as high a resolution and as easy as my HD cable, but -- at least in my experience -- we're no where close yet.
> 
> Go to Hulu and wade through the menus to find the right episode, then the right parts, then hope it loads correctly, then hope it plays correctly, then wait for the promotions, etc. Then watch it in a small computer screen.
> 
> How can that possibly be easier than setting a season pass once and knowing the show will always be there whenever you want to watch it, from the comfort of your recliner, on your great big HD TV?


That's why I said "slowly". 

Hulu is extremely reliable for me, and I watch it on my TV, not on my computer screen. The queue function works like an unattended season pass - if a new episode is on, it shows up in the queue. As for wading through menus, I simply type the name of whatever I want to see in the search box. It shows the matches and I click on it. It couldn't be easier.

But it lacks in quality for now, which is why I watch the ABC shows on their website. They have a streaming HD feed which looks REALLY good. Even though their UI is more cumbersome, it's still worth it. If Hulu used the same technology, it would be a huge improvement.

But yes, for those who want the highest quality, web content is still not the way to go. But most people simply do not care about picture quality above all else. It has been shown time and time again - content, ease of use and availability always beats quality for most consumers (including me).

There will be a place for the DVR for the foreseeable future. I still use it to record "Lost" because I want to watch it the same evening, and it's one of the few shows where it matters to me that I get the best quality possible (it's just a gorgeous show). But to me, and I think many others, the need for multiple tuners is becoming more and more a thing of the past.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Most people still watch live TV, even those households that have DVRs. But the "on demand" services of cable companies are becoming increasingly popular, I'd not be surprised if more cable subscribers use them instead of using their DVRs.


OUr local cable company has been sold out of DVRs, and every time they get a new stock of DVRs it gets sold out.

I don't think we're going to be strictly or majority on demand for a while. I can see why some people like it though - fewer commercials.

Besides, the dream of having officially supported Hulu on your TV is probably not going to be reality unless you pay for it.



> But the "on demand" services of cable companies are becoming increasingly popular, I'd not be surprised if more cable subscribers use them instead of using their DVRs.


I don't see many people watching cable ondemand here.



> The DVR simply requires too much work for "the masses" - and for me too these days (in most cases). I usually don't even bother watching the recordings I have of shows if I can watch them online. This season, I have canceled, not set up or stopped watching most recordings of The Simpsons, V, Modern Family, Parks & Recreation, The Office, and FlashForward. Just like TiVo used to make it a lot easier by not making me have to deal with tapes or knowing when a show aired, so has Hulu and the networks' websites made it even more easy, but letting me skip setting up recordings and worrying about conflicts entirely.


Guide, click, record is too much work for the masses? As for Hulu, they have a limited selection and bring the shows later (probably on purpose, who knows).

You want to talk about too much work for the masses? Watching a show on the network's website on your TV.



> Going back from the PC to TiVo to watch TV these days almost feels like it used to when having to go from TiVo to watch live TV.
> 
> Obviously, there will continue to be a DVR market, especially for those who want to take recordings with them or archive them - or for those who want to skip commercials. But for the casual viewer, on demand is the way to go.


I doubt that the networks will cannibalize their revenue stream by putting free online and ondemand distribution on par with traditional distribution. It's one of the reasons they fought Cablevision's network DVR so hard. As long as they own the shows you're at their mercy. Besides, your cable company usually controls your internet connection. All of this bandwidth usage to decrease their bottom line when cord cutters kill off their cable subscription isn't going to make them happy.



> If I had to venture a guess, I'd say this is why TiVo seems to care about better integration of Netflix and Amazon, but not as much about a third tuner.


And it's a gamble and a blunder IMO. They should have improved the core functions because people can buy a boxee or other device for online content. Even their PS3 and XBOX is coming with it. TiVo is about TV, not internet delivered shows.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

MickeS said:


> That's why I said "slowly".
> 
> Hulu is extremely reliable for me, and I watch it on my TV, not on my computer screen. The queue function works like an unattended season pass - if a new episode is on, it shows up in the queue. As for wading through menus, I simply type the name of whatever I want to see in the search box. It shows the matches and I click on it. It couldn't be easier.
> 
> ...


Are the online shows in 5.1 audio? Until it has multichannel audio it would be hard to replace recording from the ABC station. Since anything that doesn't match the broadcast is inferior. Just having an HD picture doesn't cut it.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

For the poll question, $100-$130 is a no-brainer for me too. I'd be on that on day-one as long as it cleared cablecard requirements.

I would've paid $600 for an "XL3" (3-tuner XL) had Tivo offered one.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

If I only had one or two TiVos, I would definitely pay $100-$150 for an extra tuner. Since I already have four TiVos (eight tuners), and I plan on adding a Premiere to my arsenal in the near future, I really have no need for more tuners. I almost never watch live TV, and on the rare occasions where I want to watch something live while all of the local tuners are busy recording something, I just use the QAM tuner in my TV.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

I would also be happy with 2 tuners if there was cooperative scheduling and streaming MRV.

The point really isn't so much about more tuners as it is about a whole house DVR. Even the cable company DVR (Verizon) has true multiroom viewing now... TiVo is supposed to be ahead of the curve, not the cable company!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Are the online shows in 5.1 audio? Until it has multichannel audio it would be hard to replace recording from the ABC station. Since anything that doesn't match the broadcast is inferior. Just having an HD picture doesn't cut it.


I don't believe they are multi-channel audio.

If you're looking for the best quality, online streaming is not the way to go right now.


----------



## riekl (Jan 29, 2001)

MickeS said:


> Nothing. I have no interest in a third tuner. Recording TV is slowly but steadily becoming a thing of the past.


Eh ? What planet are you on ? We are recording more and more as a nation then ever before, there is no decrease of any kind.

Downloadable content re: hulu et all which i assume you are refering to is only a niche and will remain a niche for some time until a single provider has a robust collection and subscription model. Ala carte will NOT work for the masses.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

riekl said:


> Ala carte will NOT work for the masses.


Really. Then how exactly do you explain the huge success of the iTunes store?


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

gweempose said:


> Really. Then how exactly do you explain the huge success of the iTunes store?


I don't actually think that it is demonstrated that the iTunes store has been successful at all when it comes to video.

In fact, if you look at what the cost would be to subscribe to even a handful of popular TV shows from iTunes you will see that it could easily top what a full cable subscription costs.

That's also for lower video quality, lack of DD 5.1 audio, etc.


----------



## riekl (Jan 29, 2001)

gweempose said:


> Really. Then how exactly do you explain the huge success of the iTunes store?


Eh ? It hasn't been successfull at all much less hugely (in terms of video). I have an Apple TV, I use it when I want to watch a 'specific' show but not for day to day tv / series watching and I am a serious video phobe, I have PS3, Vudu, Apple TV, 2 Tivo HD and a Moxi.

Ala carte only works in specific instances, it will not replace Cable Tv anytime soon (next 5-10 years). Music is completely different it was almost guaranteed to succeed as it freed people from having to buy an album to get a single song. I buy all my music on iTunes too, but I certainly don't buy my Tv Shows there unless I am catching up on an older series that isn't on Hulu or Netflix.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

$6.38


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

riekl said:


> Eh ? What planet are you on ? We are recording more and more as a nation then ever before, there is no decrease of any kind.
> 
> Downloadable content re: hulu et all which i assume you are refering to is only a niche and will remain a niche for some time until a single provider has a robust collection and subscription model. Ala carte will NOT work for the masses.


As I mentioned, I wasn't speaking only of Internet content. On Demand from cable is a growing service, and why wouldn't it be - for most people it's as lot more convenient than having your own DVR.

More and more people might record (though I haven't seen any numbers that suggest it's a significant portion of the TV viewers that do so - at most about 20% I believe, and that's for a few select shows), but that's because it currently is better than watching live.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

jmpage2 said:


> I don't actually think that it is demonstrated that the iTunes store has been successful at all when it comes to video.





riekl said:


> It hasn't been successful at all much less hugely (in terms of video).


Clearly I was wrong. I am not an Apple person myself, but I guess I just assumed they were selling a tremendous amount of TV shows and movies the same way they were selling a crapload of music. Whenever I am riding on a train or airplane, I frequently see people watching stuff on their iPods. Where are these people getting all this video from?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

riekl said:


> Eh ? It hasn't been successfull at all much less hugely (in terms of video). I have an Apple TV, I use it when I want to watch a 'specific' show but not for day to day tv / series watching and I am a serious video phobe, I have PS3, Vudu, Apple TV, 2 Tivo HD and a Moxi.
> 
> Ala carte only works in specific instances, it will not replace Cable Tv anytime soon (next 5-10 years). Music is completely different it was almost guaranteed to succeed as it freed people from having to buy an album to get a single song. I buy all my music on iTunes too, but I certainly don't buy my Tv Shows there unless I am catching up on an older series that isn't on Hulu or Netflix.


Do you really mean "video phobe"?

Ala cart video won't replace cable for a long time to come, but it will be making a substantial impact on the market within the next five years.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

gweempose said:


> Really. Then how exactly do you explain the huge success of the iTunes store?


iTunes has videos?
I think the only Apple product I've really used over the last few decades has been quicktime. At least that I've paid for.
I use the Zune Market place.

Although if I decide to buy my first Apple hardware, the iPad, I might start using iTunes occasionally.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

iTunes music is displacing CDs.

iTunes video downloads aren't displacing cable TV. They might put a dent in DVD sales though. 

I'll still buy BDs because I want high quality.


----------



## mec1991 (Nov 5, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> $6.38


 :up:


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

gweempose said:


> ... Where are these people getting all this video from?


from their tivo's? 

actually i dont know. My wife and 2 older kids have video nano's. When we go on a trip or something my boys might buy a movie or 2 from the itunes store. All three have a handfull of games from the store too. But for the most part they have only music.

Every now and again when i get the urge to stick a fork in my eye, I'll rip them a dvd or convert them a few shows off a tivo but for the most part it's too much of a hassle.


----------



## Mike-Mike (Mar 2, 2010)

"urge to stick a fork in my eye" hahaha


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dswallow said:


> As long as it decrypted digital channels properly via the CableCARD, $100 would be really easy to justify.


anyone know the hardware of cablecard? Could an external tuner send an unencypted stream via USB and the cablecard in the box could decrypt it?


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

I hardly ever buy video on demand from the internet. The problem is that I can watch Amazon on demand on my Tivo but not my ipod touch and I can watch itunes stuff on my touch but not my Tivo. So I'm not going to buy any of that stuff until I can use it on both of my devices. I'd buy a season of a show I'm trying to catch up on if I could watch it on my ipod as I commute and then on my Tivo from home. Since I can't, I won't bother and I'll either get the DVD and rip it to my ipod or download torrents.

Plus the pricing model is bad. $1.99 for SD and $2.99 for HD is way to expensive. Music at $.99 I'll buy since i listen to music many times. But I only watch a show once. I'm not going to spend $2.99 on a TV show to watch once. They need to drop the pricing to at least half of what it currently is.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

This type of device would save me 7 dollars a month since I could ditch one of my 240's.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

Raj said:


> I would also be happy with 2 tuners if there was cooperative scheduling and streaming MRV.
> 
> The point really isn't so much about more tuners as it is about a whole house DVR. Even the cable company DVR (Verizon) has true multiroom viewing now... TiVo is supposed to be ahead of the curve, not the cable company!


This. I would pay more for cooperative scheduling than a third tuner. It offers me more flexibility and usefulness.

As for streaming MRV I essentially have that unless a show has lots of adds at the beginning. I get transfer rates of about 2:1, which is enough to cover nearly all the commercials by the first break.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> anyone know the hardware of cablecard? Could an external tuner send an unencypted stream via USB and the cablecard in the box could decrypt it?


It can send an encrypted stream but I don't know if that particular arrangement is supported by cablelabs.


----------



## Mike-Mike (Mar 2, 2010)

NYHeel said:


> I hardly ever buy video on demand from the internet. The problem is that I can watch Amazon on demand on my Tivo but not my ipod touch and I can watch itunes stuff on my touch but not my Tivo. So I'm not going to buy any of that stuff until I can use it on both of my devices. I'd buy a season of a show I'm trying to catch up on if I could watch it on my ipod as I commute and then on my Tivo from home. Since I can't, I won't bother and I'll either get the DVD and rip it to my ipod or download torrents.
> 
> Plus the pricing model is bad. $1.99 for SD and $2.99 for HD is way to expensive. Music at $.99 I'll buy since i listen to music many times. But I only watch a show once. I'm not going to spend $2.99 on a TV show to watch once. They need to drop the pricing to at least half of what it currently is.


when the iPad comes out I think Apple with have shows for 99 cents, I'm sure Amazon will have to match that price


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

My immediate thought is, if it works, I'd probably pay as much as they'd like to charge for it. A 3rd tuner would be wonderful, and having a 3rd tuner that wouldn't require me to buy a whole new box plus have to deal with Comcast again? Priceless. I just hope it works with S3's...


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

MickeS said:


> .
> 
> If I had to venture a guess, I'd say this is why TiVo seems to care about better integration of Netflix and Amazon, but not as much about a third tuner.


I'd venture a guess they did more integration because they can make more money doing that than they can by adding a 3rd tuner. 

A 3rd tuner could actually cost them a sale of a second TiVo for some households. The only reason I have two TiVos is because I need more than two tuners.

Also, I think you're nuts if you think downloadable content is more convenient than just recording what I want on my TiVo. Recording TV is NOT going anywhere anytime soon. People are just beginning to get DVR's now, and most people are too ill informed to get one that has download capability. I guess maybe you are just ahead of your time. WAAAAAAY ahead. If it happens at all. By then there will probably be something better.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

I'd rather have networked programming before I'd want more live tuners.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

bareyb said:


> Also, I think you're nuts if you think downloadable content is more convenient than just recording what I want on my TiVo. Recording TV is NOT going anywhere anytime soon. People are just beginning to get DVR's now, and most people are too ill informed to get one that has download capability. I guess maybe you are just ahead of your time. WAAAAAAY ahead. If it happens at all. By then there will probably be something better.


The other downside to downloadable content is programming. It's akin to listening to music on the radio or satellite. There's a lot of value to how a station organizes it's programming. What it shows, when and in series with what else. That's pretty much impossible to replace with downloadable content. To a certain extent you can use playlists but then you run afoul of the wasted bandwidth downloading "unwanted" material. Just look at how ticked off some people get about the Suggestions, and those are just recorded from idle tuners. Start gobbling up people's 'idle' bandwidth and you'll raise holy hell. Not to mention the ruckus the carriers are raising about it.

Downloadable content has it's value, but it's certainly not the "only" way people want to get shows. Not now and unlikely any time soon.


----------



## debpub (Mar 9, 2010)

Downloading shows won't become more popular than recording with a DVR until internet speeds improve significantly and broadband has more reach in rural areas. I'd guess it would take at least 5 years for it to really be feasible for HD on a broad scale. And that's just for the U.S.


----------



## debpub (Mar 9, 2010)

I'm very interested to see how the iPad affects things though.


----------



## dbenrosen (Sep 20, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> from their tivo's?


That's where I get my content on my iPod Touch. I could never justify paying $1.99/$2.99 for a single episode of a show. When we take a plane trip, I record a bunch of movies from my many cable movie channels and transfer them to the iPods to watch.


----------



## Augeas (Apr 14, 2002)

jmpage2 said:


> In fact, if you look at what the cost would be to subscribe to even a handful of popular TV shows from iTunes you will see that it could easily top what a full cable subscription costs.


Actually, done correctly it is much cheaper to go with a OTA Tivo, iTunes, Netflix setup. Subscriptions on iTunes are limited to shows that you cannot receive on OTA channels or Netflix. This setup works well for people that live in areas with a strong OTA signal, since the most popular shows are still on broadcast stations this is also much less expensive. Cable ~70.00/month with OTA setup - ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, PBS, etc free, Netflix 9.00/month, leaving 730.00 per year for iTunes subscriptions which more than covers the one time purchase of an AppleTV and most subscriptions most people would want...


----------



## Augeas (Apr 14, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> Every now and again when i get the urge to stick a fork in my eye, I'll rip them a dvd or convert them a few shows off a tivo but for the most part it's too much of a hassle.


I have iTivo for transferring shows from the tivo to my Mac and Elgato HD for converting the shows to AppleTV ready format... It is all done seamlessly in the background, all I do is setup a subscription in iTivo for the shows that I want and all the download and conversion from the tivo is automatic... All I have to do is plug in my iPhone and sync the movies I want or select the ones I want to watch on my AppleTV. Completely pain free once it is setup.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

Augeas said:


> Actually, done correctly it is much cheaper to go with....


Cheaper, maybe, but certainly a lot more work. I don't watch TV for the purpose of working at it. It's there to idle the brain and be somewhat entertained in the process. Having channel lineups and their programming staff creating schedules does the work for me. I don't have to go digging. The Tivo's season passes makes it easy to grab recordings of what I know I want to watch. The lineups and schedules make it easy to find new material, without having to go digging. To me this is worth the price paid.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Augeas said:


> Actually, done correctly it is much cheaper to go with a OTA Tivo, iTunes, Netflix setup.


Not if you want to watch sports. Yes, it is cheaper for a few folks, but I would guess not most, given the audience for ESPN and such, and the lack of OTA for many.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Augeas said:


> I have iTivo for transferring shows from the tivo to my Mac and Elgato HD for converting the shows to AppleTV ready format... It is all done seamlessly in the background, all I do is setup a subscription in iTivo for the shows that I want and all the download and conversion from the tivo is automatic... All I have to do is plug in my iPhone and sync the movies I want or select the ones I want to watch on my AppleTV. Completely pain free once it is setup.


once it's all setup.

and also if you know in ADVANCE what you want to do.

If you only need stuff every now and again (say just loading my wife and kids ipods and my smartphone before a trip)- then I have to plan days in advance (assuming I already have all the content on my tivo's) to be sure I have time to transfer everything over to a computer and get it all reencoded in time. So mostly I have to plan like a week or two in advance to make sure I record enough stuff on my 3 tivos and then I can start downloading and reencoding.

for regular automated use it's not really so bad at all- but it's not exactly instant gratification if you decide you want something at the spur of the moment.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

wkearney99 said:


> Cheaper, maybe, but certainly a lot more work. I don't watch TV for the purpose of working at it. It's there to idle the brain and be somewhat entertained in the process. ....


very well put

I have a bunch of hobbies that are 'work'- fiddling with my home automation gizmos. Building a HTPC or 'normal' PC here or there. figuring out new ways to network and sync content between my smartphone, laptop, office network, and home network. Sometimes I enjoy the challange of building and figuring out how to get things to work more than the actual end product.

But for watching tv - for me- it's all about 'it just works'. I dont want to have to fight it.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

I was expecting the Premiere to have 3-4 tuners built in... It's just a faster & spiffier Tivo HD in my opinion. Nothing revolutionary. Nothing that makes me want to go out and buy it right away and retire my Tivo HD to light duty in my son's playroom... The Tivo HD can do just about everything the Premiere can. Right???


----------



## Videodrome (Jun 20, 2008)

One tuner would be great, but i want at least a 4 tuner box, with extenders. Everything else is just a hardware refresh.


----------



## TrueTurbo (Feb 19, 2008)

dolfer said:


> The Tivo HD can do just about everything the Premiere can. Right???


Pretty much, but it depends on how much you value the new software in the HD UI. Watching the videos of the UI in action, there is one feature I saw that alone justified the purchase for me - the ability to look at what new shows are coming up in the next month!

For me, it's all about ease of use and having the information I want at my finger tips. The HD UI on the Premier seems very intuitive to me. The browsing and search capabilities exceed what can be achieved with the TiVo HD.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

dolfer said:


> I was expecting the Premiere to have 3-4 tuners built in... It's just a faster & spiffier Tivo HD in my opinion. Nothing revolutionary. Nothing that makes me want to go out and buy it right away and retire my Tivo HD to light duty in my son's playroom... The Tivo HD can do just about everything the Premiere can. Right???


The search functions on the new TiVo are far more powerful. For example if you start typing in the letters of a show it will show you the results at the top for the most *popular* shows with that pattern matched, which is a very nice feature and just a small example of things to come.

With the new architecture TiVo should be able to add features to the new TiVo much more quickly, but obviously it will take some time to see if this truly pans out.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jmpage2 said:


> The search functions on the new TiVo are far more powerful. For example if you start typing in the letters of a show it will show you the results at the top for the most *popular* shows with that pattern matched, which is a very nice feature and just a small example of things to come.


I can sort of see the usefulness of that -- but is there ALSO a list in alphabetical order?

what if I don't want a popular show? Even if I do want a popular show, if they're rated in terms of popularity, it's harder to find the exact one I want.


----------



## TrueTurbo (Feb 19, 2008)

mattack said:


> I can sort of see the usefulness of that -- but is there ALSO a list in alphabetical order?
> 
> what if I don't want a popular show? Even if I do want a popular show, if they're rated in terms of popularity, it's harder to find the exact one I want.


The more letters you type, the more focused and alphabetical the list becomes. I find that almost always, I find the program I'm actually looking for with 2, maybe 3 letters.


----------



## TWinbrook46636 (Feb 9, 2008)

I'd pay $100 extra for a _built-in_ third tuner and another $50 on top of that for _built-in_ wifi. No more dongles! I really think the Premiere XL should have had these to begin with though. Maybe they will wise up and offer a Premiere SE in time for Christmas. Yeah, probably not.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

TWinbrook46636 said:


> I'd pay $100 extra for a _built-in_ third tuner and another $50 on top of that for _built-in_ wifi. No more dongles! I really think the Premiere XL should have had these to begin with though. Maybe they will wise up and offer a Premiere SE in time for Christmas. Yeah, probably not.


And needlessly rasie the price $150? I don't need wireless N for all my units. Why would I want to pay for it if I don't need it?

They already kept the crappy analog outputs. That's another thing I wish they would dump.


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> And needlessly rasie the price $150? I don't need wireless N for all my units. Why would I want to pay for it if I don't need it?
> 
> They already kept the crappy analog outputs. That's another thing I wish they would dump.


I have no idea what a third or fourth tuner would cost... But there are a whole new crop of relatively inexpensive blu-ray players with built-in wireless. No excuse for this device not to have it...

Or they could have created a basic unit, and then loaded the "XL" with the features people *really* want like multiple tuners and (for some) built-in wireless.

And I know I am dreaming here... But I was also hoping the new boxes would eliminate the need for a Tuning Adapter. Unfortunately, I guess that's not the case...


----------



## dolfer (Nov 3, 2000)

TrueTurbo said:


> Pretty much, but it depends on how much you value the new software in the HD UI. Watching the videos of the UI in action, there is one feature I saw that alone justified the purchase for me - the ability to look at what new shows are coming up in the next month!
> 
> For me, it's all about ease of use and having the information I want at my finger tips. The HD UI on the Premier seems very intuitive to me. The browsing and search capabilities exceed what can be achieved with the TiVo HD.


Thanks for the feedback... I certainly appreciate a new, slicker UI. (I was a web designer in a past life.) But again, it's not going to make say "I have to have this now!"

Had there been 3-4 tuners, I would have rushed out to get one!!! 

WHile I have you guys on the line, did they "fix" or figure out a workaround for the MRV and TTG implementation with these models? Or is it still basically useless for anything other than network TV?


----------



## Mike-Mike (Mar 2, 2010)

I have my house wired, but I agree the Premiere should have had built in wifi, and maybe have you pay extra for N or something, the Roku has built in wifi starting at $79.99, it's not a DVR of course, I'm just saying if the box as a whole is that cheap, it couldn't cost that much more to add wifi to a Tivo... same goes for an Xbox, just seems like these companies are taking advantage of customers when they charge so much more for wifi adapters


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Mike-Mike said:


> I have my house wired, but I agree the Premiere should have had built in wifi, and maybe have you pay extra for N or something, the Roku has built in wifi starting at $79.99, it's not a DVR of course, I'm just saying if the box as a whole is that cheap, it couldn't cost that much more to add wifi to a Tivo... same goes for an Xbox, just seems like these companies are taking advantage of customers when they charge so much more for wifi adapters


+1 :up:

Built-in wireless is pretty much becoming standard in every internet connected device. Both Premiere models should have had it.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

dolfer said:


> ... did they "fix" or figure out a workaround for the MRV and TTG implementation with these models? Or is it still basically useless for anything other than network TV?


For now, it looks like both MRV and TTG will be handled exactly the same as they were with the Series 3. If you happen to be one of the unlucky people whose cable provider has everything but the locals flagged as 0x01 or 0x02, you're still out of luck.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

gweempose said:


> +1 :up:
> 
> Built-in wireless is pretty much becoming standard in every internet connected device. Both Premiere models should have had it.


Most devices with wireless only have wireless G. I don't want wireless G. and the ones that do have wireless N are still using 2.4Ghz for it. I want 5Ghz wireless N. That is what I run most of my wireless devices on with 5Ghz Bridges. If it's only at 2.4Ghz i would rather not use it. although I do have it setup as a backup in case my 5Ghz Access Points go down, which hasn't happened.


----------



## Mike-Mike (Mar 2, 2010)

that was what I was trying to say, they should have included wireless G, and had the N as an upgrade you pay for


----------

