# TIVO Takeover?



## PaperFriend (May 31, 2011)

businessweek.com/news/2011-07-01/tivo-2-4-billion-takeover-seen-after-fight-with-dish-real-m-a.html

July 1 (Bloomberg) -- TiVo Inc., the unprofitable pioneer of digital-video recorders, is ripe for a takeover that may hand shareholders a 94 percent return after settling a seven-year patent battle with Dish Network Corp.


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

Ugh - a takeover would more than likely be by a patent troll and would probably kill Tivo as we know it. I hope I'm wrong, especially since for the first time in a long time with the Elite things are getting interesting!


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

I thought Tivo was suing itself in to profitability. Oh well. Actually I wouldn't mind a Google takeover. So far they've done most things right from my viewpoint. I'm sure there will be detractors from that statement.


----------



## SpiritualPoet (Jan 14, 2007)

As long as some firm continues to provide the channel lineup to existing equipment I couldn't care less whether or not TiVo, Inc. is acquired by another firm. Why? Because my machines all have lifetime plans in place. No price adjustments would have any impact on me!


----------



## KungFuCow (May 6, 2004)

rahnbo said:


> I thought Tivo was suing itself in to profitability. Oh well. Actually I wouldn't mind a Google takeover. So far they've done most things right from my viewpoint. I'm sure there will be detractors from that statement.


With Google trying to buy Hulu, Tivo would be a nice addition.


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

Google just bought DVR software already. They don't need tivo. Although prior to that purchase I'd have hoped to see Google buy Tivo I doubt that is in the cards now.

Microsoft has been rumored to be making the next gen Xbox ready for TV watching and DVR capability. Now we all know media center is already great at that so Microsoft is out as a purchaser. That said their major competitor Sony may be interested in keeping up.

Directv wouldn't piss on Tivo if it was on fire. They already went the smart route and bought replay tv.

Dish doesn't need tivo anymore.

Perhaps a cable co but they have already put a lot of time an effort into their DVR's most of which are now approaching Tivo capability or have already surpassed it. I don't see it happening.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

aridon said:


> Google just bought DVR software already. They don't need tivo.


Possibly. We'll need to wait and see. MS bought Skype even though they have MSN Live which IMO was better than Skype. I hope its not a cable company.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

I would have to see who will purchase TiVo and what the plans are before I could speculate about whether it will be good for customers or bad for customers. It should be evident by this late date that there is no way TiVo can be operated profitably as it is now. I think the reason is simple, there is no market large enough willing to pay the price necessary for the companay to operate profitably. I don't see how another company can fix that. Google already has other plans unless it would be to eliminate competition and Microsoft doesn't seem like a company interested in TiVo. DirecTV and/or Dish would have already puchased TiVo if it made sense for either of the satellite companies. A cable company might be the most likely but which one? It seems like a waste of time to speculate until more is known.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

rahnbo said:


> Possibly. We'll need to wait and see. MS bought Skype even though they have MSN Live which IMO was better than Skype. I hope its not a cable company.


That would be great if Microsoft aquired TiVo.


----------



## TolloNodre (Nov 3, 2007)

Funny how the only sources for this 'story' are investment firms that work in mergers and acquisitions.

What are the odds of that?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> That would be great if Microsoft aquired TiVo.


I don't know. They don't seem to like to even advertise or mention media center. For example at E3 they mention tv on the xbox 360 but don't even mention media center which can already do this. They supposedly have embedded boxes coming but I fear it will be like whs and media center extenders. Third parties will invest initially but then get out of the market.

Don't get me wrong I think a combination of TiVo and media center would be the best of both worlds, but I can see them also doing it where it doesnt benefit both users. For example they hired the guy who developed the web scheduling tool for media center and then didn't add the functionality to windows 7. Until recently as a result they didn't have the ability to remote schedule. Now finally someone released a tool, remote potato, that can do it.


----------



## eskovan (Sep 30, 2002)

SpiritualPoet said:


> As long as some firm continues to provide the channel lineup to existing equipment I couldn't care less whether or not TiVo, Inc. is acquired by another firm. Why? Because my machines all have lifetime plans in place. No price adjustments would have any impact on me!


Well yeah, but what about when in a couple years when they all fail (and we all know they eventually will) and you can't even buy a new TiVo box cause whoever bought them out did so just to gut them (i.e. sell the existing inventory, support the subscribers for a few years, then rebrand some POS OEM DVR (ComCast, DISH, Optimum etc.) with nothing more than the TiVo name?

Why can't TiVo be Microsoft and not idiot Apple, the software's the key! Anyone can put together a DVR, they need TiVo software running them all!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

TolloNodre said:


> Funny how the only sources for this 'story' are investment firms that work in mergers and acquisitions.
> 
> What are the odds of that?


Michael Boccio, a spokesman for TiVo, said the company doesnt comment on rumors or speculation in the market.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

eskovan said:


> Well yeah, but what about when in a couple years when they all fail (and we all know they eventually will) and you can't even buy a new TiVo box cause whoever bought them out did so just to gut them (i.e. sell the existing inventory, support the subscribers for a few years, then rebrand some POS OEM DVR (ComCast, DISH, Optimum etc.) with nothing more than the TiVo name?
> 
> Why can't TiVo be Microsoft and not idiot Apple, the software's the key! Anyone can put together a DVR, they need TiVo software running them all!


In a couple of years hopefully it won't matter since we will potentially have AllVid where we will have even greater choice in what boxes we can use.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

This is the article from Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-01/tivo-2-4b-takeover-seen-after-fight-with-dish.html?cmpid=yhoo

The part I find interesting is this:

The most likely buyers include Microsoft and Google, said Janneys Wible and Maxims Harding. Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft has wanted to offer a set-top box and have a presence in television systems through cable operators, Wible said. Given its involvement in a lawsuit with TiVo, it may prefer to buy the company than to risk losing and paying a fee, he added.

TiVos television search capability would appeal to Google, the worlds biggest Internet search engine, as it tries to gain a foothold in living rooms with Google TV, according to Wible. It would also complement the Mountain View, California-based companys acquisition last month of SageTV, a DVR software maker to be integrated with Google TV, Harding said. Google TV lets users search online video and other content on their TV screens.

Rovi, the provider of on-screen guides for TV program listings and audience measurement services for advertisers, would also make sense as a buyer, according to Wible. TiVo measures DVR viewing habits with second-by-second data.

Remember all this is just speculation on Bloomberg part. Of the three I think only Google would keep TiVo going. Rovi I never heard of. Microcrap will just end up killing TiVo, way they will end up killing Skype in about six months from now as long as Steve Bumhead is in charge.

There also this from the Fool:

http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2011/07/01/is-dish-building-the-perfect-beast.aspx

Feel free add your own speculation.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Michael Boccio, a spokesman for TiVo, said the company doesnt comment on rumors or speculation in the market.


Funny, all spokesman for the other companies all made the same statement.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Johncv said:


> Funny, all spokesman for the other companies all made the same statement.


just pointing out it was all speculation on some investor analyst's part.
same as you noted in your other post


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

rahnbo said:


> So far they've done most things right from my viewpoint.


Except attract consumer customers. Google exists to sell ads. I bought a Tivo because I _don't_ want to watch ads.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

DocNo said:


> Except attract consumer customers. Google exists to sell ads. I bought a Tivo because I _don't_ want to watch ads.


Google has plenty of products that are ad free. Tivo does not.

Also, I think they have done a STELLAR job at attracting consumers. Android and iPhone are neck and neck despite iPhone having a two year head start.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

It's hard to look into the crystal ball.. but..

From what I have heard, it is known now that Microsoft bought Skype to replace/enhance it's communication system in Xbox Live, Windows Live, GFWL, etc.. and that one of the main reasons for the purchase was that it was basically a free purchase. Microsoft skipped bringing in some profits from overseas Windows 7 purchases and instead of sending the money to the taxman.. bought Skype. Smart, very smart.
SEE:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/05/13/165902/microsoft-skype-tax-havens/

Now.. Tivo is hq'd in the USA. Not the same deal.. so Microsoft is probably out. Google I could see (as they have tons of money and seem to have a rule that they must spend alot of it to purchase things every year).. Everyone else.. ehhhh.. like the article even says.. it's old patents and why now?

I side with nobody is gonna buy Tivo. It is all speculation. If Tivo moved it's HQ to Sweden.. then maybe after Windows 8 comes out Microsoft will choose Tivo for it's next freebie.. but otherwise..nobody.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

DocNo said:


> Except attract consumer customers. Google exists to sell ads. I bought a Tivo because I _don't_ want to watch ads.


It no longer about selling ads, it more about targeting ads that you would watch. This is where TiVo excel at with it Stop Watch tracking system. Free ad supported TV is dying. Even cable show now have fewer ad. The interface on your TV will become a billboard with ads target for you to view.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

As far as I'm concerned my Premiere is already a billboard of ads. There are few places I can go in SDUI or HDUI without ads all over the place even with the lowest setting for ad placement. That varies by market of course. I use most Google products and rarely notice an ad. That's not to say there will not be any because only time will tell if Tivo were ever sold. I can't see Google asking its customers a year later, "Do you still want all the features we promised you a year ago?" Tivo is already a company that over promises and under delivers. It's been a nice ride but I welcome the time they hand it over to someone that can get stuff done.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

More likely that TiVo started this rumor to increase its own stock price as every company has a "hired" mouthpiece in the financial media promote what, in this case, TiVo wants, and TiVo is the King of all marketing and spin.

The problem is, the DVR's time has passed. It is the streaming boxes, with it's ability to connect an external drive on many new models, that are in demand, or people already have it on their latest TV's and Blu-ray players. DVR's are expensive to manufacture and replace and every DVR product that isn't part of an MVPD makes no economic sense today. And TiVo can sue whoever they want because TiVo would have to go to the back of the line of all the people suing Goolgle, Microsoft and every other tech company out there. There are so many lawsuits over patent infringement that companies today expect them and deal with it as a part of the cost of doing business. In other words, not the kind of leverage it had many years ago.

Looking at a $99 Roku or similar product with its superior interface and NO monthly fees compared to a TiVo with some money down (even with the $0 money down) the forever $19.99 monthly charge--on top of the Netflix and MLB subscriptions, etc--most folks are taking the streamers, thank you, and the young generation just isn't a DVR generation, they are streamers and like it just fine.

Further, TiVo has absolutely no critical mass. Paying over $2 billion (and by the way, that is far too much for what TiVo can offer a buyer) for more than 100,000 subscribers is a really poor investment that is the financial equivalent of a company buying the "magic beans" called TiVo.

Sorry, but nobody needs TiVo's patents either, and as for the new defendants in TiVo's lawsuits, they have all the time in the world (5 years or so more precisely) to take the road paved by Charlie Ergan (and now more difficult to get an injunction thanks to the recent en banc ruling, giving the Charlie software workaround tactic new life and greater chance of a new trial even if it continues to infringe, but in a different way) and wait for TiVo to die or go on the auction block. And that is what everyone is waiting for, when TiVo could be had for a good discount, when TiVo has to be auctioned off, then we'll see someone buy it, for a lot less than those Magic Beans, as TiVo is not far from that day and the vultures are waiting rather than blowing over $2 billion for what can be had for a few-hundred million in the not too distant future.

I would prefer a much stronger TiVo, but this tactic of suing and colon crawling the MSO's at the expense of its retail business where TiVo's strongest supporters and spenders are, seems like a bad idea, until one realizes that it is probably the only move on the chess board Tom Rogers could make.

I just wish the Premier had the 4 tuners and handled the internet options much better, and had an UI all in HD and working properly from day one and unleash what was intended for that second core. That could've made TiVo more valuable and may have even helped some of the subscribers leaving. In short, TiVo needed to blow other DVR's away, but it didn't and with that underwhelming Premiere, the now $19.99 per month seems far too rich for what one gets. We need more competition and more choice, but its sad to TiVo seems not to offer that in great degree.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

None of the streaming boxes can replace a DVR yet. When you can get all content from streaming I could see the TiVo being replaced but I'm not even sure if that will ever happen. It's up to teh content providers and they have been doing everything they can to prevent all content being available that way.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Agreed, the DVR's time has not passed - it is a superior way to watch anything other than live TV, specifically because you can skip commercials and because the HD quality is usually better (vs. streaming). On Demand stuff has its advantages with Netflix et al, but forced commercials a la Hulu leave me cold.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Series3Sub said:


> The problem is, the DVR's time has passed. It is the streaming boxes, with it's ability to connect an external drive on many new models, that are in demand,


I don't know if it's passed but it is certainly coming soon. Just look at how many "I love my Roku" posts we have on this site. It used to be "I love my Tivo." Those are pretty rare now.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> That would be great if Microsoft aquired TiVo.


Well we know it would remain unprofitable if that happened. Take away Microsoft Office from Microsoft and they'd be bankrupt in a year.


----------



## chicagobrownblue (May 29, 2008)

TiVo has a poison pill that effectively blocks any hostile takeover. So, a takeover would have to be friendly to succeed. I think TiVo management will hang on until they actually collect some of the cash they have won in various settlements. In the meantime Apple is entering the fray by selling you each episode or series on Apple TV/iPad/iPod Touch/iPhone and is rumored to be working on a real TV with unknown functionality. Steve Jobs answered the DVR question awhile ago by saying something to the effect that no one seems to know how to make money on it.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

chicagobrownblue said:


> TiVo has a poison pill that effectively blocks any hostile takeover. So, a takeover would have to be friendly to succeed. I think TiVo management will hang on until they actually collect some of the cash they have won in various settlements. In the meantime Apple is entering the fray by selling you each episode or series on Apple TV/iPad/iPod Touch/iPhone and is rumored to be working on a real TV with unknown functionality. Steve Jobs answered the DVR question awhile ago by saying something to the effect that no one seems to know how to make money on it.


The poison pill expires 6 months after the Dish settlement.



aadam101 said:


> I don't know if it's passed but it is certainly coming soon. Just look at how many "I love my Roku" posts we have on this site. It used to be "I love my Tivo." Those are pretty rare now.


I don't think it is. We are only just now passing 50% of homes having DVRs. The users on here are much more technically advanced than your average users and go out of their way to look for other ways to consume TV.

I think the "I love my TiVo" type posts are drowned out now, but the TiVo sucks posts. Also these days you say you love your TiVo and you are called a fanboy and flamed. Also just posting I love a product does little to add to the discussion.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

rifleman69 said:


> Well we know it would remain unprofitable if that happened. Take away Microsoft Office from Microsoft and they'd be bankrupt in a year.


Uh......no it wouldn't. Isn't Windows their number one seller?


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

It's pretty close between the Windows division and the Microsoft Business division with the Server and Tools division not far behind.

Revenue for year ending June 30, 2010:

Microsoft Businesss Division $18,909
Windows and Windows Live Division $17,788
Server and Tools Division $14,878
Entertainment and Devices Division $8,114
Online Services Division $2,198

Scott


----------



## aridon (Aug 31, 2006)

rifleman69 said:


> Well we know it would remain unprofitable if that happened. Take away Microsoft Office from Microsoft and they'd be bankrupt in a year.


Wow... Seriously at least do a quick google before pulling something like that out of your ass.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Uh......no it wouldn't. Isn't Windows their number one seller?


Only if people are buy new PeeCee, which in this elephant cause recession is not happening. Apple is the only company making money selling computers.

Microsoft only makes money from upgrades to Office and its XBox division. Also from not paying taxes by buying money losing business like Skype. As someone pointed out.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

John,

Unfortunately you are wrong considering Microsoft earned $2.7 billion on revenue of $4.4 billion in the Windows and Windows Live division. Their Microsoft Business division (Office) earned $3.1 billion on revenue of $5.2 billion and the Entertainment and Devices division (X-Box) only earned $225 million on revenue of $1.9 billion. These numbers are all in their last reported financial quarter ended March 31, 2011 (http://www.microsoft.com/investor/E...s/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q3/default.aspx).

Also, Dell earned $3 billion on revenue of $15 billion for their last reported quarter so I think their PC sales are doing OK.

Scott


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> Uh......no it wouldn't. Isn't Windows their number one seller?


Not for long. Osx for 29.99 (and all your account boxes) will likely change that.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

magnus said:


> Not for long. Osx for 29.99 (and all your account boxes) will likely change that.


Microsoft doesn't sell OSX.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

LOL.. way to get off topic.

But to wrap it up... Microsoft bought Skype with profits from overseas sales of Windows 7.. not office. So anyone thinking Windows 7 isn't bringing in a bunch of money is crazy.

As for Tivo (and to try to get it back on topic).. nobody mentioned Best Buy as a buyer. Maybe they realised their stores are dying and want to double up?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bschuler2007 said:


> nobody mentioned Best Buy as a buyer.


I hope Best Buy doesn't touch it. Best Buy won't be around much longer. Their newest idea to stay afloat (renting space inside stores to retailers like Trader Joes and Sephora) isn't going to save them. It will only prolong the inevitable.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

aridon said:


> Wow... Seriously at least do a quick google before pulling something like that out of your ass.


Want to try that again slim?


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

aadam101 said:


> Uh......no it wouldn't. Isn't Windows their number one seller?


Nope! But if you want to go ahead and use Windows7 numbers, you'd have to include Vista as well, almost same development line.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

rifleman69 said:


> Nope! But if you want to go ahead and use Windows7 numbers, you'd have to include Vista as well, almost same development line.


So what is their number one seller?

Microsoft Office couldn't have possibly sold more copies than Windows. Windows is necessary for Office to run. Not every computer with Windows is going to have Office.

I realize Microsoft also makes Office for MAC. There is NO WAY those small numbers are making any difference here.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> Microsoft doesn't sell OSX.


Um, really?!? The point is that Bill won't be able to sell his over priced crap operating system anymore (he can sell it but not for the 130+ range or more that he used to). OSX, Linux, and Chrome are starting to show that there are real alternatives. It's going to eat into Bill's profits sooner or later and when it does..... He might be lucky to even be able to sell Office to those folks at all. He's been the only real game in town for a long time. I'm glad that things are really starting to change.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

In the OS world for mainstream computing, nothing is changing to diminish MS market share appreciably. Linux has been around for eons and while it has a large installed base in embeded eletronics, its only used by hobbyiests on PCs. No mainstream corporate users for desktops. A few servers that come configured that way perhaps.

IBM tried to take on MS years ago with OS/2 Spent millions in development and marketing. Went nowhere.


Chrome is a nice netbook terminal os but its not windows. Heck, Apple has been selling a legitamit alturnative to windows for years and actally has LESS corporate usage now than it did years ago.

Like it or not, MS is the mainstream PC OS for corporate use for the foreseeable future.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

I don't see how Apple selling their OS for their hardware at a low price is going to have any impact on the cost of Windows. There were 350 million new PCs shipped in 2010 and Apple's share of that was 13.7 million. I'm glad there are alternatives and Apple is definitely doing well, but it would have to officially open the OS up to alternative hardware platforms to really have any kind of impact.

Now back to the OT. This sure seems like useless speculation to me based on the success of the court case with Dish.

Scott


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

magnus said:


> Um, really?!? The point is that Bill won't be able to sell his over priced crap operating system anymore (he can sell it but not for the 130+ range or more that he used to). OSX, Linux, and Chrome are starting to show that there are real alternatives. It's going to eat into Bill's profits sooner or later and when it does..... He might be lucky to even be able to sell Office to those folks at all. He's been the only real game in town for a long time. I'm glad that things are really starting to change.


Well when we were talking about what is Microsoft's top selling product and you pop in with OSX and not for long. And then what will *MICROSOFT's* top selling product be?

At the time of your reply, this was purely a discussion about Microsoft hence my reply since obviously OSX won't be Microsoft's top selling product.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> The poison pill expires 6 months after the Dish settlement.





HerronScott said:


> Now back to the OT. This sure seems like useless speculation to me based on the success of the court case with Dish.
> 
> Scott


I think TiVo's actions (noted above by 'freak) _after_ the settlement may have influenced such speculation. There is too much legalese for me to understand TiVo's SEC 14A filing shortly after the settlement.


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

magnus said:


> Um, really?!? The point is that Bill won't be able to sell his over priced crap operating system anymore (he can sell it but not for the 130+ range or more that he used to). OSX, Linux, and Chrome are starting to show that there are real alternatives. It's going to eat into Bill's profits sooner or later and when it does..... He might be lucky to even be able to sell Office to those folks at all. He's been the only real game in town for a long time. I'm glad that things are really starting to change.


OSX Lion for $30 versus Windows 7 for $130. Sure, you get a great OS and you save $100 compared to Windows. However, that $100 savings on the operating software is eclipsed by the $100+ premium (Apple tax) for Apple hardware.

If you're going to spend $1000+ for a new computer, definitely consider a Mac. Apple makes really nice devices. However, there are lots of desktops and laptops in the $400-$600 Windows market that are quite adequate. OSX Lion is pretty and cutting-edge, however Win 7 isn't too bad.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

orangeboy said:


> I think TiVo's actions (noted above by 'freak) _after_ the settlement may have influenced such speculation. There is too much legalese for me to understand TiVo's SEC 14A filing shortly after the settlement.


Yeah I definitely don't understand it. I just remember them extending the poison pill when it was about to expire which was prior to the Dish settlement. 
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=7615514-829-6461&type=sect&dcn=0001088825-10-000121


> The Company is currently engaged in litigation with EchoStar Communications Corporation and the Amendment extends the expiration date of the Rights Agreement from January 9, 2011 to the close of business on the date that is six months after the date that a final, non-appealable order or judgment is entered in connection with such litigation fully resolving all outstanding material issues and any judgment(s) that may be executed thereon.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

magnus said:


> Um, really?!? The point is that Bill won't be able to sell his over priced crap operating system anymore (he can sell it but not for the 130+ range or more that he used to). OSX, Linux, and Chrome are starting to show that there are real alternatives. It's going to eat into Bill's profits sooner or later and when it does..... He might be lucky to even be able to sell Office to those folks at all. He's been the only real game in town for a long time. I'm glad that things are really starting to change.


The last six licenses of Win7 64 bit I bought were only around $20 each and the four licenses of the full version of Office 2010 were around $30 each.
I don't know why people want to pay so much and buy it at retail.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

innocentfreak said:


> Well when we were talking about what is Microsoft's top selling product and you pop in with OSX and not for long. And then what will MICROSOFT's top selling product be?
> 
> At the time of your reply, this was purely a discussion about Microsoft hence my reply since obviously OSX won't be Microsoft's top selling product.


I never said OSX was Microsoft's top selling product.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> The last six licenses of Win7 64 bit I bought were only around $20 each and the four licenses of the full version of Office 2010 were around $30 each.
> I don't know why people want to pay so much and buy it at retail.


Did you have some volume license discount or something? You can get it at that price from volume student licenses or large corporate ones but not sure how the average Joe gets it for that price.


----------



## magnus (Nov 12, 2004)

JimboG said:


> OSX Lion for $30 versus Windows 7 for $130. Sure, you get a great OS and you save $100 compared to Windows. However, that $100 savings on the operating software is eclipsed by the $100+ premium (Apple tax) for Apple hardware.
> 
> If you're going to spend $1000+ for a new computer, definitely consider a Mac. Apple makes really nice devices. However, there are lots of desktops and laptops in the $400-$600 Windows market that are quite adequate. OSX Lion is pretty and cutting-edge, however Win 7 isn't too bad.


MS will likely have to change their model though. I can't see everyone wanting to pay $130 or more for all the different flavors of Windows 7 or whatever is next. We'll see how the market changes with this. It may or may not. Who knows but it's still good to see.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

aadam101 said:


> So what is their number one seller?
> 
> Microsoft Office couldn't have possibly sold more copies than Windows. Windows is necessary for Office to run. Not every computer with Windows is going to have Office.
> 
> I realize Microsoft also makes Office for MAC. There is NO WAY those small numbers are making any difference here.


You do understand the difference between which sells the most to which makes the company the most money don't you?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

magnus said:


> Did you have some volume license discount or something? You can get it at that price from volume student licenses or large corporate ones but not sure how the average Joe gets it for that price.


There are several online sites that have been around for awhile with decent prices for non students, non corporate.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> None of the streaming boxes can replace a DVR yet. When you can get all content from streaming I could see the TiVo being replaced but I'm not even sure if that will ever happen. It's up to teh content providers and they have been doing everything they can to prevent all content being available that way.


I don't think the content providers are trying to prevent their content from being available via on-demand streaming.

I think they are slowly but surely ramping up to it being available.

Go to HBOgo.com. Every movie they currently are running and every season of every series - old and new- along with all their current late night, comedy and sports content is available via on-demand.

And you can plug your laptop into your hdtv. And yes the picture is in hi-def.

Not that the laptop is the ideal living room interface. But ....pretty easy to see that the DVR's days are numbered.

Wish my cablebox could get the content that HBO's website. It's only a subset of that content, but sTill plenty of on-demand programming.

Most of the series I record on my Premiere are available via on-demand on a cable box. Most of the current HBO content is available via on-demand cable box as well.

There are some exceptions. Modern Family isn't on FIOS on-demand for whatever reason. CNBC doesn't have any on-demand content. There is little on-demand sports content.

But the amount of content seems to be growing.

And every cable company has content available online. Comcast has alot more than FIOS. Anyway it seems like the day this streaming system is switched over to the cable box is coming.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> The last six licenses of Win7 64 bit I bought were only around $20 each and the four licenses of the full version of Office 2010 were around $30 each.
> I don't know why people want to pay so much and buy it at retail.


Is that some OEM price that the average person can't get or tell us how you got that price, I paid $50 for Win 7 64/32 in a retail package, and thought that was a good price.


----------



## randy1649 (Apr 18, 2011)

Been there, done that... Anyone remember the MS Ultimate Tv?
MS dropped that like a hot rock.
Love those rumors...


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> Is that some OEM price that the average person can't get or tell us how you got that price, I paid $50 for Win 7 64/32 in a retail package, and thought that was a good price.


I just did a search online, found several sites, looked at reviews for the sites and used the one that had been in operation for a while.
I did purchase one from a fly by night site in the past and after a while the OS put on a black list. I have not had any of those issues with Win7, Office 2010 or MS Project.

But I also figure since the price is low it's still worth the risk.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

Johncv said:


> Only if people are buy new PeeCee, which in this elephant cause recession is not happening. Apple is the only company making money selling computers.
> 
> Microsoft only makes money from upgrades to Office and its XBox division. Also from not paying taxes by buying money losing business like Skype. As someone pointed out.


Wow, this couldn't be more wrong. Again, do a little research before you run your mouth on something you clearly don't know. As was previously pointed out, Windows PC sales dominate Mac in a ratio of over 20 to 1. Yes, Apple makes some great products, but the average consumer wants CHEAP products, which Apple is not.

But, you are also ignoring the HUGE corporate market share that Microsoft has, and Apple has indicated no interest in existing in that market. Unless you are doing video editing as part of your job, chances are you have a PC. No company is going to pay the ridiculous prices on those, when a standard workstation can be had for $600 (and I know, I'm in IT for a company and we buy nothing but windows boxes).

And then you (or someone) cited the fact that upgrades cost $130. The average consumer doesn't even CARE about upgrades! They only get a new OS when they buy a new computer. Sure, there is an upgrade market, but it's very small.

As far as Linux and Chrome go, you've got to be joking, right? As much as I'd love for Chrome to be the cheaper alternative to Windows, Google has decided that Chrome will be net based, which is a non-starter for many people who don't always have internet available. And Linux has been around for as long as Windows has been, and is not consumer friendly. (Yes, I use it, but I'm not the normal consumer, and I still use Windows).

Apple has a market, and is a good product. But until they can get the hardware cheaper (which they won't do, because they are a hardware company, not a software company) and provide good corporate integration (Active Directory, capable enterprise apps, etc), they will always lag behind Microsoft.

Believe me, as much as we pay Microsoft, myself and my bosses would LOVE for a better solution that was less expensive. It just doesn't exist, and nobody is currently working on it. Chrome is a Netbook OS at best.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

rahnbo said:


> As far as I'm concerned my Premiere is already a billboard of ads. There are few places I can go in SDUI or HDUI without ads all over the place even with the lowest setting for ad placement.


I don't have a Premiere, but since you also mention SDUI, I believe that is essentially (exactly?) the same as the UI I get on my TivoHD or Series 3.

Could you explain how it is a "billboard of ads"? Are you counting station logos as ads?

Yes, there are pause ads, and I wish those weren't there (but they're easy enough to ignore). Yes, there are ads at the bottom of the topmost menu and the bottom of show menus (sometimes). Again, I notice them, but they're very very easy to ignore..

I'm comparing this with cable boxes/DVRs for the times I've used them, which have FAR bigger ads taking up sections of the screen that could be used for useful information.

Don't get me wrong, a major reason I bought Tivos in the first place was to avoid ads.. I generally hate ads.. But it seems to me like Tivos are by FAR the least of evils regarding ads, especially compared to directly competing products. Compared to illegal downloads off the net, that isn't a reasonable comparison.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

mattack said:


> Could you explain how it is a "billboard of ads"? Are you counting station logos as ads?
> 
> Yes, there are pause ads, and I wish those weren't there (but they're easy enough to ignore). Yes, there are ads at the bottom of the topmost menu and the bottom of show menus (sometimes). Again, I notice them, but they're very very easy to ignore..


Counting station logos as ads? That's absurd. You made the case for Tivo as a billboard in your own statement. You listed 3 common places ads are found in the SDUI. I'll add the .99 Amazon Sale on Tivo Central that has been there several days and cycles out to car ads, travel ads, etc. You can ignore them. Correction, you notice them, then you ignore them. Great.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Two of my coworkers were complaining yesterday about the ads on their Comcast DVR. When they are looking at the guide, there will be an ad at the bottom of the guide. If they page down it avoids the ad but if they go downne show at a time(which they said the like to do) it always goes down to the ad on the bottom and it will open it up.

I'm glad the TiVo does nothing like that.would be really annoying if the ads on the TiVo were in your face like that on the TiVo. But for me, it is rare for me to even notice any advertising on the TiVo. And when I do it's typically something that interests me that has caught my eye for some reason.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

rahnbo said:


> You can ignore them.


I can close my eyes and block my ears every time a commercial comes on too. It doesn't make it any less annoying.

Personally, I don't mind the ads on Tivo but I can understand why some would.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

aadam101 said:


> I can close my eyes and block my ears every time a commercial comes on too. It doesn't make it any less annoying.
> 
> Personally, I don't mind the ads on Tivo but I can understand why some would.


I was speaking to someone else who said they could ignore them. I find them annoying.


----------



## Grappa (Jul 5, 2011)

I'd even say more: they should become illegal as they violate my right of leisure =)


----------



## bricketh (Jun 22, 2005)

I may be in the minority, but with TiVo pushing to Rogers, Suddenlink and Cox (along with smaller service providers), I can see TiVo becoming the DVR of choice for many consumers for not much more than you would pay for their own DVR. If they prove popular enough, they may even become the primary DVR solution. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I think that is where TiVo's business model is at (or should be at). 

I have bought and owned TiVos since 2000, and have had lifetime on each and everyone one, so I know I'm not their target audience... Monthly subscribers are, however. Once TiVo hits with their Premiere Q and Preview boxes with streaming, I believe they will become a force again via the cable operators instead of retail. They may maintain a retail leg with their existing price model (which feels a lot like a DVR rental more than a purchase, anyway, aside from the initial investment), but I feel like their best bet to turn profitable and sustaining is to move more to the cable companies, and out of heavy retail (which is what they have been doing). 

The Comcast experiment with the TiVo software on SA DVR hardware was their first real step in that direction, as far as I know (outside of DirecTV), but I'm not sure how that turned out or whether it is still available... I didn't like that then, and don't like it now (though I have never used one of those versions, just read about them). If they can get TWC and Comcast to leverage their TiVo Premiere boxes as premium DVRs with the streaming capabilities (assuming they can get Netflix and Hulu+ on the rental units), that would be essentially fulfilling their desire to be the 'one box'. 

They still have much work to do on the UI, but I think the hardware itself is fine. Maybe it requires a complete overhaul on the system, which I have seen Cable Companies do in staged rollouts with great (though crappy-looking) success. If they can get enough hardware to the market, they could essentially focus on just updating/maintaining (and hopefully replacing) the software for several years, and allow the cable companies to keep the existing Premiere (and Q) hardware long enough to make it worth while. 

It seems that is their goal, and they won't do much, if anything retail in the future, but I think it makes good business sense. I don't like that approach as a user that prefers his lifetime service, but I don't think they are doing it for us, I think they are doing it to become more mainstream and maybe (finally) become the dominate DVR/media device in homes. I don't think it's a given that they will be sold... I could, however, see the ads remaining, and maybe being a tad more prominent, but I'm like others on here that said they see them but aren't bother by them now. I don't like Google returning an ad link at the top of their search either, but they put the nice pale yellow box to indicate it as such, and move on. Again, noticed, but not bothersome to me.

I may be way off on TiVo's direction, but these are my thoughts...


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bricketh said:


> If they prove popular enough, they may even become the primary DVR solution.


That's the problem. They haven't proven popular enough. Comcast has been offering a Tivo in the Boston market for three years. It wasn't popular. Pretty everyone I know has Comcast and nobody I know has a Comcast Tivo. (except my Mom because I talked her into it.)

People preferred the Comcast DVR because they don't know what Tivo is.


----------



## SMWinnie (Aug 17, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> That's the problem. They haven't proven popular enough. Comcast has been offering a Tivo in the Boston market for three years. It wasn't popular. Pretty everyone I know has Comcast and nobody I know has a Comcast Tivo. (except my Mom because I talked her into it.)
> 
> People preferred the Comcast DVR because they don't know what Tivo is.


My understanding is that the ComcasTiVo DVR flopped with experienced TiVo users as well. (Bad port to the 6412; didn't feel like a TiVo, etc.)


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

AOL is gonna buy Tivo is an all stock deal. (joking... but ya know somewhere a Time Warner board member is crying).


----------



## bricketh (Jun 22, 2005)

aadam101 said:


> That's the problem. They haven't proven popular enough. Comcast has been offering a Tivo in the Boston market for three years. It wasn't popular. Pretty everyone I know has Comcast and nobody I know has a Comcast Tivo. (except my Mom because I talked her into it.)
> 
> People preferred the Comcast DVR because they don't know what Tivo is.


I don't count the Comcast TiVo as the same category with the Premieres that are offered now. That was a poor execution of the idea, and I think TiVo learned from that to stick with using their own solution, and leveraging that for the cablecos.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

SMWinnie said:


> My understanding is that the ComcasTiVo DVR flopped with experienced TiVo users as well. (Bad port to the 6412; didn't feel like a TiVo, etc.)


the hardware Comcast wanted to use simply sucked. The software never worked on the hardware, It was indeed a total box of fail but it was all performance and functionality related versus a bad idea in itself.

If Comcast had simply gone with TiVo Hardware it would have been a very different story


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the hardware Comcast wanted to use simply sucked. The software never worked on the hardware, It was indeed a total box of fail but it was all performance and functionality related versus a bad idea in itself.
> 
> If Comcast had simply gone with TiVo Hardware it would have been a very different story


I disagree about the hardware being bad. I had one of these units for a while and my mom has had one since Comcast started offering it. After a couple of early software updates the unit itself works just fine and it can access On Demand content.

Of course, it lacks many other features.

The thing is that people had no idea that what they were getting wasn't a "real Tivo." They just weren't interested because they didn't know what Tivo was. They still don't and I don't think offering Premieres by cable companies will make a huge difference unless the cable company really pushes them on people.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I don't think offering Premieres by cable companies will make a huge difference unless the cable company really pushes them on people.


I agree. I've always felt cable was all "HERE'S OUR DVR! BTW we also have TiVo, but you don't want one of those because it doesn't have _____, and it costs a little more".
The cable companies are going to have to start offering Tivos as standard equipment for it to have any impact (IMO).


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

steve614 said:


> I agree. I've always felt cable was all "HERE'S OUR DVR! BTW we also have TiVo, but you don't want one of those because it doesn't have _____, and it costs a little more".
> The cable companies are going to have to start offering Tivos as standard equipment for it to have any impact (IMO).


I didn't even think about the cost. NOBODY calls the cable company and wants to pay MORE. I would imagine it's a tough sell. I don't ever recall hearing of any promotions.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

The way things are going Virginmedia may buy out TiVo. God I want this box, too bad it only in the UK. 

The new ads are good:

http://tivo.virginmedia.com/


----------



## johnner1999 (Oct 26, 2002)

I would have said in a hartbeat Cisco would buy TiVo; but that was then and this is now in the post Cisco love of CE products.


----------



## bricketh (Jun 22, 2005)

I think people would pay a little more for the ability to have a DVR that does more than just Record TV. The access to Amazon and Blockbuster, along with the normal On Demand programming, can help sway people, I think. The cost can't be $30 per month vs $6.95, but if it is the difference of $5, that may make it worth while. 

I may not be the norm, but I am renting my Premiere, even though I have always owned my TiVos over the years with lifetime service. I am happy to pay $12.95 per month for it for it, not having to pay extra for a cable card, having access to on demand services, and not worrying if it breaks or if I want to get out of it in a year or two for something newer.


----------



## johnner1999 (Oct 26, 2002)

bricketh said:


> I think people would pay a little more for the ability to have a DVR that does more than just Record TV. The access to Amazon and Blockbuster, along with the normal On Demand programming, can help sway people, I think. The cost can't be $30 per month vs $6.95, but if it is the difference of $5, that may make it worth while.
> 
> I may not be the norm, but I am renting my Premiere, even though I have always owned my TiVos over the years with lifetime service. I am happy to pay $12.95 per month for it for it, not having to pay extra for a cable card, having access to on demand services, and not worrying if it breaks or if I want to get out of it in a year or two for something newer.


ditto - if my cable co offered me a real tivo by tivo ;-) I would pay $35 a month for two of them!


----------



## tzroberts (Jun 28, 2011)

I wish TiVo would be the ones to have over either Boxee or Roku.


----------



## ThreeSoFar (May 24, 2002)

JimboG said:


> OSX Lion for $30 versus Windows 7 for $130. Sure, you get a great OS and you save $100 compared to Windows. However, that $100 savings on the operating software is eclipsed by the $100+ premium (Apple tax) for Apple hardware.
> 
> If you're going to spend $1000+ for a new computer, definitely consider a Mac. Apple makes really nice devices. However, there are lots of desktops and laptops in the $400-$600 Windows market that are quite adequate. OSX Lion is pretty and cutting-edge, however Win 7 isn't too bad.


"adequate"

"isn't too bad"

You should call Microsoft...they probably need a marketing guy.


----------

