# CES 2015 rumors



## johndierks (Sep 5, 2002)

Are there any rumors about what we might see from Tivo this CES? It's just three and a half weeks away.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

TiVo tends not to announce anything at CES since they get lost int he shuffle of all the other announcements.


----------



## johndierks (Sep 5, 2002)

Do they have a stanard(-ish?) release cycle? When should we expect new tivos?


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

There's speculation we might hear about the mini due to the FCC filing, and expiration of the current mini deal coinciding with the start of CES.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

johndierks said:


> Do they have a stanard(-ish?) release cycle? When should we expect new tivos?


2 more years. TiVo has about a 3 year release cycle on the main TiVo hardware. The Roamio is only about a year old, so we've got another 2 years or more before we see new TiVos.

There is speculation that we will see a new Mini at CES, which would put it at it's 2 year mark. Although it'll likely be a minir refresh to add slightly better hardware, RF remote and 1080p output so it's on par with the main TiVo box.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> There is speculation that we will see a new Mini at CES, which would put it at it's 2 year mark. Although it'll likely be a minir refresh to add slightly better hardware, RF remote and 1080p output so it's on par with the main TiVo box.


A Universal Serial Bus 3.0 design can pump out 4.5 watts, and I think a mini runs on 5.5 watts. Is it possible that the new mini will be able to run off the USB port for power, so combined with the RF remote it will be possible to screw it to the back of a TV using the VESA screw-holes.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Pacomartin said:


> A Universal Serial Bus 3.0 design can pump out 4.5 watts, and I think a mini runs on 5.5 watts. Is it possible that the new mini will be able to run off the USB port for power, so combined with the RF remote it will be possible to screw it to the back of a TV using the VESA screw-holes.


Most TVs have USB 2.0 ports with a max of 0.5amp, which is only 2.5 watts. Some have 1amp ports that can go up to 5 watts. It's possible TiVo could get the Mini to run on under 5 watts so it could be powered by USB, but I doubt that's a priority.

As for the VESA thing... Maybe. They sell a special bracket for the current Mini. But they might redesign it to be VESA mountable instead. No one really knows what the physical appearance will be. In the submission to the FCC for the new radio they showed a drawing that had the same design as the current Mini, but there is no guarantee that is a final design.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

johndierks said:


> Do they have a stanard(-ish?) release cycle? When should we expect new tivos?



Yrs	Date	TiVo
0.0	03/31/99	Series 1
1.8	01/15/01	Series 2
5.7	09/12/06	Series 3
3.5	03/28/10	Series 4
3.4	08/20/13	Series 5 Roamio


If what's past is prologue, then 3.5 years, but the situation may change with CableCARDS radically in this time period. There was 5.7 years between 2 and 3 when they added CableCARD and HD support.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

There were 3 hardware revisions to the S2 platform and 2 revision to the S3 in those spans. The S4 actually had one as well, when they released the 4 tuner unit, but it was minor by comparison. They basically just swapped the 2 OTA tuners with 2 more cable tuners.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

I assume we'll hear more about 4k. I'm personally hoping to learn of Fire TV or Roku clients. The Mini refresh is mostly non consequential and last I heard slated for March. Probably will show the Mega again. I think it's also possible there will be a smaller OTA product at some point in 2015, but not sure if it'll display at CES.

Like 2014, they will have a "real booth" in 2015. Hopefully it'll be more interesting than their TV watching world record thing.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

davezatz said:


> I assume we'll hear more about 4k. I'm personally hoping to learn of Fire TV or Roku clients. The Mini refresh is mostly non consequential and last I heard slated for March. Probably will show the Mega again. I think it's also possible there will be a smaller OTA product at some point in 2015, but not sure if it'll display at CES.
> 
> Like 2014, they will have a "real booth" in 2015. Hopefully it'll be more interesting than their TV watching world record thing.


Do you think that 4K is that important for people who are purchasing a HDTV 65" or smaller ? Will TiVo get that much more in sales having a 4K TiVo ?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

lessd said:


> Do you think that 4K is that important for people who are purchasing a HDTV 65" or smaller ? Will TiVo get that much more in sales having a 4K TiVo ?


I think they have to mention it with more intent at the very least, if not for us, for their MSO partners. Whether or not it matters in a practical sense is up for debate and of course screen size is directly proportional to distance from display in relation to one's interest in such things. How many people still have SD set tops on HDTVs? Having said that, "4K" would move more units than the crazy Mega will... 

As has been mentioned, TiVo doesn't always foreshadow what they're doing and most CES appearances have been pretty light on "big" announcements. Given the amount of cash they're investing in central show floor space, maybe they'll do it differently this year?

Speaking of, I just found out Vizio is no longer displaying. That's been one of my highlights the last few years. Although not entirely "CES-legit" as they set up a huge suite outside official events in the Wynn.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lessd said:


> Do you think that 4K is that important for people who are purchasing a HDTV 65" or smaller ? Will TiVo get that much more in sales having a 4K TiVo ?


I would look at 4K as an opportunity for TiVo to build a high end/higher priced Roamio that would have HDMI 2.0 & h.265 support before both become main stream.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> I would look at 4K as an opportunity for TiVo to build a high end/higher priced Roamio that would have HDMI 2.0 & h.265 support before both become main stream.


Yeah. They want to stay ahead of the game.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

davezatz said:


> I assume we'll hear more about 4k.


The 4K blue-ray disks might be presented (although it might be the following year).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

4k BD isn't expected until late 2015.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> 4k BD isn't expected until late 2015.


I would think 4K BD has nothing to do with any future TiVo


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

lessd said:


> I would think 4K BD has nothing to do with any future TiVo


I disagree... (Even though I think it is more hype than substance)

*Broadcom Powers TiVo's New Ultra HD Set-top Box Solution*
http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s870350


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Do you think the 4k TiVo will include a 4k BD player? No? Then I agree with Lessd


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Sorry, I misread Less's post... No, no BD player in a future TiVo - Lessd is completely correct.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

bradleys said:


> Sorry, I misread Less's post... No, no BD player in a future TiVo - Lessd is completely correct.


Thank you :up:


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> I would think 4K BD has nothing to do with any future TiVo


I was replying to Pacomartin who suggested they might show off 4K BD at CES.

TiVo might show off a 4K DVR, but I doubt it. As of right now the only 4K available is via streaming. Seems unnecessary to have a 4K DVR when there is no 4K content to record. Not to mention there are currently no TVs on the market that have HDMI 2.0 ports, which would be required for an external device like a TiVo to feed [email protected] to the display. Current 4K TVs really only support 4K via their internal streaming apps. Their input ports are limited to HD and upsampled.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I was replying to Pacomartin who suggested they might show off 4K BD at CES.
> 
> TiVo might show off a 4K DVR, but I doubt it. As of right now the only 4K available is via streaming. Seems unnecessary to have a 4K DVR when there is no 4K content to record. Not to mention there are currently no TVs on the market that have HDMI 2.0 ports, which would be required for an external device like a TiVo to feed [email protected] to the display. Current 4K TVs really only support 4K via their internal streaming apps. Their input ports are limited to HD and upsampled.


That 4K Ultra HD don't have HDMI ports to receive 4K content is a surprise to me, so what your saying if I did purchase a 4K HDTV and a year or so later purchase a 4K BD player and a 4K movie, I could not watch 4K from the 4K BD player because of the spec on my HDMI input 4K HDTV. How many people know this ? Now there is not much of a reason to purchase any 4K TV unless the TV offers a future upgrade to get 4K using the HDMI port.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It depends. HDMI 1.4 supports 4K up to 30fps. Most movies are 24fps, so a 4K BD would likely play over an HDMI 1.4 port just fine. However 4K TV is slated to be 60fps, so a 4K TiVo would need an HDMI 2.0 port to transmit a full framerate 4K TV signal. AFAIK no current 4K TVs on the market have HDMI 2.0 ports. (The spec was only recently ratified)

This is kinda akin to how HDTV started out. At first they only had component inputs, then they added HDMI but not HDCP. It took a few years for them to all standardize on HDMI with HDCP support. People who bought early models got screwed.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> It depends. HDMI 1.4 supports 4K up to 30fps. Most movies are 24fps, so a 4K BD would likely play over an HDMI 1.4 port just fine. However 4K TV is slated to be 60fps, so a 4K TiVo would need an HDMI 2.0 port to transmit a full framerate 4K TV signal. AFAIK no current 4K TVs on the market have HDMI 2.0 ports. (The spec was only recently ratified)
> 
> This is kinda akin to how HDTV started out. At first they only had component inputs, then they added HDMI but not HDCP. It took a few years for them to all standardize on HDMI with HDCP support. People who bought early models got screwed.


I believe the new Samsung 4K TV's (i.e., 8550 series) have HDMI 2.0.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

geekmedic said:


> I believe the new Samsung 4K TV's (i.e., 8550 series) have HDMI 2.0.


But not HDCP 2.2 which is required for any copy protected UHD content (IOW, the most likely sort of UHD content to become available first). It is expected that UHD BD players will require HDCP 2.2 for UHD output (if the display doesn't support 2.2 the output will be limited to 1080p).

To be fully prepared for all UHD content a TV requires support for HEVC (h.265 compression), HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

lessd said:


> Do you think that 4K is that important for people who are purchasing a HDTV 65" or smaller ? Will TiVo get that much more in sales having a 4K TiVo ?


No, I don't. But the market always makes choices that some people believe are important. For instance the prices at Best Buy for small house brand TV's are below. You can get 4"-5" of more diagonal of 720p for the same money as you spend on 1080p. But clearly some customers think the resolution is worth the price.

Insignia™ - at BestBuy.com
*28"* Class - 720p - HDTV - Sale: $149.99
*24"* Class - 1080p - HDTV - Sale: $149.99
*29"* Class - 720p - HDTV - Sale: $139.99
*19"* Class - 720p - HDTV - Sale: $99.99

On the other hand, I can't imagine who would take the lower resolution on the mid size televisions to save a mere $20, but someone would or Insignia wouldn't make the TV.

Insignia™ - at BestBuy.com
*39"* Class - 720p - HDTV - Sale: $229.99
*40"* Class - 1080p - HDTV - Sale: $249.99


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> But not HDCP 2.2 which is required for any copy protected UHD content (IOW, the most likely sort of UHD content to become available first). It is expected that UHD BD players will require HDCP 2.2 for UHD output (if the display doesn't support 2.2 the output will be limited to 1080p).
> 
> To be fully prepared for all UHD content a TV requires support for HEVC (h.265 compression), HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2.


The 55HU8550 I have is HDCP 2.2 compatible on HDMI 3.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

It seems like everyone has forgotten about the fact that there is currently no 4K content available on any cable system in the US, and no announced plans to make such content available. Comcast's 4K doesn't count, since it's a streaming app.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> It seems like everyone has forgotten about the fact that there is currently no 4K content available on any cable system in the US, and no announced plans to make such content available. Comcast's 4K doesn't count, since it's a streaming app.


That was my point, and why I think a 4k TiVo is unlikely. Without content to *record* there is no purpose for a 4k TiVo except maybe for it to stream 4k from OTT apps. However there are likely to be much cheaper options for that.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That was my point, and why I think a 4k TiVo is unlikely. Without content to *record* there is no purpose for a 4k TiVo except maybe for it to stream 4k from OTT apps. However there are likely to be much cheaper options for that.


Yeah, exactly, and the OTT stuff is evolving an order of magnitude faster than TiVo can evolve. Leave it to smart TVs to deal with.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> It seems like everyone has forgotten about the fact that there is currently no 4K content available on any cable system in the US, and no announced plans to make such content available. Comcast's 4K doesn't count, since it's a streaming app.


Not necessarily...while no one has yet announced a 4K linear channel it is widely expected that HBO and ESPN will both launch such channels in mid to late 2015 or early 2016. As soon as there are channels available people will want to record them. That is why Comcast, DirecTV and TiVo have plans to build such devices (which we know from the Broadcom announcements).

For the distributors (Comcast and DirecTV) the need is also there for PPV. DirecTV is already delivering 4K PPV, but through a kludge using RVU support in some Samsung TVs. Once the 4K Genies are available, you will be able to use any 4K set.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

lessd said:


> I would think 4K BD has nothing to do with any future TiVo


I think indirectly it does. Anything that encourages more 4k TV sales makes the market larger for potential TiVo 4k sales, even if the 4k feature on TiVo has limited or no use.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Not necessarily...while no one has yet announced a 4K linear channel it is widely expected that HBO and ESPN will both launch such channels in mid to late 2015 or early 2016. As soon as there are channels available people will want to record them. That is why Comcast, DirecTV and TiVo have plans to build such devices (which we know from the Broadcom announcements).


Maybe. Eventually. And what the carriage will be is as of yet unknown. Current cable systems might be able to carry a small handful of channels, but they will need significant upgrades to handle more than that. If you look at the math, more than a few UHD channels will require SDV, there's just no other way to do it.



> For the distributors (Comcast and DirecTV) the need is also there for PPV. DirecTV is already delivering 4K PPV, but through a kludge using RVU support in some Samsung TVs. Once the 4K Genies are available, you will be able to use any 4K set.


It's going to take a while to see 4K-compatible equipment on the cable side of things.

I think the 4K market is going to be dominated by streaming for a couple of years, and then things will move very slowly in terms of linear content becoming available. And if the Comcast-TWC merger goes through, Comcast's strategy in terms of whether they are willing to adopt SDV, and how they are going to handle TWC systems with SDV could make or break the future of linear 4K. As much as I hate the thought of it, I think Comcast will end up getting forced into SDV, even with H.264 HD upgrades. 4K and gigabit internet together require a metric crapload of bandwidth that they don't have.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

If anything streaming UHD content will accelerate to the point that there would be fewer liner UHD channels that will be available. Streaming in general is already accelerating so one would think streaming UHD would ride that streaming wave as it gets larger and larger.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> If anything streaming UHD content will accelerate to the point that there would be fewer liner UHD channels that will be available. Streaming in general is already accelerating so one would think streaming UHD would ride that streaming wave as it gets larger and larger.


Already Netflix is using a big part of the total internet bandwidth at certain points in time, if a large amount of UHD streaming started to be used would that use a lot more internet bandwidth ?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Already Netflix is using a big part of the total internet bandwidth at certain points in time, if a large amount of UHD streaming started to be used would that use a lot more internet bandwidth ?


Yes. And?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If cable companies offer UHD streaming they don't really use the internet. The streams originate from their own internal network and never actually have to go out over the larger internet. That's true of Netflix in most areas as well because they strike special deals with the cable companies to put a server inside their networks so that they can stream directly to those customers without having to go over the internet.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> If cable companies offer UHD streaming they don't really use the internet. The streams originate from their own internal network and never actually have to go out over the larger internet. That's true of Netflix in most areas as well because they strike special deals with the cable companies to put a server inside their networks so that they can stream directly to those customers without having to go over the internet.


Technically, you're right, BUT the only part of a cable provider's network that is bandwidth constrained is the last mile. Everything else is easy and cheap to upgrade with effectively infinite upgrade capacity, unlike the RF-constrained last mile.

The protection money that Netflix is paying to Comcast, Verizon, and others to not have "accidents" happen to their traffic is getting them direct interconnections with those ISPs, not actual servers on the ISP's networks like OpenConnect does.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

Anyone seeing Tivo licensing their technology to TV companies? I don't see why people would want to have a separate unit when Tivo can be built into the TV. Everything should be merge to the TV system. TV companies has been less successful at doing this, so Tivo should be able to position themselves into this market. I think both party should benefit from this. Is current OS differences preventing this from happening? Anyone have technical or knowledge on this and see this happening in the near future? Thanks.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

CT71812229 said:


> Anyone seeing Tivo licensing their technology to TV companies?


2011 called.

http://blog.tivo.com/2011/08/tivo-and-insignia-the-perfect-tv-match/#.VIJHAAAgLA


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

What has been the update of that? Insignia still making them? I think just the menu option and not the recording option? Insignia does not really make quality TV as well. The TV picture quality is first for people to purchase. I can see it being successful with Samsung, LG, Panasonic or Sony.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

I think TIVO should concentrate on gaining more market share by pricing perhaps to below $300 for a three year basic option with one Mini included and increase it for 5 year plan and more storage for higher pricing. 

Perhaps Cloud storage is the way to go forward? Apple is making tons of money from this business strategy.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CT71812229 said:


> I think TIVO should concentrate on gaining more market share by pricing perhaps to below $300 for a three year basic option with one Mini included and increase it for 5 year plan and more storage for higher pricing.
> 
> Perhaps Cloud storage is the way to go forward? Apple is making tons of money from this business strategy.


They would have to have MSO support to do a "cloud" based DVR, and at this point, any provider who is large enough to implement a true cloud-based DVR, which AFAIK, has only been done by CableVision, would be rolling their own solution.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

Couldn't Netflix move into this business then? Do Netflix have to pay for streaming over the air content?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

CT71812229 said:


> Anyone seeing Tivo licensing their technology to TV companies? I don't see why people would want to have a separate unit when Tivo can be built into the TV. Everything should be merge to the TV system.


They tried. It wasn't interesting, it wasn't good. I couldn't bring myself to review it, just uploaded a first look video and at some point later asked Best Buy's PR group to arrange return shipping.






Granted, most of the apps were NOT TiVo and came from Chumby (RIP). So it was primarily TiVo's UI without a DVR. Which isn't enough of a reason to buy it.

A million years ago, TiVo partnered with Humax for a DVR inside a LCD. It may have launched somewhere in the world in small numbers, but without TiVo and was probably generally ahead of its time.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/01/06/tivo-ces-humax-26-inch-lcd-with-integrated-tivo/

The realistic comparison here or eventuality to "everything" built into the TV is probably what DirecTV is doing with RVU. But it does require a host DVR somewhere else.

https://support.directv.com/app/ans...t-is-a-directv-ready-tv-and-how-does-it-work?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

davezatz said:


> The realistic comparison here or eventuality to "everything" built into the TV is probably what DirecTV is doing with RVU. But it does require a host DVR somewhere else.
> 
> https://support.directv.com/app/ans...t-is-a-directv-ready-tv-and-how-does-it-work?


The cable industry is planning to use DLNA CVP-2 (aka Vidipath) for essentially the same thing. There is actually a requirement in place that requires the big guys to enable CVP-2 on all new devices by June of this year, and the smaller MSOs by September. So I suspect we'll see a lot of TVs and small OTT devices with CVP-2 built in at CES this year.

TiVo is trying to get a waiver so they don't have to support CVP-2, but the FCC has yet to rule on it AFAIK. I personally hope it's denied because if they get a waiver then others will file for one and then the whole system will fall apart.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

davezatz said:


> ...................
> 
> A million years ago, TiVo partnered with Humax for a DVR inside a LCD. It may have launched somewhere in the world in small numbers, but without TiVo and was probably generally ahead of its time.
> 
> ...


 Wow! That was a blast from the past. A 26" LCD set with a built in 80GB TiVo for only *$2499*!


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

What will the CVP-2 standard do? This will only allow it to be view in different devices? Consumer wants the ability to record or view any OTA content whenever and wherever they want like Netflix. What and who in the future will allow for this?


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Dan203 said:


> The cable industry is planning to use DLNA CVP-2 (aka Vidipath) for essentially the same thing. There is actually a requirement in place that requires the big guys to enable CVP-2 on all new devices by June of this year, and the smaller MSOs by September. So I suspect we'll see a lot of TVs and small OTT devices with CVP-2 built in at CES this year.
> 
> TiVo is trying to get a waiver so they don't have to support CVP-2, but the FCC has yet to rule on it AFAIK. I personally hope it's denied because if they get a waiver then others will file for one and then the whole system will fall apart.


That is mentioned in this article about TiVo fighting for the waiver.
http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/tivo-fights-set-top-waiver/384951

It also mentions in this article that TiVo is not part of the working group on CVP-2.
http://www.multichannel.com/news/co...ween-pay-tv-services-retail-ce-devices/355901


> DLNAs membership group is comprised of several major pay-TV providers and their suppliers, including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, Samsung, Arris, Sony, LG, and Broadcom, among others. CableLabs, the cable industrys R&D house and interoperability specialist, is also a member of the Alliance. *Among those absent from that group so far is TiVo.*


DLNA arguing to the FCC to deny TiVo a waiver.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000974829


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> It's going to take a while to see 4K-compatible equipment on the cable side of things.


It seems like you have to be really close to the TV to get any benefit out of 4K resolution unless you're looking to buy a really large TV. With a 32" TV, you have to be within about 3 ft to notice the difference and then you would block the view of others. With a 50" the distance is about 7 ft.

The upgrade to HD from a CRT TV freed up space since the HD TV could be mounted on the wall and took up less space. 4K TVs won't have that advantage.

I wouldn't buy a 4K TV unless one my existing HD TVs died and even then I wouldn't be willing to pay that much of a premium for a 4K TV.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CT71812229 said:


> What will the CVP-2 standard do? This will only allow it to be view in different devices? Consumer wants the ability to record or view any OTA content whenever and wherever they want like Netflix. What and who in the future will allow for this?


It will allow you to control your DVR from any CVP-2 client using a consistent UI across all devices. So basically every TV, iPad, game console, BluRay player, etc... can be used like a Mini.

As for who will allow it... The FCC is mandating it, by June of this year for most cable companies and by September for the smaller ones. They have no choice but to allow it.

As for cloud DVRs... I say be careful what you wish for. Once you turn over control of recording and playback to a central server you give them all the control. We could be looking at the inability to FF through commefcials, blackout dates on certain shows, time limits on how long you're allowed to retain certain shows, etc... With a local DVR the consumer has control, other then copy bits which are at least somewhat regulated. With a cloud based DVR the cable company has complete control.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> It will allow you to control your DVR from any CVP-2 client using a consistent UI across all devices. So basically every TV, iPad, game console, BluRay player, etc... can be used like a Mini.
> 
> As for who will allow it... The FCC is mandating it, by June of this year for most cable companies and by September for the smaller ones. They have no choice but to allow it.
> 
> As for cloud DVRs... I say be careful what you wish for. Once you turn over control of recording and playback to a central server you give them all the control. We could be looking at the inability to FF through commefcials, blackout dates on certain shows, time limits on how long you're allowed to retain certain shows, etc... With a local DVR the consumer has control, other then copy bits which are at least somewhat regulated. With a cloud based DVR the cable company has complete control.


I'm hoping my Samsung 4K TV's I just bought (55" 8550 series, 50" 8550 series, and 2 46" 6950 series) will be compatible.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Probably the 2015 models and later.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> It seems like you have to be really close to the TV to get any benefit out of 4K resolution unless you're looking to buy a really large TV. With a 32" TV, you have to be within about 3 ft to notice the difference and then you would block the view of others. With a 50" the distance is about 7 ft.
> 
> The upgrade to HD from a CRT TV freed up space since the HD TV could be mounted on the wall and took up less space. 4K TVs won't have that advantage.
> 
> I wouldn't buy a 4K TV unless one my existing HD TVs died and even then I wouldn't be willing to pay that much of a premium for a 4K TV.


You're trying to make a good point, but using the wrong words. You have to have a correctly sized TV for 4K to make a difference. The correct distance to sit away from a 60" TV, for example, is around 6-9', based on THX sizing guidelines. Many people have TVs that are WAY too small for their room, like sitting 15' away from a 55" TV.

And that is part of the conundrum of 4K. The first affordable sets are too small to give any benefit in any practical application. You really need something like a 70" 4K set at 7-8' to get the effect of 4K, but the larger sets are pricey.

The other part of the conundrum is that there are no [affordable] 4K projectors out there, and a projector with a 100"+ screen is where the big benefits come into play for 4K content. Something like a 133" screen at 13-15' with Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 sound would be absolutely stunning in 4K, but the cheapest such projector is currently $15k, so with an appropriately matched surround sound system and a proper room would be in the $25k+ range.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> Probably the 2015 models and later.


It'll likely be added as an app on smart TVs, so it's possible they could update older TVs. Although in my experience Samsung doesn't have a good track record of keeping the apps on older model TVs up to date. I bought one 2 years ago around xmas time and as soon as the next models came out in Feb they pretty much abandoned all the apps on my TV. Some apps that are available on new models aren't on my TV and some of the apps that are, like Netflix and Vudu, are using an older UI. So I wouldn't hold out too much hope.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> And that is part of the conundrum of 4K....


The other part of the conundrum is the lack of content. Right now the ONLY 4K content available is a handful of movies via streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. 4K BluRays aren't expected until late this year and 4K broadcast could be years off. Buying a 4K TV now is a waste of money unless you sit so close to your TV that you can see the pixels on 1080p content. Even then if you watch an upsampled 1080p on a 4K TV you might still be able to see the pixels, depending on how good the scaling technique used by the TV is.


----------



## eaadams (Apr 25, 2000)

So the TIVO CES thing will be.... a new RF mini? 

(to get conversation off of 4K)


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

eaadams said:


> So the TIVO CES thing will be.... a new RF mini?


That's what the smart money is on. They'll probably throw in some more BS about "the cloud" too, just for the hell of it.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

eaadams said:


> So the TIVO CES thing will be.... a new RF mini?
> 
> (to get conversation off of 4K)


RF? as in built in RF for the remote?


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Yes, bringing it in line with the rest of the Roamio line.


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> The other part of the conundrum is the lack of content. Right now the ONLY 4K content available is a handful of movies via streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. 4K BluRays aren't expected until late this year and 4K broadcast could be years off. Buying a 4K TV now is a waste of money unless you sit so close to your TV that you can see the pixels on 1080p content. Even then if you watch an upsampled 1080p on a 4K TV you might still be able to see the pixels, depending on how good the scaling technique used by the TV is.


My problem is that I'm trying to make all future purchases with 4K in mind. This is a big issue with Tivo since I don't upgrade the hardware often. In fact, that's my current dilemma right now. I have two ancient Series 3 with OLED displays with have been working reasonably well for 7.5 years now. I began with a Series 1 Sony 15 years ago, skipped Series 2 and Series 4. Now I'm looking at Series 5 since one of my Tivo's hard drive is beginning to fail and has been resetting itself often (or just freezing). This happened to my other Tivo over a year ago, and in that case, I replaced the primary hard drive. This took several days of my time to get done right. So now I'm faced with either spending a small amount of money for another 1 gig replacement drive or finally upgrade to Series 5 Roamio (and spend a lot of money).

There are sales continuing with Tivo (and Tivo Mini), but they expire on Jan 6th...right at the beginning of CES. I'd like to buy a 4K set this year to replace my ancient (and failing) Mitsubishi 65813 CRT RPTV (state of the art in 2004) in my made home theater room. While I'm not banking on cable supplied 4K content anytime soon, it would be nice for Tivo to support 4K content from other providers (Amazon, Netflix, etc). The only way that happens is with HEVC support (available now) and proper HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatibility, which I don't see happening in most consumer devices until April at the earliest.

Decisions, decisions...


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Linear 4k is years away - maybe never in the conventional cable mechanism.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Sevenfeet said:


> My problem is that I'm trying to make all future purchases with 4K in mind. This is a big issue with Tivo since I don't upgrade the hardware often. In fact, that's my current dilemma right now. I have two ancient Series 3 with OLED displays with have been working reasonably well for 7.5 years now. I began with a Series 1 Sony 15 years ago, skipped Series 2 and Series 4. Now I'm looking at Series 5 since one of my Tivo's hard drive is beginning to fail and has been resetting itself often (or just freezing). This happened to my other Tivo over a year ago, and in that case, I replaced the primary hard drive. This took several days of my time to get done right. So now I'm faced with either spending a small amount of money for another 1 gig replacement drive or finally upgrade to Series 5 Roamio (and spend a lot of money).
> 
> There are sales continuing with Tivo (and Tivo Mini), but they expire on Jan 6th...right at the beginning of CES. I'd like to buy a 4K set this year to replace my ancient (and failing) Mitsubishi 65813 CRT RPTV (state of the art in 2004) in my made home theater room. While I'm not banking on cable supplied 4K content anytime soon, it would be nice for Tivo to support 4K content from other providers (Amazon, Netflix, etc). The only way that happens is with HEVC support (available now) and proper HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatibility, which I don't see happening in most consumer devices until April at the earliest.
> 
> Decisions, decisions...


A 4K TiVo is highly unlikely this year. I've just never seen TiVo be that proactive before. They didn't release the first HD TiVo until 2006 even though HD had been pretty widespread since 2003. I can't really see them releasing a 4K TiVo before there are any 4k channels to record. 4k linear is at least a couple years off.


----------



## Carlos_E (Mar 12, 2007)

I have three 4K TVs and one out of three supports 4K streaming. I need to buy two external boxes for 4K streaming support. It would be perfect if Tivo added Netflix and Amazon 4K streaming to their DVRs. That's one less external box I'd have to buy for each TV.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

Anyone seeing eventually TV content going the route of music with unlimited viewing content at a monthly subscription price? Which company would be able to do this? Would Tivo be obsolete then?

Why wouldn't Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon or some cable company show an interest in acquiring Tivo? I would think it would add more value to their company at current price of 1.2 Billion than some that they have acquired.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Has music gone that route? It hasn't that I've noticed nor would ever consume it, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Also, a cloud model like that is vastly overrated and as has been rehashed here many times.... TiVo users would never give up control over their content where they could be forced to watch commercials.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

CT71812229 said:


> Anyone seeing eventually TV content going the route of music with unlimited viewing content at a monthly subscription price?


You mean like Netflix and Hulu?



CT71812229 said:


> Why wouldn't Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon or some cable company show an interest in acquiring Tivo? I would think it would add more value to their company at current price of 1.2 Billion than some that they have acquired.


Because TiVo would be a worthless purchase for them. The only one of those companies that might have any use for TiVo would be Google. They could use TiVo-powered set-top boxes in their Google Fiber deployments.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Carlos_E said:


> I have three 4K TVs and one out of three supports 4K streaming. I need to buy two external boxes for 4K streaming support. It would be perfect if Tivo added Netflix and Amazon 4K streaming to their DVRs. That's one less external box I'd have to buy for each TV.


Unless those TVs have HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 you wont actually be able to use an external device for 4k. That's the problem with buying 4k TVs now.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

The only incentive for a streaming company to acquire TiVo would be to destroy a competitor (shut it down) through the nefarious abuse of economic power, but there are laws that address that sort of thing. I think TiVo poses a small enough threat to them that it wouldn't be worth the cost and effort.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

Similar to Netflix, but if it makes economic sense I think Netflix would have done it already. The content needs to be more recent than what Netflix provide however. Probably not by more than 2 hours behind a live broadcast. I think there is a market if the cost of providing it is lowered. For similar monthly price of Netflix or Tivo subscription, I think people would pay for the convenience. If people are willing to pay for a Tivo subscription I don't see why they wouldn't pay for this service.

I don't see how acquiring Tivo is worthless to say Microsoft. If they can incorporate into their Xbox system and PC system it would be the ideal piece of hardware that everyone would want.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

CT71812229 said:


> Similar to Netflix, but if it makes economic sense I think Netflix would have done it already. The content needs to be more recent than what Netflix provide however. Probably not by more than 2 hours behind a live broadcast. I think there is a market if the cost of providing it is lowered. For similar monthly price of Netflix or Tivo subscription, I think people would pay for the convenience. If people are willing to pay for a Tivo subscription I don't see why they wouldn't pay for this service.
> 
> I don't see how acquiring Tivo is worthless to say Microsoft. If they can incorporate into their Xbox system and PC system it would be the ideal piece of hardware that everyone would want.


If MS wanted a TiVo type system it would much less costly to just have TiVo build a unit for them as they do for RCN, I don't see how TiVo integrates into any other business that would make the purchase of the TiVo co. a good deal. TiVo is too much at the mercy of the cable co. and cable cards now, I think the Roamio is close to the end game for TiVo, like the VCRs after about 1990, until the DVR replaced the VCR and HD came out the VCR had no major improvements for over 10 years. I can't imagine anything TiVo could come out with in their next model that would cause me to upgrade from the Roamio + and Mini combo. I don't need any faster UI, and I sure don't want to get into any cloud type service. If cable cards stop being supported that would a different story, but I would say that at least 5 to 10 years out.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

CT71812229 said:


> Anyone seeing Tivo licensing their technology to TV companies? I don't see why people would want to have a separate unit when Tivo can be built into the TV. Everything should be merge to the TV system. TV companies has been less successful at doing this, so Tivo should be able to position themselves into this market. I think both party should benefit from this. Is current OS differences preventing this from happening? Anyone have technical or knowledge on this and see this happening in the near future? Thanks.


Why would you want this? TVs are generally large purchases that you make and then keep for several years. TiVo and now many other set-top streaming devices such as Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, etc. are best kept as external devices rather than being built into the TV. That way, if something breaks on one of the external boxes, you just replace it without any interruption to the use of your TV. But if you had those things built into the TV itself, you'd just be asking for more instances where the TV would be out of commission due to other items breaking.

Basically, today's TVs don't need to be anything other than a monitor. Speakers aren't necessary, Smart TV apps aren't necessary, wifi isn't necessary, etc. All of that stuff is much better handled externally.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

Did Tivo stop the OTA ability for their Tivo Unit? What's the reasoning behind that? 

What do you see replacing the Tivo unit that can function similar or better?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

CT71812229 said:


> Did Tivo stop the OTA ability for their Tivo Unit? What's the reasoning behind that?............


No, that capability still exists in their base model Roamio and the Best Buy limited release Roamio OTA.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The other part of the conundrum is the lack of content. Right now the ONLY 4K content available is a handful of movies via streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. 4K BluRays aren't expected until late this year and 4K broadcast could be years off. Buying a 4K TV now is a waste of money unless you sit so close to your TV that you can see the pixels on 1080p content. Even then if you watch an upsampled 1080p on a 4K TV you might still be able to see the pixels, depending on how good the scaling technique used by the TV is.


There's TV shows as well on Netflix. And both 1080i and 720p can integer scale up to a 4K display. I think the bigger issue is the lack of standards in terms of the color space, which could make today's 4K sets obsolete in a few years.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

CT71812229 said:


> Similar to Netflix, but if it makes economic sense I think Netflix would have done it already. The content needs to be more recent than what Netflix provide however. Probably not by more than 2 hours behind a live broadcast. I think there is a market if the cost of providing it is lowered. For similar monthly price of Netflix or Tivo subscription, I think people would pay for the convenience. If people are willing to pay for a Tivo subscription I don't see why they wouldn't pay for this service.
> 
> I don't see how acquiring Tivo is worthless to say Microsoft. If they can incorporate into their Xbox system and PC system it would be the ideal piece of hardware that everyone would want.


Are you trying to cram the entire "cord cutting" discussion into a thread about TiVo's CES announcements/ future models with such a generic/ semi-nonsensical post?

Microsoft obviously doesn't want to do DVRs. Look at MCE.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

CT71812229 said:


> Did Tivo stop the OTA ability for their Tivo Unit? What's the reasoning behind that?
> 
> What do you see replacing the Tivo unit that can function similar or better?


It is a very long explanation - but has to do with total number of tuners and the chips used to drive tuners. The chips could always dive 4 - (2 cable and 2 OTA concurrently), this was marketed as a 2 tuner tivo. When they jumped to the 4 tuner model It was just a process of using the same chips.

The Base Roamio still cannot do both at the same time - for the same reason. The 6 tuner doesn't offer OTA at all.

That is the simple laymans explanation.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Sevenfeet said:


> My problem is that I'm trying to make all future purchases with 4K in mind. This is a big issue with Tivo since I don't upgrade the hardware often. In fact, that's my current dilemma right now. I have two ancient Series 3 with OLED displays with have been working reasonably well for 7.5 years now. I began with a Series 1 Sony 15 years ago, skipped Series 2 and Series 4. Now I'm looking at Series 5 since one of my Tivo's hard drive is beginning to fail and has been resetting itself often (or just freezing). This happened to my other Tivo over a year ago, and in that case, I replaced the primary hard drive. This took several days of my time to get done right. So now I'm faced with either spending a small amount of money for another 1 gig replacement drive or finally upgrade to Series 5 Roamio (and spend a lot of money).
> 
> There are sales continuing with Tivo (and Tivo Mini), but they expire on Jan 6th...right at the beginning of CES. I'd like to buy a 4K set this year to replace my ancient (and failing) Mitsubishi 65813 CRT RPTV (state of the art in 2004) in my made home theater room. While I'm not banking on cable supplied 4K content anytime soon, it would be nice for Tivo to support 4K content from other providers (Amazon, Netflix, etc). The only way that happens is with HEVC support (available now) and proper HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compatibility, which I don't see happening in most consumer devices until April at the earliest.
> 
> Decisions, decisions...


If 4K is the most important feature, fix the S3 OLED for now (be sure to check for failed power supply caps as well).

Scott


----------



## Carlos_E (Mar 12, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Unless those TVs have HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 you wont actually be able to use an external device for 4k. That's the problem with buying 4k TVs now.


Yes they have it. All current Sony, Samsung and Vizio 4KTVs have it. I have a Sony 55X850A, 65X900A and 65X900B. The 900B is the one I have with HVEC built in streaming support.

I can buy 2 Sony 4K Media streamers right now if I wanted. But like I said I'd rather have one less settop box if Tivo could provide the same function. I'm waiting until after CES to see if any new media streamers are announced.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

It's worth the discussion about what Tivo is doing and what technology, product, or company out their that can disrupt this.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

CT71812229 said:


> It's worth the discussion about what Tivo is doing and what technology, product, or company out their that can disrupt this.


Tivo isn't going to do anything to disrupt linear cable. Linear cable is their bread and butter - MSO subscriptions make up the majority of their subscription revenue.

If you want disruption, you need to looks toward Apple or microsoft - and so far neither have been able to crack that nut - and not for lack of trying...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bradleys said:


> Tivo isn't going to do anything to disrupt linear cable. Linear cable is their bread and butter - MSO subscriptions make up the majority of their subscription revenue.
> 
> If you want disruption, you need to looks toward Apple or microsoft - and so far neither have been able to crack that nut - and not for lack of trying...


I agree. For pay TV to change radically will require the cable/satellite companies to decide they can make more money with a different delivery system or for the content providers to decide they can make more money with a different delivery system. In any event if anyone believes any change is going to lower the consumers cost - well I have some great investment swamp land to sell you.


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

HerronScott said:


> If 4K is the most important feature, fix the S3 OLED for now (be sure to check for failed power supply caps as well).
> 
> Scott


True. I had to replace caps in the other one now that I remember. I'll pull the thing from service tonight and take a look.


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> A 4K TiVo is highly unlikely this year. I've just never seen TiVo be that proactive before. They didn't release the first HD TiVo until 2006 even though HD had been pretty widespread since 2003. I can't really see them releasing a 4K TiVo before there are any 4k channels to record. 4k linear is at least a couple years off.


I agree with you, but the consumer electronics business moves a lot faster than Tivo has historically. 4K is basically here. You might be able to delay for another 6 months to get the HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 issues ironed out, but after that, every buying season that Tivo is missing is lost opportunity, especially since their customer base is usually the higher-end purchaser.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Sevenfeet said:


> I agree with you, but the consumer electronics business moves a lot faster than Tivo has historically. 4K is basically here. You might be able to delay for another 6 months to get the HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 issues ironed out, but after that, every buying season that Tivo is missing is lost opportunity, especially since their customer base is usually the higher-end purchaser.


Is it? Sure a few streaming options, but I really don't think that is going to "explode" anytime soon - and linear TV (cable) is years away from 4k distribution - if ever.

4k is a gimmick, just like 3D was...


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> You're trying to make a good point, but using the wrong words. You have to have a correctly sized TV for 4K to make a difference. The correct distance to sit away from a 60" TV, for example, is around 6-9', based on THX sizing guidelines. Many people have TVs that are WAY too small for their room, like sitting 15' away from a 55" TV.
> 
> And that is part of the conundrum of 4K. The first affordable sets are too small to give any benefit in any practical application. You really need something like a 70" 4K set at 7-8' to get the effect of 4K, but the larger sets are pricey.
> 
> The other part of the conundrum is that there are no [affordable] 4K projectors out there, and a projector with a 100"+ screen is where the big benefits come into play for 4K content. Something like a 133" screen at 13-15' with Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 sound would be absolutely stunning in 4K, but the cheapest such projector is currently $15k, so with an appropriately matched surround sound system and a proper room would be in the $25k+ range.


Even if the 133" screen was affordable for the average consumer, most people wouldn't have the wall space. Someone with that kind of space is probably not constrained by cost anyway. The smaller 4K TVs might be better at a closer distance, but 1080P is pretty darn good. Even if you are too far away for the size of your TV you might still be realizing a 720P resolution which isn't too bad.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Even if people can afford it, they don't want that large of a TV in the family room and TV sales show it. I do like this graph on sizing...


----------



## Carlos_E (Mar 12, 2007)

bradleys said:


> Even if people can afford it, they don't want that large of a TV in the family room and TV sales show it. I do like this graph on sizing...


I can afford and I want it. I'm planning on getting an 80" or largar 4K for my living room. You need to head over to AVS Forum to see the demand for 4K TVs. It's higher than most posting here think.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I would love to get an UHD(aka 4K set) but I would need to go larger than my current 82" 1080P set. And they are just too expensive at that size. After getting my first 1080P set(61" sammy DLP) in 2005 for $4K, I swore I would never spend anywhere near that much money on a TV again. So while I would love to get an UHD set, the price will need to come down a lot more before I get an 84" or larger UHD set.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> I would love to get an UHD(aka 4K set) but I would need to go larger than my current 82" 1080P set. And they are just too expensive at that size. After getting my first 1080P set(61" sammy DLP) in 2005 for $4K, I swore I would never spend anywhere near that much money on a TV again. So while I would love to get an UHD set, the price will need to come down a lot more before I get an 84" or larger UHD set.


Just skip 4K and go straight to 8K:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...-tv-and-new-quantum-dot-4k-display-technology


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Carlos_E said:


> You need to head over to AVS Forum to see the demand for 4K TVs. It's higher than most posting here think.


lol.

I would probably do the opposite if I wanted to judge real-world demand for 4k.

I think real world demand for 4k will really be about getting a larger tv screen. And the upgrade to 4k will be by default.


----------



## Carlos_E (Mar 12, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> lol.
> 
> I would probably do the opposite if I wanted to judge real-world demand for 4k.
> 
> I think real world demand for 4k will really be about getting a larger tv screen. And the upgrade to 4k will be by default.


Most of the people in this thread don't know what they are talking about regarding 4K or available content. I've been enjoying 4K streaming since buying the 65X900B in early 2014. I've waited buying the Sony external streamer for my A models for the simple reason of wanting a PS4 or Tivo than can do 4K streaming and reducing the number of devices in my cabinet.

Some of the commenters seem not to know external devices are available already.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Carlos_E said:


> Most of the people in this thread don't know what they are talking about regarding 4K or available content. I've been enjoying 4K streaming since buying the 65X900B in early 2014. I've waited buying the Sony external streamer for my A models for the simple reason of wanting a PS4 or Tivo than can do 4K streaming and reducing the number of devices in my cabinet.
> 
> Some of the commenters seem not to know external devices are available already.


IMHO 4K is more psychological than real (except for XX large screens) as I have a high end 1.5 year old 80 inch HDTV, I sit about 9.5 feet from the screen, and when I start a Netflix streaming movie the resolution starts at 280 then starts to move up to the final 1080P/24, with the TiVo I can see what the current resolution is doing, 280 not good, 480P much better, 780P the picture is about as good as I can see, when the resolution gets to 1080P/24 the difference is almost not noticeable to me, and I have glasses made up for 10 feet, giving me 20/20 at 10 feet so it not my eyes. I am sure if I had two 80 TV next to each other I could see the difference between 1080P and 780P, but it will not be that great. I can't believe going to 4K would make my picture that much better (on an 80 inch HDTV) that I would enjoy it more. 
The cost for making a 4K TV is coming down to the cost of making a 1080P TV, so I do expect, for now, everybody can make more money selling 4K, and if you purchase a 4K HDTV than when the new 4K BD comes out you will have to purchase one, then rent or purchase 4K movies, 4K game boxes and on and on. But you will have a hard time convincing me that you will get the leap in picture quality and experience we got going from the old 480i 4X3 system to the new HDTV 16X9 system. (The exception being the $25,000 and up big home theater system with a 9 to 10 foot or bigger screen)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

A handful of titles available via streaming doesn't really justify a TiVo. TiVo is a DVR and there are no linear 4K channels available to record, and likely wont be for a couple of years. Making a 4K TiVo just for a couple of integrated apps that support 4K seems silly. 

Linear 4K is not even currently possible. As of last years NAB show there were no realtime HEVC 4K enocders on the market. Which means cable companies could broadcast 4K even if they wanted to. That may change at this year's show, we'll see, but even so a 4K channel is going to require a LOT of bandwidth so cable companies are going to be hard pressed to broadcast more then a couple anyway.

4K is going to require a major upgrade, end to end, for the entire industry. It's not going to happen overnight.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Carlos_E said:


> Most of the people in this thread don't know what they are talking about regarding 4K or available content. I've been enjoying 4K streaming since buying the 65X900B in early 2014. I've waited buying the Sony external streamer for my A models for the simple reason of wanting a PS4 or Tivo than can do 4K streaming and reducing the number of devices in my cabinet.
> 
> Some of the commenters seem not to know external devices are available already.


? I'm not sure what you're saying there. Are you saying most posters in this thread aren't aware you can get any 4k content at all via streaming services?!?!? I didn't get that same vibe.

And not sure what that has to do with AVS being the bellwether of demand for 4k which is the part of your comment that didn't ring very true to me. AVS is more like being inside the bubble. Whatever new paper spec is out then AVS is all about it. Whether or not that applies to the mainstream consumer is another thing altogether.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

4K will hopefully bring a larger color gamut too, for more realistic colors.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I only have a 50" set and sit 12-13 foot away and find it almost impossible to tell the difference between 720p & 1080p content. My take is 4K versus 1080p will make little or no difference for the majority of people based on the size of TV they have & distance they sit from it.

However that doesn't mean we can not have better picture quality (a better looking picture). Just go over to Cnet and read their review of LG's 55 inch OLED 1080p set.

The problem is it is and will be easier for TV manufactures to sell TVs using the 4K hype than by building TVs with better looking pictures. A good example of this is Samsung and Panasonic both dropping their Plasma Lines. Thankfully Samsung's 4K flat LCD TVs have almost as good a picture as their top Plasma line that they dropped did, but as time goes on more mediocre or even poor 4K TVs will be built and people will pay more for them than what they could get a 1080p set with a better picture for.

Of course if someone wants to build a top of the line 4K OLED 65inch set and sell it to me for under $2000 I will be all for 4K (actually I would be fine with a 65" OLED 1080p set also ).


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Carlos_E said:


> I can afford and I want it. I'm planning on getting an 80" or largar 4K for my living room. You need to head over to AVS Forum to see the demand for 4K TVs. It's higher than most posting here think.


Just for the fun of it I decided to look up what an 80+ inch 4K TV cost. Samsung has an 85inch in the line that Cnet reviewed and recommended. Only $10,000 from Amazon. Must be nice to be rich enough to think paying $10,000 for a TV is affordable.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Very interesting info regarding 4K and how it's perceived by the human eye, etc in this review and also more great info in the comments section. Its not all about just resolution, distance, etc.:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vpl_vw600es_4k_projector_review.htm


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

HarperVision said:


> Very interesting info regarding 4K and how it's perceived by the human eye, etc in this review and also more great info in the comments section. Its not all about just resolution, distance, etc.:
> 
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vpl_vw600es_4k_projector_review.htm


Yeah, I've said it here but people always get up in arms so I've let it go. But 4k is a true visual upgrade from 1080p even on my 60" Samsung TV from normal seating distances, though by how much varies from source to source. What is truly jarring, however, is going back to watching recorded shows on the TiVo after watching 4k Netflix or Amazon. Good lord 1080i and 720p look like a mess for a few minutes until you readjust.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

bradleys said:


> Tivo isn't going to do anything to disrupt linear cable. Linear cable is their bread and butter - MSO subscriptions make up the majority of their subscription revenue.
> 
> If you want disruption, you need to looks toward Apple or microsoft - and so far neither have been able to crack that nut - and not for lack of trying...


Not only that, but TiVo's core strength is building a cable DVR, maybe, arguably, an OTA DVR. That core strength, while it has been adapted to include streaming services, is highly ill-suited to a cord-cutting market, with the exception of an OTA DVR to capture users who want DVR functionality without an MSO involved.



shwru980r said:


> Even if the 133" screen was affordable for the average consumer, most people wouldn't have the wall space. Someone with that kind of space is probably not constrained by cost anyway. The smaller 4K TVs might be better at a closer distance, but 1080P is pretty darn good. Even if you are too far away for the size of your TV you might still be realizing a 720P resolution which isn't too bad.


The challenge with front projectors is controlling ambient light. That's not true at all in terms of space vs. money. There are plenty of people with rooms that are 12-14' or slightly larger that don't have $25K in their budget for a 4k projection system. There are a lot of people looking at $1k-$3k projectors. It's hard to reasonably expect a 4k projector for $1k, but a decent 4k projector for $4k would be pretty awesome, and open up a really good 4k experience for a much bigger, albeit still far smaller than flat panel, audience.



bradleys said:


> Even if people can afford it, they don't want that large of a TV in the family room and TV sales show it. I do like this graph on sizing...


Everything I've seen is that TVs are getting bigger every year, the sales of the bigger sets are higher than ever, and people are buying as big as they can afford. I've seen houses, apartments, everywhere getting bigger and bigger TVs. There is a limit, I think 70-80" is about the maximum that most houses can handle in terms of a flat panel, but we are nowhere near there in affordability yet, especially with 4K. Even a 4K set at 70" is still pretty pricey.



atmuscarella said:


> Just for the fun of it I decided to look up what an 80+ inch 4K TV cost.


The price goes up incredibly sharply after 70", which is just big enough to really start getting the benefits of 4K in a smallish room with around a 7' viewing distance. They need to go bigger to reach even moderate sized living rooms with good 4k quality.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Very interesting info regarding 4K and how it's perceived by the human eye, etc in this review and also more great info in the comments section. Its not all about just resolution, distance, etc.:
> 
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vpl_vw600es_4k_projector_review.htm


Ok so on a $15,000 4K projector you can get increased resolution benefit on a 100 inch screen at 14 foot. I should hope so. And the unit has exceptionally good up-scalars - again I should hope so. And again saying a $15,000 unit makes 1080p content look better than some other non identified 1080p unit - well I will say it one more time - I should hope so.

The bottom line was they still said most people will need to sit 1 to 1.5 times the screen size away which isn't going to work for most people.

There is also another issue going on TV manufactures are not stupid. They are dropping top 1080p sets and replacing them with 4K. So we will have to default to 4K if we want the best sets and pay the premium. However we have one last year where we can see reviews that show something interesting. From this years Cnet reviews I will go back to what I said in my last post - if you look what they said about picture quality they said 2 1080p sets had over all excellent pictures and clearly stated one 1080p set had a better picture than any other TV they had reviewed. So if a person wanted the best picture available on a 55 inch set hear is how it would fall out:


LG 55EC9300 (1080p)
Samsung PNF8500 (1080p)
Sony XBR-X900B (4K)
Samsung UNHU8550 (4K)
What I find more than annoying is that both Panasonic & Samsung have both dropped 1080p TV lines that had better picture quality than any of their 4K TV lines and the best tech for TV picture quality (OLED) isn't going to be available in mass anytime soon.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> There is also another issue going on TV manufactures are not stupid. They are dropping top 1080p sets and replacing them with 4K. So we will have to default to 4K if we want the best sets and pay the premium. However we have one last year where we can see reviews that show something interesting. From this years Cnet reviews I will go back to what I said in my last post - if you look what they said about picture quality they said 2 1080p sets had over all excellent pictures and clearly stated one 1080p set had a better picture than any other TV they had reviewed. So if a person wanted the best picture available on a 55 inch set hear is how it would fall out:
> 
> 
> LG 55EC9300 (1080p)
> ...


#1 is an OLED and #2 is a Plasma. This is the last year for Plasma screens, so if you want one you better buy one. And Samsung had 1 OLED set last model year, but came out with none this current model year. It looks like Samsung is saying "one new technology at a time". They are going to squeeze as much profit out of 4K LCD sets for a few years before moving on to OLED.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I only have a 50" set and sit 12-13 foot away and find it almost impossible to tell the difference between 720p & 1080p content. My take is 4K versus 1080p will make little or no difference for the majority of people based on the size of TV they have & distance they sit from it.
> .............


Yes sitting that far away there won't be much difference to see. I sit 9 feet away from my 82" 1080P set. And I could easily sit closer. I would love to have a 90" UHD set and sit 7 to 8 feet away from it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> #1 is an OLED and #2 is a Plasma. This is the last year for Plasma screens, so if you want one you better buy one.


Ya I know - my hope is to not need a new TV for around 5 years, but my point was if people really wanted better pictures they have been able to buy 1080p sets up to about 65 inches for several years that had BETTER pictures than the current 4K TVs. 


tarheelblue32 said:


> And Samsung had 1 OLED set last model year, but came out with none this current model year. It looks like Samsung is saying "one new technology at a time". They are going to squeeze as much profit out of 4K LCD sets for a few years before moving on to OLED.


That's my take on it get rid of their top 1080p lines hype 4K and charge a good premium. Vizio may disrupt their plans if next year they can get the issues resolved with their 4K TVs picture quality. Hopefully it is all shaken out by the time I need a new TV would love to move to bigger set but no way to justify it now plus my TV's picture is still really very good.


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

HerronScott said:


> If 4K is the most important feature, fix the S3 OLED for now (be sure to check for failed power supply caps as well).
> 
> Scott


Update: I pulled the old S3 and sure enough, the C701 capacitor is blown. I've done this exact same repair before on the other unit I have. I ordered an extra cap the last time I did this repair...now I just have to find where it is in my (messy) desk.


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> Very interesting info regarding 4K and how it's perceived by the human eye, etc in this review and also more great info in the comments section. Its not all about just resolution, distance, etc.:
> 
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vpl_vw600es_4k_projector_review.htm


For me, 4K is all about detail and color space. I'm not sure where people get the "I can't tell the difference unless the set is "this big" argument". If a 4K set is playing 4K content, the difference is pretty clear.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

atmuscarella said:


> Ok so on a $15,000 4K projector you can get increased resolution benefit on a 100 inch screen at 14 foot. I should hope so. And the unit has exceptionally good up-scalars - again I should hope so. And again saying a $15,000 unit makes 1080p content look better than some other non identified 1080p unit - well I will say it one more time - I should hope so. The bottom line was they still said most people will need to sit 1 to 1.5 times the screen size away which isn't going to work for most people. There is also another issue going on TV manufactures are not stupid. They are dropping top 1080p sets and replacing them with 4K. So we will have to default to 4K if we want the best sets and pay the premium. However we have one last year where we can see reviews that show something interesting. From this years Cnet reviews I will go back to what I said in my last post - if you look what they said about picture quality they said 2 1080p sets had over all excellent pictures and clearly stated one 1080p set had a better picture than any other TV they had reviewed. So if a person wanted the best picture available on a 55 inch set hear is how it would fall out: [*]LG 55EC9300 (1080p) [*]Samsung PNF8500 (1080p) [*]Sony XBR-X900B (4K) [*]Samsung UNHU8550 (4K) What I find more than annoying is that both Panasonic & Samsung have both dropped 1080p TV lines that had better picture quality than any of their 4K TV lines and the best tech for TV picture quality (OLED) isn't going to be available in mass anytime soon.


So you actually think none of these benefits translate to the smaller cheaper sets? Sounds like to me the nature and science speaks for itself. We heard the exact same arguments when HD came on the scene compared to SD. I remember even though DVDs had 480p resolution when we up scaled them to 1080p and beyond on the same sized screen there was definitely a perceived and real increase in PQ.

I'm not saying I completely disagree with you as I haven't done or read tons of scientific research on this subject, but it sounds like the people in the linked thread have, so until I see the same counter argument documentation I'll have to go with that info for the time being.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Sevenfeet said:


> For me, 4K is all about detail and color space. I'm not sure where people get the "I can't tell the difference unless the set is "this big" argument". If a 4K set is playing 4K content, the difference is pretty clear.


Yep, déjà vu all over again!


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

Sevenfeet said:


> Update: I pulled the old S3 and sure enough, the C701 capacitor is blown. I've done this exact same repair before on the other unit I have. I ordered an extra cap the last time I did this repair...now I just have to find where it is in my (messy) desk.


Update #2: Found the bag of extra caps (4 left from the original repair). I'll try to do the repair when the kids go back to school in the next day or two (peace and quiet).


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> So you actually think none of these benefits translate to the smaller cheaper sets? Sounds like to me the nature and science speaks for itself. We heard the exact same arguments when HD came on the scene compared to SD. I remember even though DVDs had 480p resolution when we up scaled them to 1080p and beyond on the same sized screen there was definitely a perceived and real increase in PQ.
> 
> I'm not saying I completely disagree with you as I haven't done or read tons of scientific research on this subject, but it sounds like the people in the linked thread have, so until I see the same counter argument documentation I'll have to go with that info for the time being.


Actually I am not sure we are in any disagreement. I have no doubt that if "all other things' are equal a 4K set will look better/have a better picture than a 1080p set. However "all other things" are rarely equal. A good example of this is Vizio's 4K sets, there are enough issues with their pictures that Cnet does not recommend the TVs and states: "Overly aggressive video processing with both HD and 4K sources makes the P series' picture too sharp and unrealistic, as well as punching up highlights and introducing artifacts." Now compare that to Cnets review of one of Vizio's 1080p lines that they rated as one of the best TVs and said: "The Vizio M-Series delivers superb picture quality for the money thanks to its local dimming LED backlight. The picture provides deep black levels with little to no blooming, great bright-room performance and plenty of adjustments." Yes the 4K set provides higher resolution however it is not providing a better overall picture and if you look at the price of a 55 inch version of each of these the 1080p set is $750 and the 4K is $1350. Which is the same point of my last post high end 4K TVs may have great pictures however 2 1080p sets (one OLED & one Plasma) where determined to have better over all pictures.

So up to now just because a TV was 4K didn't automatically mean a person was going to get a better picture than a 1080p set and there have been some lower priced 4K sets where it was clearly easy to spend less on a good 1080p set and get a better picture.

That said 4K is the future and I am guessing that all the top rated TVs this year will all be 4K.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

Channel Master at this year CES to compete with Tivo? I don't see anything better than Tivo except that it doesn't require a subscription fee. Any thought?


----------



## Sevenfeet (Jun 24, 2000)

Sevenfeet said:


> Update #2: Found the bag of extra caps (4 left from the original repair). I'll try to do the repair when the kids go back to school in the next day or two (peace and quiet).


Update #3: The caps I had aren't the right ones after all...they apparently were for a different project. So now I have to order the 2200uf25v variety from whereever I got it the last time....probably Amazon. I must check the old sticky on the subject.

Of course I realized this AFTER I got the old unit desoldered off the board.


----------



## Keen (Aug 3, 2009)

What are good sites to follow for CES coverage of Tivo, DVRs, and TVs?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Very interesting info regarding 4K and how it's perceived by the human eye, etc in this review and also more great info in the comments section. Its not all about just resolution, distance, etc.:
> 
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/sony_vpl_vw600es_4k_projector_review.htm


At $14,000 any HDTV 4K or not is in another world from what I would have.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

HarperVision said:


> So you actually think none of these benefits translate to the smaller cheaper sets? Sounds like to me the nature and science speaks for itself.


The nature and the science? Yes it does speak for itself and it's what debunks your position. When it comes to the actual numbers that article is full of vague marketing BS.

1-1.5 times the screen distance is a pretty wide non-specific range to recommend 4k be watched from. Nobody ever said there wouldn't be SOME benefit if you go UNDER 1.5X, but you won't be watching 4K. If 1.5X is the best distance to get the FULL BENEFIT of 1080p from (and most of today's sources aren't even 1080p) then 0.75X is the best distance to get the FULL BENEFIT of 2160p from. It's basic physics geometry and arithmetic that a first-grader should be able to understand (at least the arithmetic part).


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

CT71812229 said:


> Channel Master at this year CES to compete with Tivo? I don't see anything better than Tivo except that it doesn't require a subscription fee. Any thought?


There are two advantages to a DVR+ vs a Roamio for OTA. The first is price -- and that is a big one -- and the second is autonomy.

I got three of these on BF @ $175. I'll pick up a 1t disk for the last one today at Staples for $35. $210 for two tuners and 140 hours of HD storage is tough to beat.

The Channel Master DVRs include a 14 day Rovi guide via the internet AND a PSIP guide for those who choose not to plug in. TiVo always requires some kind of 'call home' capability. For my in-laws, this was a bigger deal as they have cell phones and no ISP.

To me, this mostly says that the device will continue to perform as designed even if Channel Master goes away or Rovi pulls support (as they did with their OTA guide on the DTVPal). The privacy crowd will also appreciate the fact that a PSIP DVR+ cannot track your viewing habits. I guess that matters to some.

Channel Master is supposed to announce something BIG tonight that is not new streaming apps or a whole house solution (both promised for 2015).

No doubt TiVo is a better DVR. The choice comes down to price and autonomy vs the additional features TiVo brings to the table. An educated consumer will have little trouble choosing one over the other, but the choice will have more to do with the values of the consumer than the features of the DVR.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

Keen said:


> What are good sites to follow for CES coverage of Tivo, DVRs, and TVs?


None I know of, unfortunately. Dave Zatz just posted info about a new tablo model and roku channel. Channel Master posted that they will have a BIG announcement tonight which is not about new streaming apps or a whole house product...



> Next week is CES, the HUGE consumer electronics show in Vegas! We'll have a cool announcement Monday night, stay tuned! It's not an app and it's not Whole Home, although Whole Home is still coming in 2015. So are more apps. You're gonna love this!


I found this thread looking for the same thing.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

CT71812229 said:


> Channel Master at this year CES to compete with Tivo?


Yes. And they have an announcement this evening. Not sure how "big" it is, but it's a little relevant to those considering TiVo OTA verus DVR+ I think. My embargo is 10PM Eastern - I only have pictures and a release, haven't tried the new stuff yet. I like what they're doing in price and approach. But find the UI too slow and for now everything is self contained - no TiVo Mini equivalent, for example.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

BrettStah said:


> 4K will hopefully bring a larger color gamut too, for more realistic colors.


You mean like the plasma TVs the industry just killed for the greed of more profits?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

series5orpremier said:


> You mean like the plasma TVs the industry just killed for the greed of more profits?


I am sad to see plasma screens ride off into the sunset, but not enough people were buying them to make them economically viable. In some cases, manufacturers had dropped the prices on high-end plasma screens to that of cheap LCD screens, and still people weren't buying them. If you want to blame someone for plasma's demise, blame the stupidity of consumers.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

davezatz said:


> I assume we'll hear more about 4k check. I'm personally hoping to learn of Fire TV or Roku clients check. The Mini refresh is mostly non consequential and last I heard slated for March. Probably will show the Mega again check. I think it's also possible there will be a smaller OTA product at some point in 2015, but not sure if it'll display at CES.


I dunno... maybe a solid B effort on my part? Got 4K and Roku right, but sounds like only private demos. Mega again, but I don't really care. OnePass is a real nice surprise. If pics don't surface soon, I'll send someone to grab them tonight at the Pepcom press event.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I am sad to see plasma screens ride off into the sunset, but not enough people were buying them to make them economically viable. In some cases, manufacturers had dropped the prices on high-end plasma screens to that of cheap LCD screens, and still people weren't buying them. If you want to blame someone for plasma's demise, blame the stupidity of consumers.


Agreed. I am glad I got a good one before they're all gone. I really wanted to get another as a backup, but the wife disagreed. OLEDs are nice, but still suffer from soap opera effect. I will miss my plasma when it dies.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

ncted said:


> Agreed. I am glad I got a good one before they're all gone. I really wanted to get another as a backup, but the wife disagreed. OLEDs are nice, but still suffer from soap opera effect. I will miss my plasma when it dies.


I'm sure a market for used plasma TVs will rise up once the supply of new ones runs dry. And I think there are still some plasma TVs being manufactured and sold in Asia. People could always start importing those if there is any demand from people who simply must have a plasma screen.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

ncted said:


> Agreed. I am glad I got a good one before they're all gone. I really wanted to get another as a backup, but the wife disagreed. OLEDs are nice, but still suffer from soap opera effect. I will miss my plasma when it dies.


I have four plasmas -- a 60" for the man cave, a 50" for the living room, and 42" and 43" sets in the bedrooms. I am not looking forward to the end of plasma, but I could live with some of the nicer 4k sets I've looked at. Fortunately, old age is tuning my eyeballs for this inevitability.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I'm sure a market for used plasma TVs will rise up once the supply of new ones runs dry. And I think there are still some plasma TVs being manufactured and sold in Asia. People could always start importing those if there is any demand from people who simply must have a plasma screen.


I think there is enough demand to support LG. I suspect one of the Chinese manufacturers will join the battle if demand is supported at higher prices once LG is the lone manufacturer.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

wizwor said:


> I think there is enough demand to support LG. I suspect one of the Chinese manufacturers will join the battle if demand is supported at higher prices once LG is the lone manufacturer.


I think LG has said they will stop selling plasma TVs in the U.S. also. But I could possibly see a Chinese manufacturer stepping up.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I have three plasmas including the two Samsungs I bought three months ago. I wasn't paying attention the previous year when Panasonic shut down production or else would have bought another one of those. At the time my Panasonic was less than three years old and who would have expected them to stop producing the best PQ TVs in the world.

OLED provides some hope of getting good PQ back but everyone except LG seems to have divested from it so it's in serious danger of dying before it even gets off the ground.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

series5orpremier said:


> OLED provides some hope of getting good PQ back but everyone except LG seems to have divested from it so it's in serious danger of dying before it even gets off the ground.


LG will be coming out with a line of 4K OLED sets at this years CES. It looks like LG is betting big on OLED. Hopefully they sell well, otherwise it could kill OLED off for years. If they do sell well, you can bet Samsung will jump in next year.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> What I find more than annoying is that both Panasonic & Samsung have both dropped 1080p TV lines that had better picture quality than any of their 4K TV lines and the best tech for TV picture quality (OLED) isn't going to be available in mass anytime soon.


As soon as 4K came into the market, there was no market for high-end 1080p stuff. So why would they make something that has no market? 1080p is going to be around for a long time (720p isn't quite dead yet), but only at the low end.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Bigg said:


> As soon as 4K came into the market, there was no market for high-end 1080p stuff. So why would they make something that has no market? 1080p is going to be around for a long time (720p isn't quite dead yet), but only at the low end.


You don't seem to get that even Panasonic and Samsung's budget 1080p plasma lines at $500-$1000 had far superior PQ on non-4k sources (and probably some 4k ones too) than your high end 4k LEDs that are 2X-5X pricier.

I get why they stopped making them. They couldn't sell enough even at those prices to turn a good profit. Also they're more of a hassle for retailers and shippers to handle because they're bulkier and heavier at equivalent screen sizes than LEDs. But those are part of the low end 1080p market, not part of the high end 1080p market you say instantly disappeared as soon as 4k appeared.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

series5orpremier said:


> You don't seem to get that even Panasonic and Samsung's budget 1080p plasma lines at $500-$1000 had far superior PQ on non-4k sources (and probably some 4k ones too) than your high end 4k LEDs that are 2X-5X pricier.
> 
> I get why they stopped making them. They couldn't sell enough even at those prices to turn a good profit. Also they're more of a hassle for retailers and shippers to handle because they're bulkier and heavier at equivalent screen sizes than LEDs. But those are part of the low end 1080p market, not part of the high end 1080p market you say instantly disappeared as soon as 4k appeared.


Plasma died a long time ago for all practical purposes. They eventually did get their power guzzling problem sort-of under control, but it was too little too late, since LED-LCD offered the best of CCFL-LCD and Plasma combined, so that was the end. There were never really any decent sized plasmas at any reasonable price either. Plasma was never a good technology, as before LED came around, Plasma had the power-guzzling problem to such a severe extent that CCFL-LCD was by far the better choice, even though the black levels weren't that great.

The low end 1080p market was taken by LED-LCD quite some time ago. The high end 1080p market doesn't exist anymore, and the mid-range is probably just about dead too. The low end market will stay around for quite a while, as there is a huge market of people who will buy a giant TV to watch TV and sports on, and want the lowest price possible at Wal-Mart, i.e. a 60" TV for $698 or something.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

The last time I checked you could still get the Samsung 60" plasma for $799 at Best Buy or Sears but they may be out of stock, and for a while in the fall for $698 at Sam's Club. The budget Samsung 64" plasma is still on Amazon for $1297.

As for which technology is best just depends on what your priorities are. If your first concern when buying a TV is power consumption and weight, which outweigh a washed out picture and limited viewing angles, then by all means LED is the superior technology. If your first concern is picture quality with more colors and deeper blacks then it's no contest in favor of plasma.


----------



## sirfergy (May 18, 2002)

Are viewing angles really an issue? I have a 2006 LCD TV and the viewing angles are great.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I'm not sure if something is wrong with my eyes, but I always thought plasma monitors looked like crap. I also hated 120hz LCD and those stupid curvy monitors they have now.

I like my 60hz LCD-CCFL Philips and my LCD-LED Samsung. They look great with any 1080i or 1080p source, from any viewing angle.

As for 4K, its good for two things: movie theaters and masters from film that needs to be preserved before downscaling to put on blu-ray. I have no use for it in my home.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I forgot to mention LED's motion blur vs. plasma's fast motion. LEDs look nicely brighter than plasma on a brightly lit showroom floor but get them home under real world lighting conditions for evening TV viewing and plasma looks richer, more vibrant and natural than the comparatively washed out LEDs.

It's way too late to teach anyone about plasma now. There are so many people who'll never know what they missed.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

davezatz said:


> If pics don't surface soon, I'll send someone to grab them tonight at the Pepcom press event.


I had my pal Brad Linder shoot us a video of OnePass in action:






(He also sent me a series of pics, but the things that I found most interesting were in the video.)


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

davezatz said:


> I had my pal Brad Linder shoot us a video of OnePass in action:


They have a progress bar, really really nice. Looks far better than I expected.

Thanks for posting that.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

jth tv said:


> They have a progress bar, really really nice. Looks far better than I expected.
> 
> Thanks for posting that.


Yes, I noticed that too...


----------



## sheshechic (Apr 14, 2012)

Will Tivo keep up with the times and figure out a way to capture cord cutters? Will they upgrade the OTA to work with Dish's Sling TV streaming service? Most people, like me, have been waiting for a way to watch live sports and now ESPN will be available for streaming.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I am sure now that Dish has created this option it will arrive through other streaming channels and TiVo will try to add it to their OTT line up. 

That said, TiVo is never going to be a priority for OTT providers, so I would recommend a Roku if this looks like something you can't live without.

I said a long time ago that TiVo should have purchased Boxee when it was on the market. They could have integrated the Boxee app platform into TiVo AND maintained a stand alone Boxee streaming box with a stream based TiVo extender app.

That would have put TiVo in front of the line for these types of services - but as it is, TiVo just does not have the user base to make them an early target for these new OTT services.


----------



## sheshechic (Apr 14, 2012)

I already own several Rokus. I'm thinking that a mini-pc might be the next best option. I must admit, I'm a bit of a Tivo junkie, with the ability to rewind being the biggest influence. I find myself wanting to rewind the radio. lol Tivo has changed the way I listen, since I work from home and tv keeps me company.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I agree with you... I am not a huge fan of the streaming services simply because you loose the smooth trick play that TiVo provides. However, this OnePass is pretty cool consolidating content into a single My Shows from all content providers.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

bradleys said:


> I agree with you... I am not a huge fan of the streaming services simply because you loose the smooth trick play that TiVo provides. However, this OnePass is pretty cool consolidating content into a single My Shows from all content providers.


It would be better if they rolled out a new TiVo Desktop that let you stream content from your PC as if it were another TiVo. Then you could have your local content offloaded via KMTTG or TiVo Desktop or personally ripped included assuming you have the correct metadata.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

innocentfreak said:


> It would be better if they rolled out a new TiVo Desktop that let you stream content from your PC as if it were another TiVo. Then you could have your local content offloaded via KMTTG or TiVo Desktop or personally ripped included assuming you have the correct metadata.


I have said that for years - an MRS client for your personal media collection would be a far better experience than a Plex client IMHO...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bradleys said:


> I said a long time ago that TiVo should have purchased Boxee when it was on the market. They could have integrated the Boxee app platform into TiVo AND maintained a stand alone Boxee streaming box with a stream based TiVo extender app.
> 
> That would have put TiVo in front of the line for these types of services - but as it is, TiVo just does not have the user base to make them an early target for these new OTT services.


What would TiVo have gained by buying Boxee? Was there anything proprietary there or large user base?


----------



## eaadams (Apr 25, 2000)

So no new Mini? blarg. I guess I'll now wait for a Chromecast App? blarg x2

Lifetime subscription deal on the Mini has changed on the website. Now reads "Offer ends May 4, 2015"


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> What would TiVo have gained by buying Boxee? Was there anything proprietary there or large user base?


User base was "competitive" but definitely 3rd place for streaming options. It had all of the streaming providers of the day and an active platform and group of developers.

It would have brought tivo an existing, robust and respected development kit, it would have diversified their offerings. And tivo could have brought some DVR functionality to the stand alone streaming box as a decent gate way for selling more full systems.

Boxee was working on a cloud DVR app when it was sold. Can you imagine if tivo would have completed that development providing a certain level of stand alone cloud functionality that increased with a full tivo purchase?

You have to find your own crack recipe before you can get people hooked on your product! 

Boxee ended up being purchased by Samsung @ 30 million for integrating the app platform into smart TV's.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

bradleys said:


> User base was "competitive" but definitely 3rd place for streaming options. It had all of the streaming providers of the day and an active platform and group of developers.
> 
> It would have brought tivo an existing, robust and respected development kit, it would have diversified their offerings. And tivo could have brought some DVR functionality to the stand alone streaming box as a decent gate way for selling more full systems.
> 
> ...


Boxee was acquired for less than the venture capital poured into and it was really an acquirhire - Samsung's Boxee team was not assigned to the Smart TV business. Instead they ran their own team within the "visual display" global business unit of Samsung. Supposedly the fruits of their efforts were slated for a CES 2015 unveil. My sources have dried up over the last few months, but I wonder if the Boxee group is behind the TV streaming stuff Samsung just announced.

The original Boxee desktop software client was based on XBMC and had decent uptake ... by folks who weren't willing to pay for the initial D-Link Boxee box that didn't sell so well. The follow-on Boxee Cloud DVR, built on a new software platform, didn't have time to evolve into something good. Who knows if or when it may have, but at launch and for months after it was buggy, incomplete, and didn't perform so well. Their technical design was also heavily regional and probably not sustainable - they never sold the Cloud DVR beyond a couple markets where they'd set up shop. I do give them credit for getting it onto Walmart shelves tho.

So, in summary, Boxee's commercial (D-Link) products weren't successful. However, they're a super smart team of good people and probably well worth that $30m to the right company. TiVo's problem isn't ideas tho, it's timely execution and effective marketing and maybe it's time for a new CEO. By the by, Samsung paid to relocate a large percent of the Boxee team, which was based in Israel, to the Jersey 'burbs of NYC.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TiVo was much better off going the direction they did with licensing Opera and converting all their apps to HTML5. Most of these apps are developed by the individual providers and they're coming to a point where they want to develop once and deploy everywhere. They don't want to have to develop special apps just for TiVo, especially since they have such a small user base. Buying Boxee would have locked them into another proprietary app platform and they would have been no better off then when they were using Flash. 

HTML5 is the future for write once deploy anywhere apps. TiVo made the right call in that area.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo was much better off going the direction they did with licensing Opera and converting all their apps to HTML5. Most of these apps are developed by the individual providers and they're coming to a point where they want to develop once and deploy everywhere. They don't want to have to develop special apps just for TiVo, especially since they have such a small user base. Buying Boxee would have locked them into another proprietary app platform and they would have been no better off then when they were using Flash.
> 
> HTML5 is the future for write once deploy anywhere apps. TiVo made the right call in that area.


Boxee's Cloud DVR was based on that very same Opera and HTML5...  without the $30m price tag.

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/19/opera-brings-its-sdk-to-power-dvr-in-the-cloud-boxee-tv/


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

davezatz said:


> Boxee's Cloud DVR was based on that very same Opera and HTML5...  without the $30m price tag.
> 
> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/12/19/opera-brings-its-sdk-to-power-dvr-in-the-cloud-boxee-tv/


Boxee had a good compliment of streaming services, so I would assume the platform was a little more robust than the silly "Opera Store"

It would have also had the streaming box and name recognition.

Since Samsung paid 30 million, killing both the name and the product just so they could improve the smart tv App Store - it must have been something a little more than just The Opera platform. (Which is garbage)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The Opera app store is crap. It's just something that comes with licensing Opera. The Opera browser though is what allows them to run HTML5 apps. Prior to them adding Opera all apps for TiVo were written in Adobe Air (essentially Flash) and every provider needed to supply a custom app written specifically for the TiVo platform. HTML5 opened that up. Now TiVo can run the same apps that these providers use for smart TVs and BD players, no longer requiring them to write a special app just for TiVo. 

I didn't realize that Boxee had taken the same route. I looks like they also licensed the Opera browser so they too could run HTML5 apps. 

Although since they were essentially doing the same thing that TiVo is doing now I fail to see what TiVo would have gained by buying them?


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Yes, Dan has the Boxee Opera integration right. Boxee Cloud DVR didn't have the Opera TV app store, it had the underpinnings for the HTML5 apps and UI. It only ran YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, and Spotify if memory serves - in addition to the television tuning and DVR features, of course. (Prior to the Cloud DVR, the free software and the first D-Link box were based off XBMC - similar to how Plex took it and ran a different way.)

And, again, Samsung didn't really acquire Boxee technology. Rather, they acquired a few dozen smart people for a new project that was NOT Samsung's smart TV platform (and the investors saved some face, recouped some of that investment).


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> Although since they were essentially doing the same thing that TiVo is doing now I fail to see what TiVo would have gained by buying them?


A team of people who knew what they are doing?

Samsung obviously saw something in them. But Samsung isn't as successful a company as Tivo, so they need all the help they can get.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Samsung is a MUCH bigger company, so $30M to them is a drop in the bucket compared to what it would have been to TiVo.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Samsung is a MUCH bigger company, so $30M to them is a drop in the bucket compared to what it would have been to TiVo.


I think you missed his sarcasm... 

To further put that $30m in perspective for bradleys, last year Samsung bought Smartthings for a rumored $200m and Google/Nest paid a rumored $500m for Dropcam. $30m really is a drop in the bucket for these large companies and fire sale pricing. Although, once upon a time, TiVo had about $1b in the bank...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Although since they were essentially doing the same thing that TiVo is doing now I fail to see what TiVo would have gained by buying them?


That's why I asked the question. I don't understand what Boxee had that would have been beneficial to TiVo. TiVo already made a better DVR. TiVo has more users. TiVo offers the same streaming options. TiVo's UI is excellent. I fail to see what would have been gained buy acquiring Boxee. If Boxee was doing something unique that TiVo wanted to incorporate into its own UI, couldn't TiVo have just hired coders to build that functionality without paying $30 mil for a very niche product? (Although I will admit that $30 mil seems like a fire sale for a tech company with any kind of name recognition and established user base.)


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

So Samsung Smart TV is using Opera? How is Samsung playing into Tizen? Will the older smart tv be updated to using that?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

All this talk about Boxee. I still have three of the Boxee Boxes and the Boxee DVR. I think I will fire up one of my Boxee Boxes. I really liked it a lot. It could have been so much more if they had improved upon it instead of coming out with the Cloud DVR for their follow up. The CLoud DVR did work though. I recorded dozens of hours each week that were kept in the cloud. But only to check out how it did. The box was free for me. I probably would have never purchased it and I would have never replaced my TiVos with it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> All this talk about Boxee. I still have three of the Boxee Boxes and the Boxee DVR. I think I will fire up one of my Boxee Boxes. I really liked it a lot. It could have been so much more if they had improved upon it instead of coming out with the Cloud DVR for their follow up. The CLoud DVR did work though. I recorded dozens of hours each week that were kept in the cloud. But only to check out how it did. The box was free for me. I probably would have never purchased it and I would have never replaced my TiVos with it.


Cloud DVR sounds like a semi-functional system with FIOS. With cable or VDSL, it would be nuts.


----------



## CT71812229 (Jul 31, 2010)

Can Tivo function outside of the US? Does it have a foreign market? What system is the foreign market using? Thanks.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I *think* Canada can use them, with some caveats. There were UK versions in the past, but I believe they're no longer being made.. I could be wrong.. there is a separate UK Tivo forum here.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

mattack said:


> I *think* Canada can use them, with some caveats. There were UK versions in the past, but I believe they're no longer being made.. I could be wrong.. there is a separate UK Tivo forum here.


All over the air transmission in the UK is governed by one service called Freeview which provides up to 12 High Def channels as of today, 25 radio channels, and over 50 standard definition channels. The commitment to terrestrial (British for "over the air") television is much higher than in the USA. There are probably as many broadcast masts as the USA in a much smaller territory, and only UHF (no VHF) channels were used for digital TV (allowing better penetration indoors) . In addition standards for in home equipment are stricter, so the equipment must be Freeview compatible (either the TV or the Converter box or the DVR). A television is more expensive than in the USA, but once procured it can be operated for free with a level of service most people in the USA can't get via antenna (aerial in British English).

As a result the majority of households in the UK have Freeview (sometimes in combination with cable or Sky satellite service). A relatively small percentage have just Sky. Cable TV is almost exclusively something that augments Freeview, and just over 1% of homes have only cable. Probably most of them are from the 1.5% of homes not reached by Freeview.

*Almost 85% of British TV households have Freeview, and 45% have only Freeview.*

TiVo does not make a Freeview equipment, so it has to be connected to another Freeview box (like this) necessitating more equipment.

All in all, Tivo probably loses out to freeview personal video recorders made by Humax and Panasonic and others.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Pacomartin said:


> A television is more expensive than in the USA, but once procured it can be operated for free with a level of service most people in the USA can't get via antenna (aerial in British English).


Not quite free. They have to pay an annual license fee to the BBC. I think it's around $220.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Not quite free. They have to pay an annual license fee to the BBC. I think it's around $220.


the license costs £145.50 (=US$220) for colour and £49.00 for a black and white TV Licence.

But this license is required by the government to watch any TV in the UK. You need it to watch TV on mobile phones, or on the internet if it is broadcast at the same time as conventional TV. You need it to record satellite TV.

I view the license as more about commercial free content than how it is delivered. In the USA we can get PBS television commercial free (or as it is sometimes called *P*referably *B*ritish *S*eries television), but then they have all those fund drives.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I'd pay the license fee if I could watch BBC iPlayer in the USA.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Pacomartin said:


> But this license is required by the government to watch any TV in the UK.


I think it's only required to watch the BBC channels. If you were just watching ITV or Channel 4, I don't think you still have to pay the license fee.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

CT71812229 said:


> Can Tivo function outside of the US? Does it have a foreign market? What system is the foreign market using? Thanks.


I believe close to half or maybe even more than half of TiVo installations are overseas this point. TiVo has about 5.1 million total boxes in play (including Mini), with 2.4 million deployed on Virgin Media in the UK - they originally ran on Cisco hardware but may have moved to Pace or someone else. Also, of that 5 million, less than 1 million are _retail_ boxes like the ones we buy from TiVo, Amazon, or Best Buy. Most are distributed thru relationships TiVo has with the likes of the aforementioned Virgin, or RCN and Suddenlink here in the US.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

What about TiVo's partnership with Cox? Did that end?


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I think it's only required to watch the BBC channels. If you were just watching ITV or Channel 4, I don't think you still have to pay the license fee.


 The website just talks about TV in general. It doesn't even mention the acronym BBC.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

Arcady said:


> I'd pay the license fee if I could watch BBC iPlayer in the USA.


Acorn TV is only $60 a year and it gets a lot of the shows only a few weeks after they air. The new season of Foyle's War will air on BBC in January, but on Acorn in February.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Pacomartin said:


> The website just talks about TV in general. It doesn't even mention the acronym BBC.


I've done a little research, and it seems you are correct. Any device used to watch or record any live TV in the UK requires the TV license. It is not limited to the BBC channels, over-the-air broadcasts, or traditional TV sets.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

So I was just reading an article from endgadget about 4K and the new BD format. And it said that the Blu-ray Disc Association has confirmed the name of its new 4K format is apparently "Ultra HD Blu-ray". Which I guess makes sense because the TVs are officially called UHD TVs.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/09/4k-blu-ray-hdd/


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

tarheelblue32 said:


> #1 is an OLED and #2 is a Plasma. This is the last year for Plasma screens, so if you want one you better buy one. And Samsung had 1 OLED set last model year, but came out with none this current model year. It looks like Samsung is saying "one new technology at a time". They are going to squeeze as much profit out of 4K LCD sets for a few years before moving on to OLED.


Their booth even had a presentation showing why _they say _their 4K LCD sets are better than OLED sets.

On the other hand LG went in heavy with OLED - I'm not sure they had anything else on display (except some comparison screens to show how much better their OLEDs were compared to LCD)

Panasonic had at least one OLED set they were showing off, but were mostly showing how their latest LCDs were so much better. But the reference screens they used (in addition to the comparison screens) were OLED studio monitors  (Which left me the feeling that what they were really saying were "our LCDs are mostly as good as OLED", which doesn't encourage me to buy one)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Jonathan_S said:


> Their booth even had a presentation showing why _they say _their 4K LCD sets are better than OLED sets.
> 
> On the other hand LG went in heavy with OLED - I'm not sure they had anything else on display (except some comparison screens to show how much better their OLEDs were compared to LCD)
> 
> Panasonic had at least one OLED set they were showing off, but were mostly showing how their latest LCDs were so much better. But the reference screens they used (in addition to the comparison screens) were OLED studio monitors  (Which left me the feeling that what they were really saying were "our LCDs are mostly as good as OLED", which doesn't encourage me to buy one)


The reality is the top Tier TVs from the top tier manufactures all appear to be very good to excellent TVs with some of the TVs from second tier manufactures also getting into that zone.

What is more in play is value for your $$s which is much harder to measure. How much more is it worth paying for a "better" picture when the "poorer" picture is still very good to excellent or a more responsive UI or a better streaming abilities. Also along with advancements in 4k, 3d may become more viable/interesting. We know that over the next few years the prices of 4K LCDs is going to drop like a rock regardless of what happens with OLED, assuming one has a decent TV know I would be inclined to wait a few years to let everything shake out.


----------

