# 800.00 Good Introductory Price



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

The more I read about the issues surrounding the first roll out of S3's the more I realize that the 800.00 price tag was a smart move for TiVo. If they had priced the unit at a lower price so that it would have appealed to more mainstream users the issues surfacing here would have turned into a PR nightmare for them. 

Cable Card set up Issues, Remote Issues with Plasma sets, Cable Card eject button issues, Some CC's being slightly bigger than others, QAM not being fully supported with guide data, e-sata and a host of legacy features missing, and etc. 

No, it was definately in TiVo's best interest to limit distribution so that these issues could be addressed, and setting the price as high as they have done is one way to accomplish this.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Interesting point. :up:


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

Stormspace said:


> The more I read about the issues surrounding the first roll out of S3's the more I realize that the 800.00 price tag was a smart move for TiVo. If they had priced the unit at a lower price so that it would have appealed to more mainstream users the issues surfacing here would have turned into a PR nightmare for them.
> 
> Cable Card set up Issues, Remote Issues with Plasma sets, Cable Card eject button issues, Some CC's being slightly bigger than others, QAM not being fully supported with guide data, e-sata and a host of legacy features missing, and etc.
> 
> No, it was definately in TiVo's best interest to limit distribution so that these issues could be addressed, and setting the price as high as they have done is one way to accomplish this.


Nonsense. Is the price expensive, yes but not for the reasons you state.

This is like Vonage. If you go to their forum you see all kinds of negative comments. But that doesn't mean it's not a good product. People that are happy tend not to say anything. People that arn't do.

Your always going to see the negative in something that's new. If you break down the poll of people who are basically happy with their CC install and S3 it far out numbers those that flat out arn't. Remember part of that poll also consist of people who don't even have a Series 3.


----------



## sonicboom (Sep 2, 2006)

hookbill said:


> Nonsense. Is the price expensive, yes but not for the reasons you state.


Agreed.

It seems silly to inflict high costs on the loyal customers for the sole purpose of working the kinks out of the new system.

A wider beta program would achieve the same goal.

No.
The price is high because Tivo believes that is what the market will bare.
Simple as that.

And from what I can tell so far... they are right.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

sonicboom said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It seems silly to inflict high costs on the loyal customers for the sole purpose of working the kinks out of the new system.
> 
> ...


I really think this was a limited release as was hinted at the first week it was out. Market bearing or not the 800 price is otherwise not optimal given the overwhelming response here that it is too high, and this coming from TiVo devotees.

It's also interesting that this unit is not subsidized yet the sub price remains the same. Again I think they were counting upon existing owners of tivo to buy the product and thus only get 6.95/month from them. Once they've decided that the existing customer base has reached the point of saturation they'll start reintroducing features one at a time to bring in others until all the features are present that were there before, at least the ones they could get past CL. Those that bring in money from outside sources will get priority, as will those needed for retail deals (ie KidZone). Only then will the price start to fall.

The only problem I see with that is that it appears to be the same track they took before and are yet to show a profit. To be a fly on the wall during thier planning sessions....


----------



## TiVotion (Dec 6, 2002)

I totally agree that $800 was a good way for TiVo to insulate themselves against the confusion and frustration suffered by early adopters.

Everyone knows stupid people don't have money.

Er...


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

Another way to think about it is that they knew bulk of the early adopters would be transferring lifetime memberships so instead of charging $299 or $399 for the lifetime transfer they raised the price of the hardware and only charged $199 for lifetime.

TiVo gets their $1000 and all the lifetime holders get a $199 "bargain." 

My guess is that the price will really drop once the lifetime transfer window closes.


----------



## reh523 (Feb 28, 2006)

TiVotion said:


> I totally agree that $800 was a good way for TiVo to insulate themselves against the confusion and frustration suffered by early adopters.
> 
> Everyone knows stupid people don't have money.
> 
> Er...


A fool and his money are easily parted....

Lots of people have more mony than brains....

just sayin!


----------



## kensteele (Dec 28, 2002)

hookbill said:


> Nonsense.


Agreed. Not even close to being "the plan."


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Market bearing or not the 800 price is otherwise not optimal given the overwhelming response here that it is too high, and this coming from TiVo devotees.


Sure if you count polls and complaining. It seems the sales are pretty strong, which would argue that $800 is spot on. How many people bought this and aren't here at all? People who are content or happy tend not to come out and say how happy or content they are. But people who are pissed/disappointed come out in droves. So drawing a comparison due to that is somewhat mis-leading.

I have to say I have thought for 6 - 8 months that this was going to be around $800, I am pretty sure there were rumors to that effect back then.

But of course YMMV.


----------



## sonicboom (Sep 2, 2006)

> How many people bought this and aren't here at all?


My guess is none.

People who are not up on tivo things will have no idea the S3 exists.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

sonicboom said:


> My guess is none.
> 
> People who are not up on tivo things will have no idea the S3 exists.


Sure they would if they can walk into any Circuit City or other store and buy one off the floor. Then you have the people who love technology, but would rather chop off a leg than sit around and chat with people on the internet. I'd say there are tons of tivo people who have never even heard of this site. I really doubt everyone with a Tivo is here.


----------



## DocSavag (Feb 18, 2006)

Leo_N said:


> Sure they would if they can walk into any Circuit City or other store and buy one off the floor. Then you have the people who love technology, but would rather chop off a leg than sit around and chat with people on the internet. I'd say there are tons of tivo people who have never even heard of this site. I really doubt everyone with a Tivo is here.


I would agree.

Just going to the tivo web site will tell you that the S3 is out. For that matter my wife's first notice of the S3 was some video that played after a reboot on our Series 2 a few weeks ago. She has never even logged into this site. Im sure there are plenty of S3 purchasers who aren't members of this particular web site. Thats unfortunate for them because they are out in the darkness without the wonderful resources here.


----------



## jordangregory (Sep 27, 2006)

Wow,
I would have to disagree that $800 was a good starting price. Here are a few reasons
- Direct TV HD is only $199 + $5.99/month
- Series 3 doesn't work with Satellite 

I am in no way advocating direct tv, but 800 bucks for the series 3 and then a monthly fee or 199 to transfer my lifetime. I am assuming that a series 4 will come out before it will be worth it to have bought a lifetime or it will at least be very close. For $800, one could get a media center PC or get one could put together their own PC (download freeware that works much like TIVO) and skip the monthly fee. And a media center PC would be much more powerful and would have multiple other uses. 
And really, what are we paying for with the monthly or lifetime fee, season pass and wishlists? I love those features, and the fee I paid up front with my series 2 is worth it, but that is because the tivo box was so cheap at the time and because I am going to keep my series 2 for a few more years.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

jordangregory said:


> Wow,
> I would have to disagree that $800 was a good starting price. Here are a few reasons
> - Direct TV HD is only $199 + $5.99/month
> - Series 3 doesn't work with Satellite
> ...


Welcome to the forum! I agree that your points are valid, but in my wanderings I've gone from being dissappointed in the price to trying to justify it. My reasons above are an attempt to justify the high initial price. Others here disagree, but since the product was released subscriptions in the TCF have increased dramatically and the majortity of them are complaints. High price, shipping delays, cc issues, etc. There's loads of whining going on by those people that were trying to justify the price just two weeks ago. All the whining does for me is justify my wait, and make me think that TiVo knew there were going to be issues.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Just joined - unfortunately upset that after waiting so long for the S3, it's really not a realistic option.

The price is absolutely ridiculous. The product is way late to market. Every other provider out there has had an HD DVR for more than a year. They NEED to play catch-up in order to retain some sort of market leadership - which they have largely squandered.

Every major cable provider can give you a dual tuner HD DVR with no up front cost, no worries about warranties, and a roughly $12 monthly charge. Then, they can often give interactive on demand services. Yes, they often kind of suck compared to true TiVo services.

TiVo gives you the S3, which requires flaky cablecards, denying interactive services, requiring monthly cablecard fees, and charges $800. 

Not saying that the S3 doesn't have potential. I am saying however that there is no way to justify the $800 price. And, that there is no way to consider that it makes sense. Wish it were different. I was looking forward to picking one up. But even though I can afford it I can't remotely justify it.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

winpitt said:


> Just joined - unfortunately upset that after waiting so long for the S3, it's really not a realistic option. [ etc. ]


Wow, one day on the board and you've already got fifteen posts bashing TiVo. What I don't understand is why you didn't see fit to start a new thread with this tired rhetoric -- all the other trolls did.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

winpitt said:


> ....Every major cable provider can give you a dual tuner HD DVR with no up front cost, no worries about warranties, and a roughly $12 monthly charge....


This kind of simplistic nonsense is an insult to the average person's intelligence. How about figuring in the extra charges? Like more $$ for upgrading from basic cable to basic expanded? Then more $$ for upgrading from basic expanded to digital? Then more $$ for the HD tier? WAY more $$ than $12/month. You're easily approaching $75-$100 per month.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I tend to think it's basically what the market will bear first.

Second is tivo hitting whatever penetration plan they have (do they want 10 activations a day or 10,000 for the s3).

Seeing all the oddities and whatnot going on, I'm thinking part of that penetration plan involves not "going too fast". I don't know that it's the limiting factor or even a major concern but unless they totally asleep then they should have factored in having some initial kinks to get worked out and slowing demand somewhat (how much is debatable) to deal with that.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

winpitt said:


> Just joined - unfortunately upset that after waiting so long for the S3, it's really not a realistic option.


You're just saying that *YOU* cannot afford it. Plenty of people can. In my case, the S3 will pay for itself in less than 18 months, versus a Comcast DVR.

I also haven't had *ANY* CableCard issues. The technician was at my place for less than 15 minutes.


----------



## sjcbulldog (Jul 13, 2004)

I find it so odd that people sit on the sidelines and complain about price. The fact that they are sitting on the side line is way more powerful than the complaint. At $800 we all get to decide whether or not the value is there. If too few decide that S3 is worth $800 and Tivo cannot meet their business objectives, they they will lower the price, or determine that the HD market is not profitable without the subsidies that cable companies get for their box, or Tivo will find a different business model for HD. If enough people are adding the S3, then they have set the price point appropriately. 

If they are worth their salt at all in marketing, they have a good idea as to how elastic their market is with respect to price. If this is the case then Tivo is introducing the S3 to the market at approximately the pace they want to.

Just my $0.02 worth
sjcbulldog


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sjcbulldog said:


> I find it so odd that people sit on the sidelines and complain about price. The fact that they are sitting on the side line is way more powerful than the complaint. At $800 we all get to decide whether or not the value is there. If too few decide that S3 is worth $800 and Tivo cannot meet their business objectives, they they will lower the price, or determine that the HD market is not profitable without the subsidies that cable companies get for their box, or Tivo will find a different business model for HD. If enough people are adding the S3, then they have set the price point appropriately.
> 
> If they are worth their salt at all in marketing, they have a good idea as to how elastic their market is with respect to price. If this is the case then Tivo is introducing the S3 to the market at approximately the pace they want to.
> 
> ...


VERY WELL SAID.

ALso they have the ability to discount the box at any moment anywhere up to $150 just by creating a Rebate for the box. If they need to adjust the pace they can quickly toss out a rebate.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Wow, one day on the board and you've already got fifteen posts bashing TiVo. What I don't understand is why you didn't see fit to start a new thread with this tired rhetoric -- all the other trolls did.


That's untrue and uncalled for.

What do you do, research a guy's posts each time someone pops up?

Are his opinions and information a threat to your thesis?


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Are his opinions and information a threat to your thesis?


I have a thesis?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I'd like to read it. 

(ducks and runs...)


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> Wow, one day on the board and you've already got fifteen posts bashing TiVo. What I don't understand is why you didn't see fit to start a new thread with this tired rhetoric -- all the other trolls did.


No troll, and not bashing. Just found out the details and am posting appropriately. Apparently you don't like opinions contrary to your own. Oh well.

Care to discuss actual facts rather than just flaming me?

Guess not.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> This kind of simplistic nonsense is an insult to the average person's intelligence. How about figuring in the extra charges? Like more $$ for upgrading from basic cable to basic expanded? Then more $$ for upgrading from basic expanded to digital? Then more $$ for the HD tier? WAY more $$ than $12/month. You're easily approaching $75-$100 per month.


Uh, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm comparing the charges for the device. ALL other charges will be the same whether you use the TiVo or the CableCo DVR.

In other words - to make it simple - that same "$75-$100 per month" applies to TiVo users as well - in addition to the other charges.

Unless you're using OTA signal only. Which many people cannot. And which severly restricts channel lineups.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

c3 said:


> You're just saying that *YOU* cannot afford it. Plenty of people can. In my case, the S3 will pay for itself in less than 18 months, versus a Comcast DVR.
> 
> I also haven't had *ANY* CableCard issues. The technician was at my place for less than 15 minutes.


No, I said I cannot "justify" it. I can most certainly afford it.

I'd like to understand exactly how financially the Tivo can "pay for itself" versus a Comcast DVR. Unless you're one of the lucky ones who can transfer the lifetime service, that is simply not even remotely possible. Even then it is extremely unlikely - actually impossible. Purely impossible. At least financially.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

sjcbulldog said:


> I find it so odd that people sit on the sidelines and complain about price. The fact that they are sitting on the side line is way more powerful than the complaint. At $800 we all get to decide whether or not the value is there. If too few decide that S3 is worth $800 and Tivo cannot meet their business objectives, they they will lower the price, or determine that the HD market is not profitable without the subsidies that cable companies get for their box, or Tivo will find a different business model for HD. If enough people are adding the S3, then they have set the price point appropriately.
> 
> If they are worth their salt at all in marketing, they have a good idea as to how elastic their market is with respect to price. If this is the case then Tivo is introducing the S3 to the market at approximately the pace they want to.
> 
> ...


Kind of agree with you there, except I think perhaps that TiVo found themselves in a bad situation with the S3 and was forced to market and made a poor decision in terms of trying to value margin versus projected revenue. They wouldn't be the first ones to do that.

The important thing I think you got right is that they might find that they cannot compete without some serious partnerships with more than Comcast. They're good at software and really service - not hardware really. As the MSO markets continue to mature - and especially since there is no hope insight for Cablecard 2.0 agreement between vendors - the TiVo box market will continue to be challenged and price will be paramount.

I really, really, really like the idea of the S3 and I really like TiVo service. I'm crabby about this because I'm coming to the conclusion that because of the manner this product was managed and released it won't do anything to challenge the cable providers.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> Wow, one day on the board and you've already got fifteen posts bashing TiVo. What I don't understand is why you didn't see fit to start a new thread with this tired rhetoric -- all the other trolls did.


Also, for the record I'm not bashing TiVo. I really want them to succeed. I like the S3. I'm frankly just very disappointed that the price and service strategy will likely handicap it so that little progress will be made - and I (along with many others) have been waiting anxiously a long time for it.

Since you apparently feel differently (and would prefer to attack me rather than discuss the issue) perhaps you might point me to some industry publications that actually endorse the strategy?


----------



## speedz (Jun 12, 2004)

Anyone with more than 1 tivo in their house gets the Multi Discount (even if they do not have a lifetime). So worst case, the S3 costs a household with 2+ tivos only $6.95/mo + in my case $1.75 per Cablecard (3.50 for the pair). That leaves the cost for many at only $10.45 a month to use the Tivo S3 instead of a monopoly cable company box. I personally was paying my cable co' $9.99 a month for the DVR service fee and $7.95 for the digital converter. Math would obviously show $17.94 from cable co. - $10.45 from Tivo = $7.49 a month savings to many people using Tivo instead. Over time, this will definitely pay for itself and then some.

If you do have a lifetime, well than you simply get a quicker and larger return on your investment.

Heck, similar math would also show a savings over cable without a multi discount. This savings is nominal enough where I would not argue it is enough to make the average Joe jump at the chance with the large up front tag.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

winpitt said:


> No, I said I cannot "justify" it. I can most certainly afford it.
> 
> I'd like to understand exactly how financially the Tivo can "pay for itself" versus a Comcast DVR. Unless you're one of the lucky ones who can transfer the lifetime service, that is simply not even remotely possible. Even then it is extremely unlikely - actually impossible. Purely impossible. At least financially.


You need to sign up here.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

winpitt said:


> I'd like to understand exactly how financially the Tivo can "pay for itself" versus a Comcast DVR. Unless you're one of the lucky ones who can transfer the lifetime service, that is simply not even remotely possible. Even then it is extremely unlikely - actually impossible. Purely impossible. At least financially.


Simple. In order to get Comcast DVR, I have to pay Comcast $70/month. For S3, I'm paying Comcast $15 for limited basic and $1.50 for two CableCards. I get HD channels for FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS, which are all I need. Let's assume TiVo monthly fee of $13. The difference in monthly costs is $40.50. That would pay for a $700 S3 box in less than 18 months.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

ChuckyBox said:


> What I don't understand is why you didn't see fit to start a new thread with this tired rhetoric -- all the other trolls did.


I was thinking it was because he was spanked in the S3 bug list thread for piping up about this, it was pointed out there were 30 other threads about this already. So obviously he listened and found an existing thread where it was more appropriate.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

I still think the S3 is cheap, though not many seem to agree with me. Its refreshing to see a company willing to make a quality product (at a quality price). Not many companies are that brave.


----------



## Sixto (Sep 16, 2005)

Some people drive a $15k car, some drive a $40k car. Both get the job done, but the more expensive car does it better. "Better" is subjective, but they still sell a heck of alot of $40k cars. 

The S3 is just plain sweet (or "better"). You make the initial investment and then the cost going forward (for years and years) is the same or (most likely) less then a base bare-bones cable system provided DVR (that you have to live with daily forever going forward). 

It's a joy each and every day to experience the S3. 

Tonight, have the Cards/Mets in HD on 1 tuner, have a show recording (in HD) on the other tuner, can catch-up on Letterman (in HD) in between slow spots in the game, and be able to bounce back and forth easily between each. The dual buffer always has the game in HD exactly where I left off, the recording in HD never skips a beat, and the Letterman in HD always starts right where I last left off. All in crystal clear HD. And the remote is perfect. 

And when the S3 slows down selling they'll lower the price. Why offer a rebate when you don't have to. 

Yep, some have issues with cablecards, but if you don't ... well ... there's nothing better then the S3.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

winpitt said:


> No troll, and not bashing. Just found out the details and am posting appropriately. Apparently you don't like opinions contrary to your own. Oh well.
> 
> Care to discuss actual facts rather than just flaming me?
> 
> Guess not.


Yawn. Since you've read enough of this forum to resurrect this three-week-old thread, you've also seen any number of other threads in which people make the exact same points you make and other people discuss with them the "facts." Review a few of those threads and just pretend it is you and me -- it'll have pretty much the same effect.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

Sixto said:


> Yep, some have issues with cablecards, but if you don't ... well ... there's nothing better then the S3.


Hell, I've had nothing but problems with cablecards, and it's still a great box. Would the overall experience have been better if Charter could get their act together? Sure. But expeciting Charter to get their act together is like... well... expecting Charter to get their act together. But I, and the other folks in my area, will eventually beat them into submission. In the meantime, I've got HD, 5.1 sound, dual tuners, and an interface that can't be beat. And like btwyx, I think $800 for a piece of high-end HT gear that I'm going to use daily for years is cheap.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

winpitt said:


> No, I said I cannot "justify" it. I can most certainly afford it.


Actually, I agree. If I had a decent working DVR I would have a tough time justifying the cost as well. But my SA 8300 was a pos and since I'm with TW and have no chance of getting a TiVo based software DVR I justified it.

If your Comcast box doesn't miss recordings, doesn't have huge sound drop offs and a flaky picture then I don't blame you for holding off. As a matter of fact, since Comcast has a deal with TiVo to use their software eventually I might of held off as well.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Sixto said:


> Some people drive a $15k car, some drive a $40k car. Both get the job done, but the more expensive car does it better. "Better" is subjective, but they still sell a heck of alot of $40k cars.


Please stop with the flawed analogies. This one would be more accurate if you assume that the $40K car cannot do anything that the $15K car can't, except it has a better steering wheel and occasionally changes the radio station when it sees a song that you might like. It also looks a little bit better on the outside.

Would you pay an extra $25K to drive with a better steering wheel?



Sixto said:


> Tonight, have the Cards/Mets in HD on 1 tuner, have a show recording (in HD) on the other tuner, can catch-up on Letterman (in HD) in between slow spots in the game, and be able to bounce back and forth easily between each. The dual buffer always has the game in HD exactly where I left off, the recording in HD never skips a beat, and the Letterman in HD always starts right where I last left off. All in crystal clear HD. And the remote is perfect.


I assume you are talking about watching the game live while recording Letterman on the other tuner. If not, then I don't see how you plan to do what you plan to do.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

speedz said:


> Anyone with more than 1 tivo in their house gets the Multi Discount (even if they do not have a lifetime). So worst case, the S3 costs a household with 2+ tivos only $6.95/mo + in my case $1.75 per Cablecard (3.50 for the pair). That leaves the cost for many at only $10.45 a month to use the Tivo S3 instead of a monopoly cable company box. I personally was paying my cable co' $9.99 a month for the DVR service fee and $7.95 for the digital converter. Math would obviously show $17.94 from cable co. - $10.45 from Tivo = $7.49 a month savings to many people using Tivo instead. Over time, this will definitely pay for itself and then some.
> 
> If you do have a lifetime, well than you simply get a quicker and larger return on your investment.
> 
> Heck, similar math would also show a savings over cable without a multi discount. This savings is nominal enough where I would not argue it is enough to make the average Joe jump at the chance with the large up front tag.


Uh, you kind of forgot about the whole buying the TiVo thing to start with, didn't you? How about adding that cost ($799) back into the equation and come back with the new data?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

c3 said:


> Simple. In order to get Comcast DVR, I have to pay Comcast $70/month. For S3, I'm paying Comcast $15 for limited basic and $1.50 for two CableCards. I get HD channels for FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS, which are all I need. Let's assume TiVo monthly fee of $13. The difference in monthly costs is $40.50. That would pay for a $700 S3 box in less than 18 months.


Sorry, but you're comparing apples to bananas. If you pay Comcast $70 you're getting way more content than with your scenario. Further - at least here Comcast absolutely will not authorize HD without a digital package. that seems to be the norm.

Even in your case you would be the exception. The general public will not tolerate only receiving 5 channels while paying that much money.

Pretty simple.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

btwyx said:


> I was thinking it was because he was spanked in the S3 bug list thread for piping up about this, it was pointed out there were 30 other threads about this already. So obviously he listened and found an existing thread where it was more appropriate.


Thank you - and if you recall I only brought it up with respect to Critical Severity One defects in that thread - but we did drift. The whole zero length recording bug.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

hookbill said:


> Actually, I agree. If I had a decent working DVR I would have a tough time justifying the cost as well. But my SA 8300 was a pos and since I'm with TW and have no chance of getting a TiVo based software DVR I justified it.
> 
> If your Comcast box doesn't miss recordings, doesn't have huge sound drop offs and a flaky picture then I don't blame you for holding off. As a matter of fact, since Comcast has a deal with TiVo to use their software eventually I might of held off as well.


Ah, but that's why I'm really sorry about this. My Comcast box does miss recordings and does have audio drops. However, those audio drops occur whether live or recorded so a great deal of it is the content.

I'm also in a previously Adelphia area with SA equipment - so the deal with TiVo will not affect my region since it's Moto specific.

So the kicker here is that I'm now having to lean toward DirecTV. Can't justify the cost of the S3 and am more and more concerned about the complexity of trying to debug issues when Comcast will point to TiVo, who will point to CableCard, etc. And when the CableCo has no desire to really make it work since it reduces their revenue. The whole FCC thing is a joke. The FCC hasn't really managed anything in years and will not get involved here either. FiOS isn't here yet - and Verizon has no plans at the moment for our area.

But that's me. The general public would rather have "most" of the features of the S3, and no upfront cost, no commitment, no concerns about warranty, and lower monthly costs. Trying to convince them of the "superiority" of the TiVo is a losing battle. Remember Beta?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Sixto said:


> Some people drive a $15k car, some drive a $40k car. Both get the job done, but the more expensive car does it better. "Better" is subjective, but they still sell a heck of alot of $40k cars.
> 
> The S3 is just plain sweet (or "better"). You make the initial investment and then the cost going forward (for years and years) is the same or (most likely) less then a base bare-bones cable system provided DVR (that you have to live with daily forever going forward).
> 
> ...


I drive a $50k+ car. I have no issue paying a premium, so long as I can rationalize it. However, let's compare. In terms of general size, features, reliability (excluding all the REALLY nice Benz stuff) the least expensive I could find as an alternative is probably close to $30. So in terms of comparitive value, the TiVo is far more expensivie in comparison. WAY more. That would mainly be $800 vs $0. But, the $50K car does pretty much every single thing better than the $30k car. It's quiet, smooth, deceptively fast, comfortable. I also have only one place to discuss problems with. MB does not tell me that my problems are due to road material, radio waves - or Cablecards. That's just not a good analogy at all.

To be very honest, I would probably have already ordered one even considering the price point if there were very infrequent reported issues. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. OTOH, I would definitely have ordered one knowing there may be issues if the price were around $400. BTW: Do you REALLY expect to be using the S3 much more than 3 years? With all the changes going on right now, I have serious doubts as to ANY product lasting much more than that. That's not a slam against the S3 at all. That's just an observation of the market.

To answer the question of why to lower the price (not offer a rebate - the retail price is simply ridiculous - computers with sofware are cheaper) - it's easy.

To generate market demand. Right now with the exception of us TiVo nuts, there is zero buzz in the market about the S3. NOBODY else even knows about it. Nobody cares. It's us who is generating the demand right now. That doesn't help TiVo and it doesn't help us. If the price were more reasonable and market normalized, you'd be seeing a great deal more discussion about it. Try doing a Google search on the S3. Most of the hits are still about pre-release. Almost NONE about post-production. There's just no interest.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

winpitt said:


> Ah, but that's why I'm really sorry about this. My Comcast box does miss recordings and does have audio drops. However, those audio drops occur whether live or recorded so a great deal of it is the content.
> 
> So the kicker here is that I'm now having to lean toward DirecTV. Can't justify the cost of the S3 and am more and more concerned about the complexity of trying to debug issues when Comcast will point to TiVo, who will point to CableCard, etc. And when the CableCo has no desire to really make it work since it reduces their revenue. The whole FCC thing is a joke. The FCC hasn't really managed anything in years and will not get involved here either. FiOS isn't here yet - and Verizon has no plans at the moment for our area.
> 
> But that's me. The general public would rather have "most" of the features of the S3, and no upfront cost, no commitment, no concerns about warranty, and lower monthly costs. Trying to convince them of the "superiority" of the TiVo is a losing battle. Remember Beta?


First the drop outs are happening because of the box even if your watching "live" or not as your box records everything you see "live" and then you see it. That's not to say that sound drop offs don't happen live, all you got to do is watch sporting events to see that.

Second you forseeable "battle" with comcast may not be a battle at all. This is all supposition. Your install may go smoothe as silk. Even if you know people in your area that had trouble that doesn't mean it will happen to you.

As far as D* goes fine, but you will still have to deal with inferior technology. Mpeg4 transmission for HD locals will reduce quality unless of course you choose to go OTA.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

hookbill said:


> First the drop outs are happening because of the box even if your watching "live" or not as your box records everything you see "live" and then you see it. That's not to say that sound drop offs don't happen live, all you got to do is watch sporting events to see that.
> 
> Second you forseeable "battle" with comcast may not be a battle at all. This is all supposition. Your install may go smoothe as silk. Even if you know people in your area that had trouble that doesn't mean it will happen to you.
> 
> As far as D* goes fine, but you will still have to deal with inferior technology. Mpeg4 transmission for HD locals will reduce quality unless of course you choose to go OTA.


Nope, not completely true. Had non-DVR HD service briefly first and saw the same audio drops as well as the lip-sync issue. But you're right in that the 8300 is doing the decryption now so I have no way of knowing right now how much of the audio stuff is 8300 and how much is the MSO. I wish I did.

I'm already battling with Comcast. I can't even get consistent information about CableCard. Then, I'm still concerned about the Comcast-Cablecard thread bugs being reported, with zero length recordings, missed recordings and dropped channels. Sounds remarkably like the 8300. I completely realize that not everyone seems to experience these issues, but not everyone experiences the 8300 issues either. Don't like flipping coins.

Agreed about MPEG4 quality though I really haven't seen it to judge. I understand why they needed to go there. I wouldn't call it inferior technology, it's actually superior in some respects to MPEG2. However, it does affect bitrate. Clearly OTA is the best picture, but due to geographic reasons (I have a channelmaster flyswatter) it's not an option for me.

Sure wish the options were better. I really really like the s3 interface, though I think they should have had an RF vs an IR remote.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Sorry, but you're comparing apples to bananas. If you pay Comcast $70 you're getting way more content than with your scenario. Further - at least here Comcast absolutely will not authorize HD without a digital package. that seems to be the norm.
> 
> Even in your case you would be the exception. The general public will not tolerate only receiving 5 channels while paying that much money.
> 
> Pretty simple.


I agree that the price is too high for a piece of equipment that records TV, HD or not.

Let me see.... 800.00 upfront and 12.95/month plus 1-5.00/cable card

Over 3 years thats between 37.16 and 45.16 per month.

Add to that the digital service fee and you are only paying TiVo instead of the MSO for the box rental and remote each month and you can get unencrypted QAM which TiVo doesn't support fully. If you compare to the MSO's DVR there is still no actual savings.

Doing these calculations is almost meaningless since each MSO has their own rate for Cable Card, Digital, and HD. All you can really do is calculate how much the TiVo costs you compared to the equivalent MSO package and how they price digital services. If digital is free and you just pay for the box then that makes the S3 more attractive, but I haven't read anywhere that that is the case.

The 800.00 upfront cost is the real killer here. If not for that you could see some actual savings over the MSO costs. As it is you aren't saving anything, you're just paying someone else and you are paying a premium.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Further - at least here Comcast absolutely will not authorize HD without a digital package. that seems to be the norm.


Actually, local HD comes free with your cable (Comcast has stated they don't charge for their HD channels, just for the required STB). See the QAM threads. With Comcast you just couldn't get HD without an HD STB and they wouldn't give you an STB w/o the digital package. Pretty conniving. (Of course you can get HD locals via cable w/o digitial pacakge if your TV had a QAM tuner built-in).

I have digital (for about 6 more months until my package runs out). Cable cards are coming today. After six months, I'm dropping back to extended basic. I'm not planning on returning the cable cards if I don't have to. I believe I will still will be able to tune the HD locals (and have Tivo guide data) w/o paying for the digital package. At least that's the plan.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

classicX said:


> Please stop with the flawed analogies. This one would be more accurate if you assume that the $40K car cannot do anything that the $15K car can't, except it has a better steering wheel and occasionally changes the radio station when it sees a song that you might like. It also looks a little bit better on the outside.
> 
> Would you pay an extra $25K to drive with a better steering wheel?


It's a perfectly sound analogy. What, exactly, does a BMW 5 Series offer me that a VW Passat doesn't at half the price? Is my commute on the LA freeways faster? Is my trip to the grocery store on LA surface streets more efficient or effective? Am I saving money on gas, insurance, maintenance? Is the stereo qualitatively better? No, none of the above. Yet everywhere I look, there's another BMW. Why? For some people it is a status or peer-pressure thing. For others it is an appreciation of the subtle differences. For others it is simply the enjoyment of owning a well-made thing.

It your only consideration is cost, and you have cheaper options, you won't buy a BMW or a Series 3 TiVo. Period. If you are like most consumers and have a variety of considerations (only one of which is cost), you have to weigh them all and make your decision. If you decide against the Series 3, fine. But don't then go around trying to prove that it is somehow objectively "too expensive." All the evidence suggests that TiVo is having no problem selling them at the current price, which means that it not only isn't too expensive, it may be too cheap.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> No, I said I cannot "justify" it. I can most certainly afford it.
> 
> I'd like to understand exactly how financially the Tivo can "pay for itself" versus a Comcast DVR. Unless you're one of the lucky ones who can transfer the lifetime service, that is simply not even remotely possible. Even then it is extremely unlikely - actually impossible. Purely impossible. At least financially.


Under certain conditions it pays for itself.

Considering there are something like a couple hundred thousand HD Directv users out there, many of which are pissed at directv. A majority of which that are forced to choose between using their tivo or getting their local channels in MPEG4. And All of which that at some point next year will need to decide if they want new MPEG4 national channels or to use their tivo.

I was one of those.

Dump Directv and local telephone company. Switch to triple play. Get 7 HD locals instead of Directvs 4. Get 2 of my HD RSNs instead of Directvs 1. Get about 50% more HD national channels then Directv. It all works with my Tivo powered S3 and no need for a second rate Directv plus DVR. I get 10 times broadband speed then I had with DSL. The VOIP telephone is equivalent to what I got from sprint/embarq. Instead of paying for one account wide $5.95 directv dvr fee. I pay for 3 tivo units. I rent 2 cablecards for the S3 and I also rent one cablecopany box to get PPV/VOD if I want and to get the digital channels on one of the S2s (But since there is MRV the second S2 I have doesnt need a box) I also get analog cable sans DVR free on a fourth tv that was worthless with directv. So in all ways Im better then with Directv and Sprint/embarq.

All that and I SAVE either $8 or $10 a month! (I am not sure yet if my cable company will be charging me the $2 additional outlet fee once for the s3 or twice for the 2 cablecards yet unitll I get the bill)

So its cheaper for me to get cable triple play with an S3 then what I had before.

What totally adds icing to the cake is being a new Cable triple play sub, I get $50/off a month for 12 months. Thats $600 which added to the 8/10 dollars a month savings pays for the fist S3 with the first year savings.

Could I have saved even more money and gotten the cable companies crappy DVRs- yes and no. Monthly fees not really. Cable company is 2 additional outlet + 4.95 to rent the drv plus 6.95 dvr fee. S3 costs 1+1 for cablecards 2 (or 4) for additional outlet fee plus tivo fee of 12.95 or 6.95 MSD. So depending on the numbers of DVRs you get it can go either way.

The big stopper is the out of pocket. You can read all the other threads if you like- but the gertneal gist is tivo has said this is NOT going to be a mass market product for them to start. They Will NOT subsidize it like they do their mass market S2 products. They dont plan on rolling out tons of these at the current time for whatever reason- either they want to pay off some of the R&D. Get some early adopter tax. Slow things down for cablecard bugs. Who knows. But for whatever reason they decided that they DONT WANT to have this be mass market right now.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

Clearly it's a better DVR than anything cable provides, for a multitude of reasons. Question is, is it worth it for you.

If you have the money, and you like Tivo, it's worth it.

And a lot of people feel the same way.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicX said:


> Please stop with the flawed analogies. This one would be more accurate if you assume that the $40K car cannot do anything that the $15K car can't, except it has a better steering wheel and occasionally changes the radio station when it sees a song that you might like. It also looks a little bit better on the outside.
> 
> Would you pay an extra $25K to drive with a better steering wheel?
> ... .


Not trying to pick a fight but I think cars are a great analogy. Cars basic job is to get from point a to point b. Ever one does that essentially. Beyond that its how well it does it and what bonus features it may or may not have.

DVRs basic job is to record shows. They all do that. Beyond that its how well and what bonus features it has.

Considering the amount of cup holders is a significant factor that many people use to try and pick a car, I think its fair to say that tivo with its bonus features can get a niche just like any car maker can.

Some people are happy with a bottom end Hyundai others want a Lexus. Plenty of people with the Hyundai could afford it but cant Justify the added expense for the Lexus. Nissan makes lexus no (or is it Toyota?) ? Nissan has low end cars branded Nissan- Lexus is there top end and they dont want to sell that to the mass market. They think its worth the premium over the best Dodge and have no plans to bother trying to compete with Dodge.

I really think its very similar to Tivo- but hey we can all have our own opinions and I guess you think otherwise.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> I drive a $50k+ car. I have no issue paying a premium, so long as I can rationalize it. However, let's compare. In terms of general size, features, reliability (excluding all the REALLY nice Benz stuff) the least expensive I could find as an alternative is probably close to $30. So in terms of comparitive value, the TiVo is far more expensivie in comparison. WAY more. That would mainly be $800 vs $0. But, the $50K car does pretty much every single thing better than the $30k car. It's quiet, smooth, deceptively fast, comfortable. I also have only one place to discuss problems with. MB does not tell me that my problems are due to road material, radio waves - or Cablecards. That's just not a good analogy at all.
> 
> To be very honest, I would probably have already ordered one even considering the price point if there were very infrequent reported issues. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. OTOH, I would definitely have ordered one knowing there may be issues if the price were around $400. BTW: Do you REALLY expect to be using the S3 much more than 3 years? With all the changes going on right now, I have serious doubts as to ANY product lasting much more than that. That's not a slam against the S3 at all. That's just an observation of the market.
> 
> ...


And I think you are NUTZ to pay an extra 20 grand for a means of transportation (not really but I could-LOL). For sake of argument lets say the average benz or tivo3 owner makes a hundred grand a year. Is it worth working 8 hours every week for a year for the extra features in a benz? So that you can get an hour more pleasure twice a day youre your commute? Some would think no- but would be willing to work 2 days to pay the things that tivo gives them so they can enjoy watching 2 or 3 hours of TV a night with the added joy of Tivo.

We all have different opinions.

Why are some wrong?

Seems your beef is with Tivos business plan were they decided to sell the S3 at this particular rate as opposed to selling it as a mass market box to compete head to head with cable?


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

winpitt said:


> Sorry, but you're comparing apples to bananas. If you pay Comcast $70 you're getting way more content than with your scenario. Further - at least here Comcast absolutely will not authorize HD without a digital package. that seems to be the norm.
> 
> Even in your case you would be the exception. The general public will not tolerate only receiving 5 channels while paying that much money.
> 
> Pretty simple.


There is nothing to authorize. The broadcast HD channels are not encrypted and can be received by any QAM tuner.

I'm comparing the costs of having a DVR for the channels I watch. Why would I want to pay for channels I don't watch, unless I have to? By adding $10 digital classic, I get *ALL* of the non-premium HD channels as the Comcast $70 package. If you add that $10, the difference is still $30.50. $700/$30.50 = 23 months (or less with MSD or lifetime).

The $30+ difference is the analog expanded basic, which Comcast forces you to pay (in my area) to get their DVR. That does not give you any HD channels.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> And I think you are NUTZ to pay an extra 20 grand for a means of transportation (not really but I could-LOL). For sake of argument lets say the average benz or tivo3 owner makes a hundred grand a year. Is it worth working 8 hours every week for a year for the extra features in a benz? So that you can get an hour more pleasure twice a day youre your commute? Some would think no- but would be willing to work 2 days to pay the things that tivo gives them so they can enjoy watching 2 or 3 hours of TV a night with the added joy of Tivo.
> 
> We all have different opinions.
> 
> ...


In the last 10 years I haven't paid more than 2000 for any of my vehicles. Yes, I have repair costs, but hardly enough to offset a car payment and higher insurance rates with 2 teens on my premium. In fact I'd say my expenses are only a fraction of the alternative. The only exception is a recent purchase of a conversion van that's becoming a black hole, but the price was so good I'll have to put thousands into it before it's not a good deal.

So when I hear you guys talking about 50k and 30k cars I'm thinking you guys are insane.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

greg_burns said:


> I have digital (for about 6 more months until my package runs out). Cable cards are coming today. After six months, I'm dropping back to extended basic. I'm not planning on returning the cable cards if I don't have to. I believe I will still will be able to tune the HD locals (and have Tivo guide data) w/o paying for the digital package. At least that's the plan.


My cable card installer just left. (He wanted to watch all Tivo videos first. ) I asked him what happens to my cable-cards in 6 months when I downgrade to basic cable. He told me I would just keep them. :up:


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

greg_burns said:


> My cable card installer just left. (He wanted to watch all Tivo videos first. ) I asked him what happens to my cable-cards in 6 months when I downgrade to basic cable. He told me I would just keep them. :up:


Isn't that stealing?


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

hookbill said:


> Isn't that stealing?


Hmm. Never thought about it that way. I will be paying for cable. Just not digital. The cable cards will allow me to tune (hopefully) the HD locals that I am paying for...


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

hookbill said:


> Isn't that stealing?


No, he still has to pay the monthly charge for CableCards. I had limited basic only and added $1.50 for two CableCards.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

c3 said:


> No, he still has to pay the monthly charge for CableCards. I had limited basic only and added $1.50 for two CableCards.


Everyone at Comcast that I asked said no charge for either card. Next month's bill will tell the real story though. You guys really think this is being dishonest???

Edit: Oh, you are saying they will start charging me for the cards w/o digital? Perhaps so.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

I guess your area is different. For me, I pay $1.50 for the two cards (technically the second) whether I have digital service or not.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

greg_burns said:


> Everyone at Comcast that I asked said no charge for either card. Next month's bill will tell the real story though. You guys really think this is being dishonest???
> 
> Edit: Oh, you are saying they will start charging me for the cards w/o digital? Perhaps so.


I'm really not sure. Here's what I thought: In order to have HD you had to have digital cable. HD basic was free and then for the HD plus it was 5.00.

So I'm not really sure how it works in your area. Matter of fact I'm not sure how it works in my area. 

I may have to make a phone call and investigate this some more.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

hookbill said:


> HD basic was free and then for the HD plus it was 5.00.


Comcast says no, according to what I linked to earlier.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4383748&&#post4383748

$5.00 is just for fancy HD STB only. $10 (or was it 15?) for their HD DVR.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

And many cable cards are free, so there's really no issue in any case.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

AbMagFab said:


> And many cable cards are free, so there's really no issue in any case.


Huh? Most are NOT free and costs are widely variable. In some areas they are not available. They are not well supported and not advertised whatsoever. Prices range anywhere from $1.50 per times two to $28 per month (reported on this site many times).

No issue? Really? It's funny that the market, ,analysts and many others don't seem to agree. Opinions, I guess. For those of us who pay way more than "free" for cablecards per month, it certainly is an issue.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

winpitt said:


> Huh? Most are NOT free and costs are widely variable. In some areas they are not available. They are not well supported and not advertised whatsoever. Prices range anywhere from $1.50 per times two to $28 per month (reported on this site many times).
> 
> No issue? Really? It's funny that the market, ,analysts and many others don't seem to agree. Opinions, I guess. For those of us who pay way more than "free" for cablecards per month, it certainly is an issue.


Comcast (the #1 MSO) is free in many, perhaps most of their areas.

And $28 is total fabrication. The FCC mandates that they be less than $3 (or $5) per month. If that's an issue for you, perhaps pay-cable isn't the right choice.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

AbMagFab said:


> Comcast (the #1 MSO) is free in many, perhaps most of their areas.
> 
> And $28 is total fabrication. The FCC mandates that they be less than $3 (or $5) per month. If that's an issue for you, perhaps pay-cable isn't the right choice.


I don't think it is a fabrication. Costs for CC's has been all over the spectrum here on the forum, and given the reports here coming in from all over the country even those MSO's advertising free CC's actually charge for them in some areas. It's certainly not something you can unequivocally state is false. Unlikely yes, but not false.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

winpitt said:


> Huh? Most are NOT free and costs are widely variable. In some areas they are not available. They are not well supported and not advertised whatsoever. Prices range anywhere from $1.50 per times two to $28 per month (reported on this site many times).


I'm quoting you only because your the first to bring it up and I like to pick on newbies.

JUST KIDDING. 

But seriously when you make a claim like this which quite honestly I don't believe, back it up by providing links.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

winpitt said:


> Huh? Most are NOT free and costs are widely variable. In some areas they are not available. They are not well supported and not advertised whatsoever. Prices range anywhere from $1.50 per times two to $28 per month (reported on this site many times).
> 
> No issue? Really? It's funny that the market, ,analysts and many others don't seem to agree. Opinions, I guess. For those of us who pay way more than "free" for cablecards per month, it certainly is an issue.


You really should read more closely.

The only mention of $28 was the install fee. A "truck roll" is usually $20-40, depending on your area, no matter what you are having done.

CableCards from all the MSO's range from free for all of them, to free for the first one, up to $6.95. There are no reports that I've seen of anything over $6.95.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

Yep, I think it was a $29.00 install charge. Right now when I check my bill however I'm showing a 6.00 credit.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

AbMagFab said:


> You really should read more closely.
> 
> The only mention of $28 was the install fee. A "truck roll" is usually $20-40, depending on your area, no matter what you are having done.
> 
> CableCards from all the MSO's range from free for all of them, to free for the first one, up to $6.95. There are no reports that I've seen of anything over $6.95.


Uh, you should read more closely. Take a look at Omnius's post on the 17th at

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=316310&page=31&pp=30

That's just one.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Uh, you should read more closely. Take a look at Omnius's post on the 17th at
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=316310&page=31&pp=30
> 
> That's just one.


Corrected link (or at least the specific post)...
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4490518#post4490518


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

winpitt said:


> Uh, you should read more closely. Take a look at Omnius's post on the 17th at
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=316310&page=31&pp=30
> 
> That's just one.


And that appears to be a case where the local office is charging him incorrectly.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

hookbill said:


> And that appears to be a case where the local office is charging him incorrectly.


Actually, the point is that there is no consistency whatsoever in what is being charged for the month over month service. Because of the incredibly low demand mainly. Whether the charges are "technically correct" or not is meaningless, as he (and others) get charged what they get charged and there is often little or nothing that can be done about it.

Yet further confusion is created due to how the MSOs file their 1205's.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

winpitt said:


> Whether the charges are "technically correct" or not is meaningless, as he (and others) get charged what they get charged and there is often little or nothing that can be done about it.


Nonsense. I've never lost a billing battle with a cable company and he won't lose that battle because he is correct.

Anyway, this is way off the subject of this thread. Let's move on.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

hookbill said:


> Nonsense. I've never lost a billing battle with a cable company and he won't lose that battle because he is correct.
> 
> Anyway, this is way off the subject of this thread. Let's move on.


We can move on, but ....

Being "correct" in your opinion will not result in the charges being changed. The S3 is the first dual cablecard device, and there is absolutely no law or policy that forces the cableco to consider them as anything other than two separate installations. It all depends on how your provider decides to treat you - and whether or not their provisioning system even allows them to.

Either that, or you are far more persuasive than many many many others on this site.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

winpitt said:


> Uh, you should read more closely. Take a look at Omnius's post on the 17th at


They're charging he $6-95 a card. Maybe you should try reading the post.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

btwyx said:


> They're charging he $6-95 a card. Maybe you should try reading the post.


Please read the post again. I'll help you by quoting here....

"I was trying to get my bill cleared up and have failed so far. I'm waiting for a call back from a supervisor. Comcast will NOT budge on their charges. They want $6.95 each per card, and a $5 HD fee each per card. So, that is $23.95 PER MONTH to use the TiVo that I OWN, compared to $9.95 a month to use THEIR DVR"

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the $23.95 per month to use the TiVo? Meaning $6.96 times 2 plus $5 times 2? Not including the TiVo service?

I guess I need to learn to read more clearly.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winnpitt-

didn't you post in a nother thread that you are on your local cable franchise board? How do you not know - or have the phone number to call someone who does know- what cablecards really cost?

Here's all the confusion summed up. There are up to 4 charges involved for cablecards.

FIrst- the OJNE TIME install fee. Can range from zero to whatever. My company charged 20.94

next the cablecard fee- at most BY FCC cajoling it should be $2 PER CARD. Comcast's policy as STATED to the FCC in a recent report is ZERO for the actual card. My company charges $1

Now besides the card there is also an "additional outlet fee" which is applicable for ANY digital tuner you get from the cable company.(they can t discriminate against tivo- DISCLAIMER- see below sometimes they bundle that one) If you add another box from them then they will charge you an addtional outlet fee also. The regs say this can not be a profit maker and must reflect their actual cost to service and maintain the outlet (who knows how you define that- there is likely a lot of wiggle room- is it for the extra splitter and 30 foot of coax amortized over 30 years or do they include some of the headend and overhead costs?- It's debatable if it is legal to charge for 1 or 2 of those fees for the S3. If the fee is supposed to be associated to the physical wire then clearly it's one. If it's assocated to the CA equipment required at the head end then likely its 2. I doubt the FCC or anyone has thought that over yet since the tivo seems to be the frist cablecard device to use 2 cards that is in widespread use. My company charges $2 x2

Next is the fee's they may charge for any additonal digital programming. Those from DBS might think of them as "mirroring fees". My company charges $2x2 to mirror the "HD PLUS" package that I already get on an HD box from them. SD digital chanels WITH MY COMPANY have no mirror fee and neither do any of the movie or sports pacakges. This fee also would apply to an addtional cable compnay box.

So your "cablecard" fees should never ever be more than $4 ($2x2). If you have comcast then likely they would be ZERO. But it's highly likley that adding a S3 to your account will pop some other fees (the addtional outlet fee is a certainty).

A) 
IN my case to ADD a tivo s3 it cost me:
1 (cablecard 1)
1 (cablecard 2)
2 (addtional out let fee- card 1)
2 (addtional outlet fee - card 2)
2 (HD plus mirrot - card 1)
2 (HD plus mirror - card 2)
10 total addtional charges from the cable company.

B) Had I ADDED a cable company HD box (plain or DVR)

it would cost me
4.95 to rent the HD box from the cable company (plain HD or PVR
0 (no cablecard)
2 (addtional outlet fee)
2 (HD plus mirror)
8.95 dollars total.

C) If I wanted to call and complain and make a mess about the 2 addtioanl outlets or if tivo can get their box M-card approved and I can call and get an M card then the s3 will likely cost me $5 (subtract one cable card, one outlet fee and one mirror fee). But who the ^%&* knows- maybe they will switch to charging per tuner in that case...

If you notice the tivo currently costs me JUST $1.05 more then getting an HD box from the cable company. IF I didn't but the HD pLUS pack I would SAVE 95 cents. If Tivo can pull of M-cards, or for people inclined to ***** and that can win the addtional outlet fee fight then they likely SAVE money with adding a tivo box at my cable company.

So as to not confuse things I'm leaving out DVR fees (in my case it's 6.95 more a monmth from cable - or as I already have tivo's 6.95 more a month from tivo- it's a WASH to me)

It gets even MORE intricate becasue cable frequently lump sums the pricing both over the phone and in their literature. My cable company says an HD box costs 6.95 even though it's 4.95 for rental and $2 for the addtional outlet fee. (Mirroring is over and above that).

It's important to realize many people are ADDING The s3 and not swapping out a cable company box. So to them it doens't appaear to be just $1.05 more but rather $10 more. (assuming my compny's pricing)

So you can see that depending on what people include in their math it's all kinds of complex and full or tins of variablescomplex. But I can pretty much assure you that none of the big 6 cable companies are charging more then $2 PER cablecard.

I cant beleive I have to line this out for a guy on his local cable franchise board....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Please read the post again. I'll help you by quoting here....
> 
> "I was trying to get my bill cleared up and have failed so far. I'm waiting for a call back from a supervisor. Comcast will NOT budge on their charges. They want $6.95 each per card, and a $5 HD fee each per card. So, that is $23.95 PER MONTH to use the TiVo that I OWN, compared to $9.95 a month to use THEIR DVR"
> 
> ...


WIhtout the compnay's rate sheet or speakign to them myself I would stongly assume that it's $0 cablecard fee (as comcast told the FCC), $6.95 addtional outlet fee. And $5 mirroring fee.

As such an HD DVR would cost an addtional 11.95 PLUS RENTAL AND DVR FEE compared to the 23.95+ Tivo fee that a tivo s3 costs.

Assuming both dvr fees are 6.95 and that the box rental would be around $5- they it's a 7 additonal charge for Tivo- people need to decide it that's worth it to them. Also if tivo can get m-card approved or the OP wins the addtioanl outlet figth then it would be LESS then renting an HD box from the provider .


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

winpitt said:


> Please read the post again. I'll help you by quoting here....
> 
> "I was trying to get my bill cleared up and have failed so far. I'm waiting for a call back from a supervisor. Comcast will NOT budge on their charges. They want $6.95 each per card, and a $5 HD fee each per card. So, that is $23.95 PER MONTH to use the TiVo that I OWN, compared to $9.95 a month to use THEIR DVR"
> 
> ...


Either Comcast doesn't have a national policy, or an incompetent Comcast CSR just creates his/her own charges.

Comcast for the San Francisco Bay Area: $6.95 is for additional digital outlet, and that includes either a Comcast box or a CableCard. Second CableCard for a dual-card DVR is $1.50. The $5 HD fee is for renting Comcast HD box. There is no HD charge for CableCard. Actually, there is no such thing as "HD service fee".


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

I don't believe any cable company has a national policy on just about anything. Prices vary from area to area.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

hookbill said:


> I don't believe any cable company has a national policy on just about anything. Prices vary from area to area.


That creates a lot of confusion about what *should* be charged.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I cant figure out what the hell comcast does with it's pricing but it sure looks like they told the FCC in this filing :
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518165405
that they charge zippo for cablecards.

You wold think if differnt places were allowed to charge differnt things they would have reported it an an "Average" like they do for installation cost. But who knows it's cable...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

c3 said:


> That creates a lot of confusion about what *should* be charged.


and then add in all the differnt fees involved and how those can vary from one system to another and comcast probably has 1000 differnt scenarios never mind differnt interpretations from differnt CSR's


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

winpitt said:


> Please read the post again. I'll help you by quoting here....


Thank you


> They want $6.95 each per card,


The question being discussed that I see is the monthly price per card. Can't you even read what you quote?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

and just to reiterate- even then there is NO WAY that the "cablecard rental" fee is $6.95. 

that's some other fee that the CSR is mis-identifing to the OP. It's likely an "addtional outlet fee" or some such.

Comcast told the FCC they charge zero and I think they probably do in most cases.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I had to go back and read the original thread-

here's the ENTIRE quote- not just some snippet:



Omnius said:


> I was trying to get my bill cleared up and have failed so far. I'm waiting for a call back from a supervisor. Comcast will NOT budge on their charges. They want $6.95 each per card, and a $5 HD fee each per card. So, that is $23.95 PER MONTH to use the TiVo that I OWN, compared to $9.95 a month to use THEIR DVR.
> 
> I have had it. If they don't make it right soon, I am going to cancel every single Comcast service I have (which is a lot).
> 
> ...


NOtice later on he essentially points out that the 6.95 is an addtional outlet fee and the $5 fee is the HD mirroring fee.

then the next post in that thread says:



jfh3 said:


> Search earlier in this thread - someone posted the Comcast corporate response.
> 
> The $5 fee is already included in the $6.95 and you don't need one HD fee per card.


so it's 6.95 total for additonal outlet+HD mirror.

So 1.95 addtional outlet plus $5 for HD mirror.

From diging through it looks like comcast would charge 6.95 if you would ADD one of their boxes- and they hand out boxes for free. So the tivo in should cost those people just $6.95 more then the cable company box not $28. And if Tivo gets m-card approved then it will be the same.

(not counting any PVR fees to confuse it anymore...)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

might even be the second $5 HD fee is waived? In which case it's 1.95 more for Tivo then a comcast HD box.

(again ignoring PVR/DVR fees)


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> WIhtout the compnay's rate sheet or speakign to them myself I would stongly assume that it's $0 cablecard fee (as comcast told the FCC), $6.95 addtional outlet fee. And $5 mirroring fee.
> 
> As such an HD DVR would cost an addtional 11.95 PLUS RENTAL AND DVR FEE compared to the 23.95+ Tivo fee that a tivo s3 costs.
> 
> Assuming both dvr fees are 6.95 and that the box rental would be around $5- they it's a 7 additonal charge for Tivo- people need to decide it that's worth it to them. Also if tivo can get m-card approved or the OP wins the addtioanl outlet figth then it would be LESS then renting an HD box from the provider .


Assuming you also forget about the fact that you paid $799 for the box and effectively have no real warranty. And only in the case where the rates are what you list above.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> winnpitt-
> 
> I cant beleive I have to line this out for a guy on his local cable franchise board....


And again, you don't because the data you are presenting is not entirely accurate.

First I'm considering both the card rental and the outlet fee. That is exactly because that's what you must consider for a CableCo DVR. Considering only the "Rental" fee is ridiculous.

Second, I've already said (a bunch of times) that AFTER the purchase of the S3, then the S3 can be slightly cheaper or somewhat more expensive on a month to month basis than the Cableco DVR. If you have a lifetime sub it's either cheaper or the same (for example, here, outlet plus rental x 2 = $11/month. DVR is $10.95 if you have more than one - but that's here). In other places where there is no rental fee and only a single outlet fee, the S3 is cheaper month to month. In yet other places where the rental/outles is MORE (read the other posts - whether you think they're right or not is meaningless if that's what they're charging people), then the S3 is more expensive.

As for the kind of snide remark about explaining these things, also consider that I already posted that we are in the middle of the transition from Adelphia to Comcast. I know exactly what the Adelphia rates are and have direct contacts with the former Adelphia now Comcast people. However, as soon as the new form 1205 is filed, those rates have no bearing. Local offices have no idea how to determine those rates right now, which is why there is difficulty and confusion. They themselves must try to work with Comcast Corporate and they're having a great deal of difficulty. If I'm going to pay $800 for a device that depends on service from Comcast, I certainly want some predictability as to rates.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> and just to reiterate- even then there is NO WAY that the "cablecard rental" fee is $6.95.
> 
> that's some other fee that the CSR is mis-identifing to the OP. It's likely an "addtional outlet fee" or some such.
> 
> Comcast told the FCC they charge zero and I think they probably do in most cases.


I do not believe that they will charge zero in most cases. What is your basis for this? Not even their web site says this.

I do agree that I'm including rental and outlet fees. You need to consider the TOTAL cost. I could care less what parts make it up.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

MichaelK, this dude hasn't been on the boards for even a week. You'll never covince him about anything, I realized that which is why I stopped arguing with him. He's spent most of his time trying to bash the S3. 74 posts.

You get where I'm coming from.

"Ignore" is your friend. DNFTT.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

winpitt said:


> I do not believe that they will charge zero in most cases. What is your basis for this? Not even their web site says this.


FWIW (this has been posted ad naseum),
http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=2651


> What is the cost for CableCARD service?
> 
> There is no additional charge for CableCARD service above what you currently pay for Digital Cable service (NOTE: additional outlet charges for programming may apply).


I'll believe it when I see my bill.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

greg_burns said:


> FWIW (this has been posted ad naseum),
> http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=2651
> 
> I'll believe it when I see my bill.


"There is no additional charge for CableCARD service above what you currently pay for Digital Cable service (NOTE: additional outlet charges for programming may apply)."

That's not zero as far as I can see. And is says "service", not device rental.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

hookbill said:


> MichaelK, this dude hasn't been on the boards for even a week. You'll never covince him about anything, I realized that which is why I stopped arguing with him. He's spent most of his time trying to bash the S3. 74 posts.
> 
> You get where I'm coming from.
> 
> "Ignore" is your friend. DNFTT.


hookbill,

I'm not bashing the S3. I've said time after time that it's a pretty cool device. The issue is around the pricing strategy, rollout and cablecard related items.

Seems to me based on your posts that some people just don't like hearing that all is not completely perfect in paradise, and that it should all be how we want it. And that when it gets to that point you make it personal. JMHO.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

winpitt said:


> "There is no additional charge for CableCARD service above what you currently pay for Digital Cable service (NOTE: additional outlet charges for programming may apply)."
> 
> That's not zero as far as I can see. And is says "service", not device rental.


All I know is, everyone at Comcast that I ask says they will add $0 to my bill for my two CableCards. I don't care what they call it. My bill is suppose to drop by $5 by returning my HD STB.

But like I said, I will believe it when I see my bill. This is Comcast afterall.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

greg_burns said:


> All I know is, everyone at Comcast that I ask says they will add $0 to my bill for my two CableCards. I don't care what they call it. My bill is suppose to drop by $5 by returning my HD STB.
> 
> But like I said, I will believe it when I see my bill. This is Comcast afterall.


Sounds great if they give it to you. Good luck and provide feedback after the billing cycle comes in. I'm certainly jealous.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Sounds great if they give it to you. Good luck and provide feedback after the billing cycle comes in. I'm certainly jealous.


Looks like other Delawareans are fighting the battle.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8700557&&#post8700557

Hopefully he is dealing with Comcast up north.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Assuming you also forget about the fact that you paid $799 for the box and effectively have no real warranty. And only in the case where the rates are what you list above.


please- I can onlyu handle one of your rants at a time-

You were complaining about monthly fees last i saw.

I guess now that i debunnked that you will move to the next thing...

But yes- I completely agree with yout that the out of pocket to buy the thing is HUGE. It's a major roadblock to mass accceptence.

But as has been posted in upteem places- we dont know what TiVo's plans are so maybe this is there plan FOR NOW.

Maybe you dont know about the HMO/HME thingie.

Way back when tivo was just a DVR to record TV. THen they made up the network features- MRV, photos, music. ANd you know how much those silly little features cost? $99. THat last less then a year I think and then they started handing it out for free.

So the price TiVo charges today for a new product has no bearing on hwat it costs in 6 months.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> I do not believe that they will charge zero in most cases. What is your basis for this? Not even their web site says this.
> 
> I do agree that I'm including rental and outlet fees. You need to consider the TOTAL cost. I could care less what parts make it up.


ZERO for the cablecards.

Something for addtional outlet fees.

something more l;ikely for HD mirroring.

BUT YES ZERO for the cards themselves.

see:


MichaelK said:


> I cant figure out what the hell comcast does with it's pricing but it sure looks like they told the FCC in this filing :
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518165405
> that they charge zippo for cablecards.
> 
> You wold think if differnt places were allowed to charge differnt things they would have reported it an an "Average" like they do for installation cost. But who knows it's cable...


read the fcc filing yourslef.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

winpitt said:


> Seems to me based on your posts that some people just don't like hearing that all is not completely perfect in paradise, and that it should all be how we want it.


This cracks me up. Someone should save this thread for a psychology textbook on projection and externalization. You decide you can't have an S3, then set about trying to prove that the box, TiVo, the cable companies, and everyone who has an S3 is wrong.

Do you seriously believe the people on this board don't know that the S3 costs $800 or that there have been problems with cablecards and we need you to tell us? Get a grip.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

hookbill said:


> MichaelK, this dude hasn't been on the boards for even a week. You'll never covince him about anything, I realized that which is why I stopped arguing with him. He's spent most of his time trying to bash the S3. 74 posts.
> 
> You get where I'm coming from.
> 
> "Ignore" is your friend. DNFTT.


I pretty much said this from the first post. But does anyone listen to Chucky? No, nobody listens to Chucky...


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> But yes- I completely agree with yout that the out of pocket to buy the thing is HUGE. It's a major roadblock to mass accceptence.


TiVo management has stated numerous times in various forums that the S3 is targeted at the high-end home theater market (people who have spent $10K+ on HT equipment), and is not expected to drive mass subscriptions to the TiVo service. It is not intended as a competitor to cable company DVRs in the majority of households.

This will likely change a couple of years from now when the box price can be significantly lower, HD is much more commonly broadcast and HDTVs have a higher market penetration.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> ZERO for the cablecards.
> 
> Something for addtional outlet fees.
> 
> ...


Can you explain then why people are paying for the card with Comcast? Perhaps they are just trying to be helpful to the MSOs 

The NCTA document that you keep bringing up is first of all a year old, using data from more than a year ago, stating what the situation was between 2004 and 2005. Actually, to early/mid 2005 - not year end. Are you suggesting that absolutely nothing has changed from then?

I'll tell you what. I'll PM you and we can talk - I'll give you my address. If you can get zero cost for rental of cablecards at my location I'll pay you. If not, you can pay the rental cost. 

Please note 2nd para on page 2. It goes to the recognized complexity of 3rd party devices using cablecard.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> This cracks me up. Someone should save this thread for a psychology textbook on projection and externalization. You decide you can't have an S3, then set about trying to prove that the box, TiVo, the cable companies, and everyone who has an S3 is wrong.
> 
> Do you seriously believe the people on this board don't know that the S3 costs $800 or that there have been problems with cablecards and we need you to tell us? Get a grip.


Well, I certainly don't listen to Chucky when he responds like this.

I CAN have a TiVo S3 anytime I want it. I can easily afford a number of them. This discussion is around two things. That is:

1) SHOULD I get one? Is there a strong value proposition?
2) Is the price appropriate? Is it "Good"? That goes to adoption. Failure to reach critical mass with adoption in the face of alternatives could easily make the S3 the same as the Dishnet 921. Anyone remember that 2 tuner HD plus OTA DVR from Dishnet?

The issue is not whether or not you're happy with the S3. This thread is about whether or not an $800 price tag makes sense.

Cast all the insults you want. Just so long as you don't have to have a logical discussion.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> TiVo management has stated numerous times in various forums that the S3 is targeted at the high-end home theater market (people who have spent $10K+ on HT equipment), and is not expected to drive mass subscriptions to the TiVo service. It is not intended as a competitor to cable company DVRs in the majority of households.
> 
> This will likely change a couple of years from now when the box price can be significantly lower, HD is much more commonly broadcast and HDTVs have a higher market penetration.


If that is truly the case then the price may be appropriate, but the marketing plan flawed. Not to mention that IMHO and as with others, that the cart is before the horse. In other words, that they knew pricing would suck from day one (remember the early $1000 estimates) and needed to justify it to the market.

TiVo MUST gain subs. HD is growing hugely. Not having a reasonable entry in the market will cause them to lose subs. Losing subs means losing revenue. A downturn in sub growth results in less R&D for us.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

I see the usual set of Trolls has entered this thread turning intelligent discussion into meaningless confusion, and leaving people looking for real information at a total loss.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> This will likely change a couple of years from now when the box price can be significantly lower, HD is much more commonly broadcast and HDTVs have a higher market penetration.


Excellent! Two more years for the rest of the world to lock up the DVR market and leave nothing for TiVo SA devices! Great business strategy! :up: :up: :up:

Any idea when TiVo will actually start trying to sell DVRs instead of just skyrocketing SAC? I guess that would be bad for TiVo.


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

ChuckyBox said:


> I pretty much said this from the first post. But does anyone listen to Chucky? No, nobody listens to Chucky...


Actually in going through this thread I did read your post and it inspired me to post as well. But as you can see nobody listens to hook either......


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> TiVo management has stated numerous times in various forums that the S3 is targeted at the high-end home theater market (people who have spent $10K+ on HT equipment), and is not expected to drive mass subscriptions to the TiVo service. It is not intended as a competitor to cable company DVRs in the majority of households.
> 
> This will likely change a couple of years from now when the box price can be significantly lower, HD is much more commonly broadcast and HDTVs have a higher market penetration.


totally agreed- that's way I qaulified that it's a barrier to "MASS market" acceptence. But as you point out that isn't their current plan.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Can you explain then why people are paying for the card with Comcast? Perhaps they are just trying to be helpful to the MSOs
> 
> The NCTA document that you keep bringing up is first of all a year old, using data from more than a year ago, stating what the situation was between 2004 and 2005. Actually, to early/mid 2005 - not year end. Are you suggesting that absolutely nothing has changed from then?
> 
> ...


oh my goodness-

people IN GENERAL ARE NOT PAYINg FOR CABLECARD's they ARE PAYING other related fees- Did you miss my whole giant post above about addtional outlets and HD mirroring? THe post you quoted that was supposedly $28 for cablecards was for addtional outlet and mirroring fees.

What dont you understand- there are 3 potential fees related to the S3. Comcast appears not to charge one of the 3 but sure does appear to charge the other.

DOnt you guys on the franchise board have a lawyer to help you understand the laws? Have him/her explain to you about the equipment fees and additonal outlet charges and the whole accounting formula and the basket system. maybe they you can understand it and you will be able to make sure the cable compnay in your neighborhood is doing right by the people that you are supposed to be protecting.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> If that is truly the case then the price may be appropriate, but the marketing plan flawed. Not to mention that IMHO and as with others, that the cart is before the horse. In other words, that they knew pricing would suck from day one (remember the early $1000 estimates) and needed to justify it to the market.
> 
> TiVo MUST gain subs. HD is growing hugely. Not having a reasonable entry in the market will cause them to lose subs. Losing subs means losing revenue. A downturn in sub growth results in less R&D for us.


could you please do a little research. TIvo has said repeadetly that this is "truly the case."

They also know they must gain subs but currently they plan to do it with the S2. (you can disagree with their plan- but they have one)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Can you explain then why people are paying for the card with Comcast? Perhaps they are just trying to be helpful to the MSOs
> 
> The NCTA document that you keep bringing up is first of all a year old, using data from more than a year ago, stating what the situation was between 2004 and 2005. Actually, to early/mid 2005 - not year end. Are you suggesting that absolutely nothing has changed from then?
> 
> ...


good point- maybe comcast has changed.

How 'bout ditching the pissing contest and just post your zipcode. I'll look up the comcast rate sheet for your area and tell you exactly what a cablecard will cost you.

If they charge you more then they say for the CABLECARD rental. THen take it up with your local franchise board and get it fixed. Since you are on the board that should be rather easy.

zip code please?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

oh- and here's the link to the latest ( 9/25/06) report where comcast still says:



> monthly lease rate for cablecard - $0.00


http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?hidenavlink=true&type=lpubtp5&contentId=3561

I guess they may have changed their pricing in the last 25 days...


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

winpitt said:


> Can you explain then why people are paying for the card with Comcast? Perhaps they are just trying to be helpful to the MSOs


My first card is included in the digtial package, the second card costs $1-50. (Once Comcast sorted themselves out.)

A price of $1-50 to rent a $90 peice of hardware seems fair to me so I'm not complaining about it. I was going to complain if they still wanted to charge $6-95 and call it an "extra outlet fee". (Because its excessive and incorrect.)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> ...
> 
> I guess they may have changed their pricing in the last 25 days...


and from btwyx's post and some others in the comcast threads all over- it looks like actually they did change their pricing in the last 25 days. First card is free and second one in a tivo is 1.50.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

winpitt said:


> This discussion is around two things. That is:
> 
> 1) SHOULD I get one? Is there a strong value proposition?


This was never an issue. You made that decision before you ever posted here, and you have steadfastly refused to recognize that other people might have different decision criteria than you.



> 2) Is the price appropriate? Is it "Good"? That goes to adoption.


And you have failed to provide a shred of evidence that adoption is any less than TiVo's goals for the product. Your entire argument is that you think the price is too high and therefore they won't sell very many. What little evidence we have suggests just the opposite but, again, you refuse to recognize that. You just change the subject and are now arguing the finer points of Comcast's inconsistent cablecard pricing. Or is your point that TiVo should discount their boxes because Comcast is overcharging some people for cablecards?



> Cast all the insults you want. Just so long as you don't have to have a logical discussion.


Present a logical discussion and maybe I'll participate.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Excellent! Two more years for the rest of the world to lock up the DVR market and leave nothing for TiVo SA devices! Great business strategy! :up: :up: :up:


Yeah, the competition for dual-tuner cablecard HD standalone DVRs is fierce. Why, if TiVo doesn't move fast they're going to get locked out by... um... you know... all those other companies that make them, like... er... hey, wait...

I heard LG is going to introduce one next fall. But the expected price is around $1000.



> Any idea when TiVo will actually start trying to sell DVRs instead of just skyrocketing SAC? I guess that would be bad for TiVo.


Don't you think selling these things for $800 is going to push SAC down?

But to answer your question, some marketing has already started, and I expect it to ramp up significantly over the next three weeks and remain pretty steady through at least mid-January.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> and from btwyx's post and some others in the comcast threads all over- it looks like actually they did change their pricing in the last 25 days.


They did.


----------



## Jerry_K (Feb 7, 2002)

TiVo

Wife

Priceless


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Yeah, the competition for dual-tuner cablecard HD standalone DVRs is fierce. Why, if TiVo doesn't move fast they're going to get locked out by... um... you know... all those other companies that make them, like... er... hey, wait...
> 
> I heard LG is going to introduce one next fall. But the expected price is around $1000.
> 
> ...


Yes, the competition against dual-tuner CC HD SA DVRs is fierce. Two years from now is a Lifetime. But I don't buy into your 2 yrs anyway...I think TiVo will push sales with lower prices much sooner, but I think their sales goals (and/or results) will remain ridiculously low.

$800 will push SAC down, but the influence of the S3 will be small. I expect about 90K Gross Adds this QTR, with 10% or less being S3s. With the poor performance of TiVo $tore, I expect large expenses related to returns, etal. Many direct sales at $800 will otherwise be shifted to retail @ around $500; big difference.

You've got the right timeline on advertising based on TiVo's comments, and I'll take them as given for now. If they really go big, they'll drive up SAC more than S3 sales help; if they don't, Gross Adds will suffer and hurt SAC.

Whatever they do, they've maneuvered themselves into a strategy with much higher SAC, and I don't think the hoped for higher ARPU will compensate in the long run.

The evidence you reference to Winpitt suggests extremely poor fulfilment and other planning by TiVo. There never was an actual global shortage. There was alot of double ordering in the first days. There has been plentiful availability for at least two weeks.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> $800 will push SAC down, but the influence of the S3 will be small. I expect about 90K Gross Adds this QTR, with 10% or less being S3s. With the poor performance of TiVo $tore, I expect large expenses related to returns, etal. Many direct sales at $800 will otherwise be shifted to retail @ around $500; big difference.


I suspect you are overestimating the scale of the shipping problems. But we'll see.



> If they really go big, they'll drive up SAC more than S3 sales help; if they don't, Gross Adds will suffer and hurt SAC.
> 
> Whatever they do, they've maneuvered themselves into a strategy with much higher SAC, and I don't think the hoped for higher ARPU will compensate in the long run.


I expect SAC around $350 to $390 for Q3 and, depending on Q4 sales, $210 to $230 for the year. Up from last year, for sure, but not that much, given the higher ARPU of new subs. Remember that SAC is for new subs, but ARPU is averaged over the entire base of subs. To determine if the higher SAC is paying off, you need to consider the ARPU of new subs only. Given that about 1/3 of new subs are paying at least a few dollars a month more than old subs, I think the higher SAC is warranted. But I understand that you disagree.



> The evidence you reference to Winpitt suggests extremely poor fulfilment and other planning by TiVo. There never was an actual global shortage. There was alot of double ordering in the first days. There has been plentiful availability for at least two weeks.


That's a theory, but I doubt you have any evidence to back it up. Given the small number of people affected by the fulfillment problems, I can't see that double ordering was a big factor. But Best Buy has twice had the S3 on backorder (including right now), TiVo itself had the boxes on backorder for a week, and there are very few retail locations nationwide that have many boxes, and most don't have any at all. While I think TiVo is throttling supply somewhat until they can get a handle the customer service demand, I don't see any signs that they'll miss their sales targets.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

HDTiVo said:


> The evidence you reference to Winpitt suggests extremely poor fulfilment and other planning by TiVo. There never was an actual global shortage. There was alot of double ordering in the first days. There has been plentiful availability for at least two weeks.


Upper level TiVo tech support says that demand is greater than expected. They're having trouble getting ahold of units to ship out as exchange units. My S3 had tuner hardware problems; the replacement will be delayed by several days (he said up to 10 days  ).

From all their past history, TiVo believes strongly in ramping up their releases. They start slowly, and let the more experienced and motivated consumers handle the teething problems of any new release. I suspect that's behind the unexpectedly early (or so it seems to me) release of the S3 for the holiday season without any advertising. TiVo realized that not only do they need to give experience to their own support folks, they also have to make sure that the cable operators across the country get trained  , I think now that we've "educated" the cable folks a bit, TiVo will roll out the holiday advertising soon.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> I suspect you are overestimating the scale of the shipping problems. But we'll see.
> 
> I expect SAC around $350 to $390 for Q3 and, depending on Q4 sales, $210 to $230 for the year. Up from last year, for sure, but not that much, given the higher ARPU of new subs. Remember that SAC is for new subs, but ARPU is averaged over the entire base of subs. To determine if the higher SAC is paying off, you need to consider the ARPU of new subs only. Given that about 1/3 of new subs are paying at least a few dollars a month more than old subs, I think the higher SAC is warranted. But I understand that you disagree.
> 
> That's a theory, but I doubt you have any evidence to back it up. Given the small number of people affected by the fulfillment problems, I can't see that double ordering was a big factor. But Best Buy has twice had the S3 on backorder (including right now), TiVo itself had the boxes on backorder for a week, and there are very few retail locations nationwide that have many boxes, and most don't have any at all. While I think TiVo is throttling supply somewhat until they can get a handle the customer service demand, I don't see any signs that they'll miss their sales targets.


The way I look at it, Q1 & Q2 SAC are up $80 & $100 over last year (with the $100 being a full QTR of the current maketing strategy.) We are looking easily at $60-100 more than the $308 of 3Q06. No reason not to figure $60-80 more than 4Q06's $157.

That leaves us with *FY07 SAC over $250 * vs $191 and $182 in '06, '07.

It also means $100 more than an alternative strategy of getting SAC below $150 with higher sub adds for the sake of a short-term couple extra dollars per month from new Subs. The $100 is a big and risky investment and reduces the opportunites for other revenues (ie. Ads, TiVoCast)

(Remeber also that SAC is an average as well; it averages SAC from various sales channels. Ultimately we don't have the data to calculate the higher SACs vs marginal ARPUs for each channel.)

The *evidence * is that at no time was it not possible to get a Series3 shipped out from somewhere (and at favorable cost) within a day. The tragedy is that TiVo will meet their sales goals.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> Upper level TiVo tech support says that demand is greater than expected. They're having trouble getting ahold of units to ship out as exchange units. My S3 had tuner hardware problems; the replacement will be delayed by several days (he said up to 10 days  ).
> 
> From all their past history, TiVo believes strongly in ramping up their releases. They start slowly, and let the more experienced and motivated consumers handle the teething problems of any new release. I suspect that's behind the unexpectedly early (or so it seems to me) release of the S3 for the holiday season without any advertising. TiVo realized that not only do they need to give experience to their own support folks, they also have to make sure that the cable operators across the country get trained  , I think now that we've "educated" the cable folks a bit, TiVo will roll out the holiday advertising soon.


Just be sure not to make the mistake of stating what TiVo does as a defense minus $650M+ latter.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> The way I look at it, Q1 & Q2 SAC are up $80 & $100 over last year (with the $100 being a full QTR of the current maketing strategy.) We are looking easily at $60-100 more than the $308 of 3Q06. No reason not to figure $60-80 more than 4Q06's $157.


No reason except if you run the numbers it is almost impossible to get that result without assuming disasterously low Q4 sub adds. Like <180K. Which seems unlikely.



> It also means $100 more than an alternative strategy of getting SAC below $150 with higher sub adds for the sake of a short-term couple extra dollars per month from new Subs.


Sure, but that "alternative strategy" is a complete fantasy. (It's not even a strategy, it is a performance objective). There is nothing to suggest that TiVo could achieve that result with any strategy. And if they believed they could, they would certainly adopt such a strategy.



> The *evidence * is that at no time was it not possible to get a Series3 shipped out from somewhere (and at favorable cost) within a day.


Unless you wanted one from one of TiVo's two biggest distribution channels. Which, by definition, most people did.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> No reason except if you run the numbers it is almost impossible to get that result without assuming disasterously low Q4 sub adds. Like <180K. Which seems unlikely.


I'll be real generous and give you 230K @$190. Comes to $253 for the year. If I take your generosity of $180K @$220, I get $272 and change. Is my math wrong?



ChuckyBox said:


> Sure, but that "alternative strategy" is a complete fantasy. (It's not even a strategy, it is a performance objective). There is nothing to suggest that TiVo could achieve that result with any strategy. And if they believed they could, they would certainly adopt such a strategy.


Its not fantasy at all. Its what anyone with experience in marketing in the retail CE sector would know. TiVo doesn't have that; in retrospect they should have picked a CEO with that experience. Basing a proposition on what TiVo has decided to do is a mistake.



ChuckyBox said:


> Unless you wanted one from one of TiVo's two biggest distribution channels. Which, by definition, most people did.


Exactly. If you insist on getting one from someplace that doesn't have one you are toast. That's why its all about "_extremely poor fulfilment and other planning by TiVo;_" not shortage.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> With the poor performance of TiVo $tore, I expect large expenses related to returns, etal. Many direct sales at $800 will otherwise be shifted to retail @ around $500; big difference.


I agree with Chucky - you may be overestimating the impact of this, BUT whether it's hundreds or thousands of sales screwed up, it shouldn't even have been ONE.

And it doesn't sound like the Tivo store problems have been fixed - someone needs to (a) get fired over this disaster and (b) Tivo needs to hire some competant e-commerce experts to fix the problem, especially if their web portal is going to be a significant sales channel.

Having a site/system that (a) can't check status of inventory (b) can't tell when orders have been placed (c) can't tell when orders have been shipped (d) can't provide access to real time tracking information and (e) isn't equiped to handle returns isn't exactly world-class.

And the genius that thought it was a good idea to implement a new system on the eve of their biggest product launch in the last couple years either needs to be fired or forced to work in the shipping department until all these problems are fixed.

I know teenagers with their own business who could've done better.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

ChuckyBox said:


> But Best Buy has twice had the S3 on backorder (including right now), TiVo itself had the boxes on backorder for a week, and there are very few retail locations nationwide that have many boxes, and most don't have any at all.


I don't think we can't really tell anything about Series 3 sales by what Best Buy has done.

According to a corporate buyer I talked to, they screwed up their initial order, never really expected to be any significant demand for this and only recently got firm orders in, presumably to have them in the system for BF.

I agree with your general premise that there hasn't been a general supply shortage, but clearly Tivo underestimated the initial "direct from Tivo" demand (and looks like they did in fact lose a large number of those best-margin sales to other retail outlets)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> ...
> 
> Exactly. If you insist on getting one from someplace that doesn't have one you are toast. That's why its all about "_extremely poor fulfilment and other planning by TiVo;_" not shortage.


you guys are a little over my head with the specific math but i'll make a couple points (be gentle if they are stupid-LOL)

1) I think judging SAC costs by themselves without factoring in the return is just silly. There's nothing wrong with high SAC if you make high long term reveenue with it. Without knowing what the revenue from the high sac is and without knowing the churn rate of that group- I think ANYTHING said one way or the other is speculation. (unless you are TiVo with the actual numbers) If Tivo winds up with SAC of $300 for the free boxes but those subs overwelmingly keep tivo for 4+ years at $19.99 (becasue they dont call and get their rates dropped) then maybe it isn't so dumb...

(just making up some stupid numbers- but point is you need to know what that SAC generates to determine if it's too high- NO?)

2) how can you say extrememly poor fullfillment and planning? DO you know their plan? Maybe their plan was to sell just enough boxes to ensure that every medium to large system got 5 installs under their belt before black friday but not any more than that to shake out the cablecard issues and then Tivo can really start to sell them? (again complete made up speculation that isn't likely- but point is there could be 100's of potential plans that they are following well) Maybe the plan is to not count on S3's for sub adds at all but merely treat it as a marketing device so they can say they have the best high end DVR. To play along with that they woudln't want enough in the chain to let the price go much lower then MSRP. The guy hawking the $100 off MSRP throught google checkout got smacked by TiVo apparently for violating a MAP- has tivo ever cared about retail pricing being too low before? If all that tehy want were sub adds and activations from the s3 then what would they care if someone sells them for wahtever- even if it was a loss to the retailer- it's an add to their sub count? Clearly for whatever motivation they are not wanting to drive S3 activations. (doesn't the lack of rebate and low SAC on the things tell us that already?)

I was one of the "lucky 200" so I'm well aware of their messed up online store fullfillment. But the reality is there were only 200 people screwed and many of those were patient enough to wait it out. So maybe 100 or 150 bought duplicate boxes from best buy and returned the duplicate box. I hardly think a messup of that size will show any type of significant effect in their numbers. Even assuming that each of those 200 messed up orders cost them $400 in 2 way shipping, free latptop bags (I'm still wiating on my BTW-LOL)- refurbing some units that were opened, increased handling, profit lost to bestbuy, whatever- it's still only an $80,000 mistake and I think the true cost would ba a fraction of that. One day without perfumed water inteh executive washroom covers that sized screwup.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> I agree with Chucky - you may be overestimating the impact of this, BUT whether it's hundreds or thousands of sales screwed up, it shouldn't even have been ONE.
> 
> And it doesn't sound like the Tivo store problems have been fixed - someone needs to (a) get fired over this disaster and (b) Tivo needs to hire some competant e-commerce experts to fix the problem, especially if their web portal is going to be a significant sales channel.
> 
> ...


very well said.

What is more telling is their recovery of the intial screwups has been just as bad. Some people never got credited automatically. Only some got the apology emails. Only some got the apology gift. It's pathetic. If it really was only 200 people (and I beleive that) then tom rogers assistant should have a list of those 200 people and an update daily on where each one stands- did they get their order? Did they ask for an RMA and was it ahndled? Did they refuse the deliver and if so did they get credited? Did they get the apology email? DId they get the apology gift?

It's shamefull they still have loose ends a month later with such a small gorup that also happens to be their most rabid fans.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

JFH:


> I agree with Chucky - you may be overestimating the impact of this


You are agreeing with Chucky, but I didn't really estimate the impact in detail, and you are describing the situation at TiVo $tore as _worse _ than I think it is. Chucky and I should be disagreeing with you. 



> I agree with your general premise that there hasn't been a general supply shortage


You must mean _my _ general premise. The thing is the reason places like Best Buy had any shortages at all was almost certainly because of the double ordering and fear of ordering from TiVo $tore. How long were they out? A few days? Look at the Weaknees Blog - it shows they were short all of about 10 days. I ordered my S3 in the teeth of the "takes 7-10 days to ship" message @ TiVo $tore. It shipped in 4 days and arrived ground in 5 days (weekend incl.) There will never be short stock again unless TiVo overdoes a price cut.

TiVo did not underestimate the intial demand, they blew their internal systems, in part for exactly the reason you described - a new system simultaneous with a new product intro!!! All retail underestimated was how many lifeboats would be needed when the TiVoTanic went down with all hands.

Damn right someone should get fired. That someone is a large chunk of the company from the CEO on down. But that is not even anything new.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> you guys are a little over my head with the specific math but i'll make a couple points (be gentle if they are stupid-LOL)
> 
> 1) I think judging SAC costs by themselves without factoring in the return is just silly. There's nothing wrong with high SAC if you make high long term reveenue with it. Without knowing what the revenue from the high sac is and without knowing the churn rate of that group- I think ANYTHING said one way or the other is speculation. (unless you are TiVo with the actual numbers) If Tivo winds up with SAC of $300 for the free boxes but those subs overwelmingly keep tivo for 4+ years at $19.99 (becasue they dont call and get their rates dropped) then maybe it isn't so dumb...
> 
> ...


Since you talk so pretty, I'll be nice.

1. Yes, you have to consider the extra revenue coming from the bundled price plans versus the increase in SAC. If you look at the more reasonable scenarios for that TiVo comes out behind. Its the riskier less likely scenarios that come out ahead for TiVo. Plus they lose on a number of ancillary, some important, factors. Forget about TiVo having the numbers, they wouldn't know what to do with them anyway.

2. I don't need to know what TiVo's plan was/is. Whether they met the plan or blew the plan, I know the range of finacial results to expect based on what has happened, and that's what I'm commenting on. If you think TiVo really did intend to limit sales as much as you say, then I am still not stretching it to say poor planning, because you can flip it and say they priced too low and planned poorly from that angle. But the poor fulfillment part is unquestionable, as your own experience attests. It is by definition sub-optimal to a) price too low and get more orders than you want or b) price right and not have enough on hand in the places you need them.

Another way to look at the limited release theory is to ask why such a limited release? Because TiVo lacks the resources to deal with problems in a bigger release. Why do they lack the resources? Because they've done so lousy in the past. I can't possibly accept their lousy past performance as a good excuse for limiting their business opportunities. It may be a fact of life, but justifying by their own failures is a non starter with me.

I do think it is perfectly reasonable to charge $800-.01 for as long as the first two months, subject to actual sales results. If TiVo were capable of reacting rapidly to the demand environment that would be nice.

There are several hundred affected by the problems, not 200. It could be as many as 2,500, but that's very pessimistic. TiVo doesn't yet know how many there are of the various types because its too soon (remember the 30 day trial and your own comments about ongoing issues...) and Pony only wrote about one segment of it when he posted about the 200.

I wouldn't want to put a range on the cost right now.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

jfh3 said:


> I don't think we can't really tell anything about Series 3 sales by what Best Buy has done.
> 
> According to a corporate buyer I talked to, they screwed up their initial order, never really expected to be any significant demand for this and only recently got firm orders in, presumably to have them in the system for BF.


I don't doubt you or your source, but this sounds too sketchy to be from anyone who had first-hand knowledge. It's not like some guy at a hardware store was ordering light bulbs. This was a brand new product and this is TiVo's biggest retail channel. A sales agreement had to be negotiated, orders had to be placed months ahead of time, advertising agreements worked out, etc. TiVo had to have sales estimates and solid orders from its channel partners to even begin production. I can't see screwing up their initial order being an explanation of anything. TiVo has problems, but I can't see a "screwed up" order from Best Buy getting past them.

I agree with your comments about TiVo's online sales system and order fulfillment. It's a mess and it needs fixing.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> you guys are a little over my head with the specific math but i'll make a couple points (be gentle if they are stupid-LOL)


You make good points. The SAC situation is exactly as you describe. TiVo management has stated that the subs acquired under the new pricing plans have a higher net present value than those under the traditional plan despite the higher SAC. Add to that the fact that the new plans are an easier sell (as shown by the increase in online sales relative to retail), and you an overall improvement.

And I agree with your estimates of the scale of the order fulfillment problems. While it affected a lot of us personally, there is no evidence that the problem was more widespread than Pony said.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> I'll be real generous and give you 230K @$190. Comes to $253 for the year. If I take your generosity of $180K @$220, I get $272 and change. Is my math wrong?


Probably, but the numbers depend on Sales & Marketing expense, which is unknown. If you are assuming fewer than 230K gross adds in Q4, I think you are underestimating.



> Its not fantasy at all. Its what anyone with experience in marketing in the retail CE sector would know.


What, that $150 SAC and higher sub adds would be good? Sure, everybody knows that. What makes it a fantasy is that there is no demonstrable way to achieve it.



> That's why its all about "_extremely poor fulfilment and other planning by TiVo;_" not shortage.


It is telling that in this and other posts you continue to assert planning as some kind of panacea. While hindsight is always 20-20, real world planning has to take place in an environment of incomplete information and limited resources, and therefore can only reduce some risks. In some cases it cannot even do that. Pretty much the entire history of the world could be written in terms of plans that go awry. Assuming that more or better planning could have changed things is to ignore the role of an uncooperative world, the unknowable, and the uncontrollable. von Moltke captured the concept nicely: No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> TiVo management has stated that the subs acquired under the new pricing plans have a higher net present value than those under the traditional plan despite the higher SAC. Add to that the fact that the new plans are an easier sell (as shown by the increase in online sales relative to retail), and you an overall improvement.
> 
> .............
> 
> ...


TiVo's management has absolutely no idea what the NPV of those bundles is going to be. Its all a guess based on assumptions. Those assumptions, like most of what TiVo has done with their business, are unlikely to work out as favorably as TiVo "hopes." Its all a convenient spin for 12-18 months which will be followed by some new story. This is a scenario that has been repeated time and time again.

I don't agree that there is net improvement. Change in channel mix has resulted in weakening retail sales to a greater extent than the improvement in direct sales. It is definitely possible to put together a marketing strategy with the numbers I advocate. Best Buy and Circuit City are not joining the bundle plan because they know what they are doing. It is TiVo that doesn't, and to listen to them is to go awry.

So it turns out the numbers I put up are right regarding SAC. Take 240K @180 and you still get $247, very close to my $250+ and well above your $210-230. *What numbers did you run to come up with that range? Why do you think 230K+ is a proper estimate for Q4?*

If TiVo ever has a good QTR, I will write it up as such. If they have two, I'll start to change my perspective. If TiVo ever announces a good strategy, I'll write it up that way and change my assumptions. You know I was high on the marketing concept last year, I only became negative when the actual plan was revealed to be seriously flawed.

As far as the planning, there is typical imperfection and there is gross imperfection. TiVo consistenly leans toward the later. No battle plan of TiVo's has ever survived the enemy.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

ChuckyBox said:


> I don't doubt you or your source, but this sounds too sketchy to be from anyone who had first-hand knowledge. It's not like some guy at a hardware store was ordering light bulbs. This was a brand new product and this is TiVo's biggest retail channel. A sales agreement had to be negotiated, orders had to be placed months ahead of time, advertising agreements worked out, etc. TiVo had to have sales estimates and solid orders from its channel partners to even begin production. I can't see screwing up their initial order being an explanation of anything. TiVo has problems, but I can't see a "screwed up" order from Best Buy getting past them.


And I have no idea how high up the buyer I talked to was. All I know was that she was in the corporate office and called me because I was looking to buy a couple dozen boxes and the local BB couldn't help me.

She didn't provide a lot of detail (not surprisingly), but it does make you wonder why it was impossible to buy an S3 at any BB location most of the first week and even the few locations that got them near the end of the week or beginning of week two only had a couple. (In my state - a grand total of 6 boxes were on the shelves).

That's what surprised me the most - BB is clearly a key retail channel. Why didn't every store have stock day 1? Why couldn't you order online day 1? Why did it take BB almost 10 days before they started shipping online orders?

Contrast to Circuit City - no units at the store, but you could place an online order day 1 and get overnight delivery.

I don't know what really happened, but someone at Best Buy screwed up big on the Tivo launch. Or maybe it was at Tivo. Or both.

Bottom line, the S3 launch sucked - you couldn't get product from the two places that most Tivo fanatics would try first - tivo.com or Best Buy.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> Since you talk so pretty, I'll be nice.
> 
> 1. Yes, you have to consider the extra revenue coming from the bundled price plans versus the increase in SAC. If you look at the more reasonable scenarios for that TiVo comes out behind. Its the riskier less likely scenarios that come out ahead for TiVo. Plus they lose on a number of ancillary, some important, factors. Forget about TiVo having the numbers, they wouldn't know what to do with them anyway.....


so that's the reasonable conculsion from those calculations your guys are discussin?

Makes sense. Thanks for explaining.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> You make good points. The SAC situation is exactly as you describe. TiVo management has stated that the subs acquired under the new pricing plans have a higher net present value than those under the traditional plan despite the higher SAC. Add to that the fact that the new plans are an easier sell (as shown by the increase in online sales relative to retail), and you an overall improvement.
> 
> ....


OK- there goes my last post- seems that different people can come to differnt conclusions about if the higher sac is worth the new revenue or not.

I guess time will tell.

I think there's an event timer feature on the boards- we should set a timer to have you 2 come back and revisit this thread in a year and see what the truth really was.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Probably, but the numbers depend on Sales & Marketing expense, which is unknown. If you are assuming fewer than 230K gross adds in Q4, I think you are underestimating.
> 
> What, that $150 SAC and higher sub adds would be good? Sure, everybody knows that. What makes it a fantasy is that there is no demonstrable way to achieve it.
> 
> It is telling that in this and other posts you continue to assert planning as some kind of panacea. While hindsight is always 20-20, real world planning has to take place in an environment of incomplete information and limited resources, and therefore can only reduce some risks. In some cases it cannot even do that. Pretty much the entire history of the world could be written in terms of plans that go awry. Assuming that more or better planning could have changed things is to ignore the role of an uncooperative world, the unknowable, and the uncontrollable. von Moltke captured the concept nicely: No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.





HDTiVo said:


> TiVo's management has absolutely no idea what the NPV of those bundles is going to be. Its all a guess based on assumptions. Those assumptions, like most of what TiVo has done with their business, are unlikely to work out as favorably as TiVo "hopes." Its all a convenient spin for 12-18 months which will be followed by some new story. This is a scenario that has been repeated time and time again.
> 
> I don't agree that there is net improvement. Change in channel mix has resulted in weakening retail sales to a greater extent than the improvement in direct sales. It is definitely possible to put together a marketing strategy with the numbers I advocate. Best Buy and Circuit City are not joining the bundle plan because they know what they are doing. It is TiVo that doesn't, and to listen to them is to go awry.
> 
> ...


a few points my ignorant butt is picking up here from the 2 of you-

* tivo is "hoping" their new plan works. In the past their "hopes" have not be reality (HDTIVO)
* reality is there might not be any "good" plans and they are doing the best they can figure out (chucky box - on 150SAC having no achievable way)
*current plan might be nutty becasue best buy and CC aren't doing it (HDTIVO)- (but could be tivo never offered it to them?- MY guess?)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

one thing this thread did- It made me finally click the "better plan" link in HDTIVO's sig and read it.

-

last question. Some time ago it was posted that tivo was large enough that they could stop with the subsidizing the boxes, and just live with their current sub base and be a profitable company. They wouldn't be huge but the million or 2 of their own subs was enough to keep them a viable business going forward.

Is there any agreement to say that is the case?

Is all this SAC costs about tivo trying to become a bigger better player later rather then a need to get big enough to survive as a goign concern?


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

I've tried to follow the above discussions and I've come to a conclussion. Either I'm just not smart enough to understand business, or some of you guys would make great politicians.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> a few points my ignorant butt is picking up here from the 2 of you-
> 
> * tivo is "hoping" their new plan works. In the past their "hopes" have not be reality (HDTIVO)
> * reality is there might not be any "good" plans and they are doing the best they can figure out (chucky box - on 150SAC having no achievable way)
> *current plan might be nutty becasue best buy and CC aren't doing it (HDTIVO)- (but could be tivo never offered it to them?- MY guess?)


Makes me the optimist, doesn't it. I know there is a strategy that can be successful. 

TiVo, if they are honest and I think they are on this, has very much tried to get BA, CC and other retailers into the bund method since BEFORE the launch in mid-March. They ain't din' it. Radio Shack ain't in either, are they?



MichaelK said:


> OK- there goes my last post- seems that different people can come to differnt conclusions about if the higher sac is worth the new revenue or not.


Go back and look at Chucky's quote you used...he says 'TiVo's Management says...' He's using TiVo's guidance as his basis. With TiVo's record, I see no reason to do that. I much prefer to think for myself, using the experience I have in addition to TiVo's info to reach a more independent conclusion.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> one thing this thread did- It made me finally click the "better plan" link in HDTIVO's sig and read it.
> 
> -
> 
> ...


Didn't we talk about the Better Plan being a draft and in need of work? Some folks posted some helpful ideas which I remember adding. Anyway, it would take alot of hours to get it right after also doing some research, which TiVo doesn't have because they didn't do the right kind back then.

TiVo did show that they could be very close to break-even if they stopped wasting money in certain ways - particularly related to marketing. But that would not have lasted long because without marketing spending, TiVo's sub base would go into decline. I also showed they could be break-even with a certain number of additional subscribers while continuing to "invest" in the business and pay for stuff like the patent litigation. I don't remember the numbers, but I think the break-even point I demonstrated was within reach this FY. It depended on maintaining the lower SAC and ARPU model (which means *efficient * marketing spending).

I can't follow the last question, but what TiVo is trying to do is grow efficiently enough to become profitable, survive, and become some amount bigger ( I don't know that goal.) They are just taking an approach that probably won't work, and certainly wouldn't work as well as another.

To put that another way: even if I found that the numbers leaned toward success, if I knew there was a better way to more success, I'd have to say that I'd prefer the better way.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> Makes me the optimist, doesn't it. I know there is a strategy that can be successful.
> 
> TiVo, if they are honest and I think they are on this, has very much tried to get BA, CC and other retailers into the bund method since BEFORE the launch in mid-March. They ain't din' it. Radio Shack ain't in either, are they?
> 
> Go back and look at Chucky's quote you used...he says 'TiVo's Management says...' He's using TiVo's guidance as his basis. With TiVo's record, I see no reason to do that. I much prefer to think for myself, using the experience I have in addition to TiVo's info to reach a more independent conclusion.


Thanks for all the catching me up- I've been stuck with Directv waiting for the S3 for so long that i didn't spend much time here keeping aware.

Oh- so tivo wanted everyone to play the bundle game. That IS very telling that no retailer wanted to play too.

I'd prefer to figure things out myself- but isn't tivo obligated to provide accurate guidance and if it trends wrong then they have to revise it? So wouldn't their numbers be at least partiallly trustworthy?


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

HDTiVo said:


> TiVo, if they are honest and I think they are on this, has very much tried to get BA, CC and other retailers into the bund method since BEFORE the launch in mid-March. They ain't din' it. Radio Shack ain't in either, are they?


No, RS doesn't have it either.

But why would any retailer want to bother?

I guess some of them have similar experience (selling cell phones), but I don't see why a retailer would want to bother stocking/selling a box they won't (a) move a lot of and (b) make much money off of while having all the extra headache of managing/tracking a subscription type product.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> Didn't we talk about the Better Plan being a draft and in need of work? Some folks posted some helpful ideas which I remember adding. Anyway, it would take alot of hours to get it right after also doing some research, which TiVo doesn't have because they didn't do the right kind back then.
> 
> TiVo did show that they could be very close to break-even if they stopped wasting money in certain ways - particularly related to marketing. But that would not have lasted long because without marketing spending, TiVo's sub base would go into decline. I also showed they could be break-even with a certain number of additional subscribers while continuing to "invest" in the business and pay for stuff like the patent litigation. I don't remember the numbers, but I think the break-even point I demonstrated was within reach this FY. It depended on maintaining the lower SAC and ARPU model (which means *efficient * marketing spending).
> 
> ...


you answered my quesitons about them breaking even and size and all very well- thanks.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> But why would any retailer want to bother?


Exactly.  And TiVo $tore is a retailer.

(not endorsing specifically your reasons - I don't have the energy left to address that properly.)


----------



## wtkflhn (May 12, 2006)

You don't need Cable cards to tune HD locals on cable, If you are lucky enough to have them (locals).
I have an S3, but don't subscribe to digital cable. I also have a Moto HD box, which we had to buy, a few years back. Because Cox refused to rent them. So, all I have to pay for is a "digital gateway" for $5.99 per month. The HD chanels are free, otherwise. I don't have any cable cards, and if I want to record anything, it's from the HD locals, OTA. That's one of the best features of S3, is that it has a seperate input for an outside antenna, and can switch from antenna to cable on it's own

Don H,


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> you answered my quesitons about them breaking even and size and all very well- thanks.


One more thing. We have 1.5 QTRs of reported results with the bundle strategy to give us some info about how its going. TiVo claimed - and Chucky and I have mentioned this - that there was about a 3X conversion rate in the test marketing over the old sales strategy. Forget about what exactly 3X conversion refers to...we don't really know... the implication is to expect a very substantial sales increment per expenses. So far with relevant costs being not very different (maybe a little more or a little less, its a guess due to other factors being mixed in) there doesn't seem to be any increment.

Now Chucky says the increment is over an otherwise much lower number. Now I don't see that the market has fallen out beneath TiVo so much to justify that. They were up against very easy comps from FY06 due to that breakeven strategy.

So the early data has not been very encouraging.

Now I'll add another factor into the discussion. TiVo is up against expirations of the one year commitments for the first time. Can Churn be assumed to stay down at .9%? I don't think so; I'd have to start going to 1% and later more in my estimation due to that as well as some additional churn spurred by the new products. If that happens, increasing Gross Adds is even more critical.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

wtkflhn said:


> You don't need Cable cards to tune HD locals on cable, If you are lucky enough to have them (locals).
> I have an S3, but don't subscribe to digital cable. I also have a Moto HD box, which we had to buy, a few years back. Because Cox refused to rent them. So, all I have to pay for is a "digital gateway" for $5.99 per month. The HD chanels are free, otherwise. I don't have any cable cards, and if I want to record anything, it's from the HD locals, OTA. That's one of the best features of S3, is that it has a seperate input for an outside antenna, and can switch from antenna to cable on it's own
> 
> Don H,


So are you recording you HD locals OTA or via manual QAM on your cable? I assume you must be doing manual recordings for your HD locals off cable if you don't have cable cards.


----------



## Alarmcluck (Aug 6, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> This kind of simplistic nonsense is an insult to the average person's intelligence. How about figuring in the extra charges? Like more $$ for upgrading from basic cable to basic expanded? Then more $$ for upgrading from basic expanded to digital? Then more $$ for the HD tier? WAY more $$ than $12/month. You're easily approaching $75-$100 per month.


What nonsense! Cable costs are what they are, regardless of whether you use a TiVo or not. Expanding to digital cost me $5.00/month. I did it long before I had a TiVo. Changing to HDTV cost me ZERO! How does any of this relate to S2 vs S3?

Answer: It doesn't.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> TiVo's management has absolutely no idea what the NPV of those bundles is going to be. Its all a guess based on assumptions.


You claim to understand what I say about planning, then you say this. Isn't all planning based on assumptions?

And to say that management has "absolutely no idea" on the NPV of the bundles is just silly. Management has run a variety of scenarios based on a cross section of models from pessimistic to optimistic, assigned probabilities to those models based on the company's subscriber data and testing, as well as research into consumer behavior in similar situations, and come up with a range of likely outcomes, from which they can value the new pricing plans and weigh them against the traditional plans.



> So it turns out the numbers I put up are right regarding SAC. Take 240K @180 and you still get $247, very close to my $250+ and well above your $210-230.


I have no idea what you are talking about. You can't just pull numbers out of your hat and average them. 240K subs at $180 SAC isn't a likely number because it represents a substantial increase over last year's marketing spend with almost no increase in sales, or a substantial increase in the hardware loss on the same number of boxes, or a higher rebate redemption rate -- none of which is justified by anything we know.



> *What numbers did you run to come up with that range? Why do you think 230K+ is a proper estimate for Q4?*


I don't guess at SAC. I run a range of models for the company for the coming quarters and SAC is a by-product of that process. 230K+ is reasonable because they achieved 220K last year with a very minimal marketing effort, and 270K+ the previous year with a somewhat greater spend. Given that this year they have a couple of new hardware products, some software advances (like KidZone), and greater retail distribution, and are likely to increase advertising, I think it is reasonable to assume greater sales.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

Alarmcluck said:


> What nonsense! Cable costs are what they are, regardless of whether you use a TiVo or not. Expanding to digital cost me $5.00/month. I did it long before I had a TiVo. Changing to HDTV cost me ZERO! How does any of this relate to S2 vs S3?
> 
> Answer: It doesn't.


I think his point is that if all you want is HD locals and basic cable, you can use an S3 with basic cable and an antenna. If you go with the cable company DVR you have to sign up for digital cable (which for most people requires expanded basic), the HD DVR, and often some kind of HD fee, as well. It comes out to a lot more money than the (usually) < $20 basic cable.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about. You can't just pull numbers out of your hat and average them. 240K subs at $180 SAC isn't a likely number because it represents a substantial increase over last year's marketing spend with almost no increase in sales, or a substantial increase in the hardware loss on the same number of boxes, or a higher rebate redemption rate -- none of which is justified by anything we know.
> 
> I don't guess at SAC. I run a range of models for the company for the coming quarters and SAC is a by-product of that process. 230K+ is reasonable because they achieved 220K last year with a very minimal marketing effort, and 270K+ the previous year with a somewhat greater spend. Given that this year they have a couple of new hardware products, some software advances (like KidZone), and greater retail distribution, and are likely to increase advertising, I think it is reasonable to assume greater sales.


So what is the range of Gross Adds and SAC expenses you used to get at that $210-230 FY07 SAC figure? That can't be too hard to answer.


----------



## rsmith (Jul 27, 2001)

The price is significant if they had any hopes of keeping HR10 customers and inducing them to switch to cable.
Frankly, I was horrified to find out TIVO/D* were parting ways and was sure I would hate a different DVR. The fact is, the HR20 is a very capable DVR that in many respects is easier to use than TIVO.
My choice was buy 2 TIVO S3 for total of $1600 and switch to cable or install 2 new HR20's and a new dish for $0.
My plan was to at least try the HR20's because of the price. Guess what? I'm keeping them and staying with D*. 
Parting is such sweet sorrow...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

that's a good point- but i think MOST people switching to cable can get a triple play deal that would save them $600-700 over the first year so it's a break even sort of thing fro many.

That break even without a need to sign up for anopther 2 years with directv and HOPE they put up a competitive HD offering at some point during the 2 years was the reason I myself jumped to cable.


----------



## sjcbulldog (Jul 13, 2004)

I think the basic point here is that there are an infinite number of strategies that one could use to roll out the S3. We can (and do) sit around and give our opinion on the various strategies and what we would have done in TiVo's shoes. However, there is only one strategy that counts today and that is the one that TiVo is using. Time will tell if the picked the right approach, but as I have said in other posts, the tradeoff of overall price ($800 +/- impact on cable bill) versus the value to you of the S3 is an individual decision and the decision to buy or not to buy is your biggest vote on whether TiVo picked the right strategy.

I like the two year idea (or was it one). We should all come back in a year or two when we know more about the S3 rollout strategy.

Sjcbulldog


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

rsmith said:


> My choice was buy 2 TIVO S3 for total of $1600 and switch to cable or install 2 new HR20's and a new dish for $0.
> My plan was to at least try the HR20's because of the price. Guess what? I'm keeping them and staying with D*.


That's a reasonable choice to make, and I'm sure a lot of people will do the same thing. But once you decide to look at non-TiVo options, you should at least consider the cable HD DVR option, which also costs "$0" and requires even less commitment than DTV. As Michael points out, the cable triple-play offerings can save some money. And if you are in Comcast or Cox territory, you might also get a TiVo option in a few months (or sooner) for a few bucks a month.


----------



## Oknarf (Oct 30, 2003)

rsmith said:


> The price is significant ...My choice was buy 2 TIVO S3 for total of $1600 and switch to cable or install 2 new HR20's and a new dish for $0....


And spend $2000 cutting down all of the trees on your property in order to see all the new satellites and not have Tivo.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> I think his point is that if all you want is HD locals and basic cable, you can use an S3 with basic cable and an antenna. If you go with the cable company DVR you have to sign up for digital cable (which for most people requires expanded basic), the HD DVR, and often some kind of HD fee, as well. It comes out to a lot more money than the (usually) < $20 basic cable.


No, you can use it ONLY if you can actually receive HD Locals via OTA - which a very large population cannot.

You cannot use those prices for TiVo because the average user cannot (and frankly WILL not) use OTA for HD. Even though (if you can get it) OTA HD is obviously the best quality.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> oh my goodness-
> 
> people IN GENERAL ARE NOT PAYINg FOR CABLECARD's they ARE PAYING other related fees- Did you miss my whole giant post above about addtional outlets and HD mirroring? THe post you quoted that was supposedly $28 for cablecards was for addtional outlet and mirroring fees.
> 
> ...


Pal, perhaps you don't read well - and again I don't appreciate the snide comments. What part of the "card rental fee" do you not understand? In some places Comcast charges it . In others they apparently do not. In some places they charge additional outlet charges. In others they apparently do not.

You cannot - under any circumstances defend the statement that Comcast does not charge for the rental of CC's in general. In some specific locations - perhaps. but not in every (or perhaps even most) locations.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> This was never an issue. You made that decision before you ever posted here, and you have steadfastly refused to recognize that other people might have different decision criteria than you.
> 
> And you have failed to provide a shred of evidence that adoption is any less than TiVo's goals for the product. Your entire argument is that you think the price is too high and therefore they won't sell very many. What little evidence we have suggests just the opposite but, again, you refuse to recognize that. You just change the subject and are now arguing the finer points of Comcast's inconsistent cablecard pricing. Or is your point that TiVo should discount their boxes because Comcast is overcharging some people for cablecards?
> 
> Present a logical discussion and maybe I'll participate.


And actually you've (again) jumped to incorrect conclusions. I have a scheduled CC install this thursday afternoon in my DLP to begin testing the install, config and setup. I'm considering testing the S3 with dual cards following the results of that test. I've also said that the TiVo S3 is a cool device and that I want it to succeed.

I've then repeatedly said that in order for it to succeed for us in general it needs relatively wide adoption - otherwise the marketplace has changed and their will not be sufficient momentum to allow for serious continued R&D in the product line. It's not whether you - or I - are willing to pay for it. It's whether John Q is willing to spend on it.

I'm also not questioning whether or not TiVo has or has not achieved their vaguely stated goals (according to you) for S3 sales. I AM questioning whether their sales volume can remain sufficiently competitive to gain a market niche.

I AM saying that TiVo should discount (or more accurately price competitively) their boxes in order to gain subs. That it is the addition of subs that will make or break TiVo. Failure of the S3 to gain broad market adoption will - and already has - result in lost subs and increased churn. TiVo cannot survive that trend long term. IF TiVo management actually intended on this sales strategy (low and only high end adoption for the first two years) it only reveals a significant weakness in their leadership. But at least I admit that this is my opinion and not a fact.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Pal, perhaps you don't read well - and again I don't appreciate the snide comments. What part of the "card rental fee" do you not understand? In some places Comcast charges it . In others they apparently do not. In some places they charge additional outlet charges. In others they apparently do not.
> 
> You cannot - under any circumstances defend the statement that Comcast does not charge for the rental of CC's in general. In some specific locations - perhaps. but not in every (or perhaps even most) locations.


How many A/O fees do you pay for a two-tuner Cable DVR? How many for a device that has two CCs in it?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

HDTiVo said:


> How many A/O fees do you pay for a two-tuner Cable DVR? How many for a device that has two CCs in it?


I pay one outlet fee and one device rental fee. One outlet free with digital package but have 3 DVRs. Multi-DVR discount equals total of $10.95 per device including both rental and outlet.

They don't seem to care that the S3 is one device requiring 2 cards, so they insist that they are separate and duplicate costs. So $5.50 per card for rental plus outlet times 2 equals $11.00 to cableco for service (obviously exclusive of TiVo charges). Every single rep at this point including local office has now said the same thing.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

winpitt said:


> I pay one outlet fee and one device rental fee. One outlet free with digital package but have 3 DVRs. Multi-DVR discount equals total of $10.95 per device including both rental and outlet.
> 
> They don't seem to care that the S3 is one device requiring 2 cards, so they insist that they are separate and duplicate costs. So $5.50 per card for rental plus outlet times 2 equals $11.00 to cableco for service (obviously exclusive of TiVo charges). Every single rep at this point including local office has now said the same thing.


winpitt - you have complained and misled about so much information at this point, I'm not sure why you keep posting. Are you off your "$28 fee is widespread" stance yet?

I doubt you even really have this set up, honestly.

Fact is, Comcast charges nothing in many areas (like mine). TW charges $1 and change, and countless other people have positive experiences. Perhaps it's just you?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

AbMagFab said:


> winpitt - you have complained and misled about so much information at this point, I'm not sure why you keep posting. Are you off your "$28 fee is widespread" stance yet?
> 
> I doubt you even really have this set up, honestly.
> 
> Fact is, Comcast charges nothing in many areas (like mine). TW charges $1 and change, and countless other people have positive experiences. Perhaps it's just you?


First of all, if anyone is misleading or being dishonest it is you. I never said at any time, any place, that the $28 fee was "widespread". I said several times that there was wide variation on the pricing, and some people were getting no rental fee while others costs were much higher. I even posted the exact link and named the user who reported the price - not myself. Please don't lie or put words in my mouth, OK? If you just jumped on the bandwagon and didn't really read, then don't jump to conclusions.

I also never said that I have this setup - ever. I said - repeatedly - what results I've gotten when trying to determine pricing. And that I want to understand month over month pricing before buying.

I'm trying to realistic and unbiased. Others here continue to insist that it's free everywhere and that "Comcast corporate Policy" says so - regardless that others have said they are paying.

Finally, please refer to the title of this thread before mouthing off and saying that I'm misleading somebody. I am about to test a CC starting this thurs afternoon. Depending on how that goes I may or may not decide the S3 is worth a test. That's not the point. The point - AND - the thread - is about whether or not $800 is a good introductory price. If you are insulted or maligned because I feel it's too high then perhaps you're too emotionally attached to TiVo.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

winpitt said:


> I pay one outlet fee and one device rental fee. One outlet free with digital package but have 3 DVRs. Multi-DVR discount equals total of $10.95 per device including both rental and outlet.
> 
> They don't seem to care that the S3 is one device requiring 2 cards, so they insist that they are separate and duplicate costs. So $5.50 per card for rental plus outlet times 2 equals $11.00 to cableco for service (obviously exclusive of TiVo charges). Every single rep at this point including local office has now said the same thing.


Therein lies a problem. Often there are two A/O fees on a Series3 whereas there's only one with the cable DVR. Then, when you pay for two CCs and two A/O fees, sometimes the Cable DVR has a monthly charge incl. A/O fee not much greater than the Series3. Its a competitive problem for TiVo.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

AbMagFab said:


> Fact is, Comcast charges nothing in many areas (like mine). TW charges $1 and change, and countless other people have positive experiences.


Charter, which sucks in so many ways it is nearly a black hole, only charges $1.50 per card and no other related fees. The cards don't work, so it isn't that good a deal, but at least I'm not paying a lot to have crummy service.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Therein lies a problem. Often there are two A/O fees on a Series3 whereas there's only one with the cable DVR. Then, when you pay for two CCs and two A/O fees, sometimes the Cable DVR has a monthly charge incl. A/O fee not much greater than the Series3. Its a competitive problem for TiVo.


Yes, but if you aren't already using your primary outlet for something else, you only get one (completely unjustified) A/O fee. And when multistream cards are available you might not even get that. And, as has been reported by many people, including me, some operators don't charge an A/O fee for cablecards.

But it isn't a competitive disadvantage for TiVo in any event, because if you are worried about a few bucks a month, you aren't the target market for the S3 anyway.

Or just save money in some other way. Like walk your own dog once a week -- the money you save on your dog walker will easily pay for the S3 in no time. That's good home economics, and you'll be getting some exercise in the process. :up:


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> Yes, but if you aren't already using your primary outlet for something else, you only get one (completely unjustified) A/O fee. And when multistream cards are available you might not even get that. And, as has been reported by many people, including me, some operators don't charge an A/O fee for cablecards.
> 
> But it isn't a competitive disadvantage for TiVo in any event, because if you are worried about a few bucks a month, you aren't the target market for the S3 anyway.
> 
> Or just save money in some other way. Like walk your own dog once a week -- the money you save on your dog walker will easily pay for the S3 in no time. That's good home economics, and you'll be getting some exercise in the process. :up:


I kind of agree that for you and I it isn't a terrible issue, as we're probably willing to pay if the product/service is OK.

The difference of opinion I still have is that I still say it IS a competitive disadvantage for TiVo. Where we disagree is that I don't believe that TiVo or the S3 (actually perhaps both) have a long term future if TiVo management really is only targeting high disposable income groups.

If TiVo really does have that strategy they are flawed from a business perspective. I think we can all agree that sub growth is paramount. Also that HD and dual tuners are in a high growth mode. Which means that the former sweet spot for TiVo is changing. If they don't have a competitive (cost-wise) solution then they'll lose. They'll lose device sales (which really aren't core to their business) and service subs (which are).

Some of us think that the "high end" strategy is what TiVo says only because they've backed themselves into a corner. In other words, it's cannabalism at its finest. They're eating their future trying to operate tactically today. Then, as in past quarters, they'll come up with another "strategy".


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Yes, but if you aren't already using your primary outlet for something else, you only get one (completely unjustified) A/O fee. And when multistream cards are available you might not even get that. And, as has been reported by many people, including me, some operators don't charge an A/O fee for cablecards.
> 
> But it isn't a competitive disadvantage for TiVo in any event, because if you are worried about a few bucks a month, you aren't the target market for the S3 anyway.
> 
> Or just save money in some other way. Like walk your own dog once a week -- the money you save on your dog walker will easily pay for the S3 in no time. That's good home economics, and you'll be getting some exercise in the process. :up:


There's no "but" there. In those situations you are always charged one seemingly unjustified A/O fee. Who knows what they'll charge for multistream cards... maybe 1.5X?

To say that having to pay extra money is not a competitive disadvantage is just wrong.



HDTiVo said:


> So what is the range of Gross Adds and SAC expenses you used to get at that $210-230 FY07 SAC figure? That can't be too hard to answer.


*Hello?*


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

winpitt said:


> I kind of agree that for you and I it isn't a terrible issue, as we're probably willing to pay if the product/service is OK.
> 
> The difference of opinion I still have is that I still say it IS a competitive disadvantage for TiVo. Where we disagree is that I don't believe that TiVo or the S3 (actually perhaps both) have a long term future if TiVo management really is only targeting high disposable income groups.
> 
> ...


That sums it up well.

I don't understand how TiVo breaks into the high-end to a significant degree. The brand has no reputation in that segment, especially after years with the 240 and 540 being low end hardware products.

I think this high end "strategy" is all just another round of "happy talk," following the analog cable "happy talk" of the last year, then to be followed by yet another in a few months.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> *Hello?*


Hi, I didn't have my numbers in front of me until this morning. The answer still isn't as simple as you seem to think. The margin and sales numbers on the S3 are a big unknown, and will impact SAC through TiVo's hardware margin. The impact of the S2DT unit is also an unknown because it hasn't been through a holiday season yet. Plus, its financial impact is hard to separate since we don't know the sales mix, and it showed up at the same time as the bundled pricing. There are a couple of other factors.

But, to simplify things as much as possible, we can ignore the S3, and assume the S2DT has little net impact. If we start with a Q3 baseline of 95K gross adds and $11M in sales and marketing, then assume another $11M in Q4, the $230 to $210 FY SAC range means about 210K to 310K subs. But that's not a likely scenario as TiVo will probably spend more. $16M sales and marketing gives a range of 250K to 350K. $20M and you need something in the 275K to 380K range, but I don't think TiVo will spend that much unless they have reason to believe that they can move 300K+ boxes.

Like I say, I'm ignoring the impact of the S3. If you assume an average margin of $150, then every 10K units they sell will knock four to seven bucks off the quarter's SAC, and about half that off of annual SAC, depending on total adds.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> To say that having to pay extra money is not a competitive disadvantage is just wrong.


You've managed to completely miss the point. The people looking at the S3 as a money-saving option are not the target market. The target market _expects_ to pay more.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> I don't understand how TiVo breaks into the high-end to a significant degree. The brand has no reputation in that segment, especially after years with the 240 and 540 being low end hardware products.


Yeah, and Toyota got totally screwed when they went into the luxury car market. That Lexus thing has been a disaster for them.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

Regarding the price of this thing (of which I own one S3 and am getting ready to order another):

I was just looking through some old receipts and found one from 1995 for a fancy 4-head Panasonic VCR, discount priced from one of those electronic wholesalers for $304. 

Now if I compare that to 2006 dollars and the amount of technological improvements from that VCR to this S3, the S3 is a STEAL!!!!!


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jacksonian said:


> Regarding the price of this thing (of which I own one S3 and am getting ready to order another):
> 
> I was just looking through some old receipts and found one from 1995 for a fancy 4-head Panasonic VCR, discount priced from one of those electronic wholesalers for $304.
> 
> Now if I compare that to 2006 dollars and the amount of technological improvements from that VCR to this S3, the S3 is a STEAL!!!!!


You're comparing the S3 to 1995 pricing of another technology. You're not comparing the S3 pricing to the competition TODAY. The general consumer will not and has not agreed with you.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> You've managed to completely miss the point. The people looking at the S3 as a money-saving option are not the target market. The target market _expects_ to pay more.


No, You have missed my point. You are taking TiVo managements word that its their chosen strategy (as opposed to forced strategy) to focus on only high end customers with large disposable income in a niche market. Then you're saying that based on that questionable strategy, they are accomplishing their intent.

Fine.

The POINT is two things. First, that many of us do not believe that TiVo has deliberately chosen this strategy, but rather that it's just more (unprofitable) smoke and mirrors.

Second, that regardless of whether that is really their strategy, at its foundation it is flawed and that this flaw is terrible news for both TiVo and us. The DT HD DVR market is incredibly hot, and their is virtually no room for an entry that is overpriced and complex - in other words - not financially competitive. This is NOT 1995. TiVo no longer owns the market. Their core strength is their service - not their hardware. Taken a step further, that makes sub growth absolutely the most critical component of their company. They should sacrifice everything else at this point in order to even just try to retain some semblence of market penetration. The S3 strategy is contrary to that in every respect.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> You've managed to completely miss the point. The people looking at the S3 as a money-saving option are not the target market. The target market _expects_ to pay more.


I'm looking beyond sales in the tens of thousands.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

winpitt said:


> You're comparing the S3 to 1995 pricing of another technology. You're not comparing the S3 pricing to the competition TODAY.


That was the state of the art time shifting device at the time. The S3 is the state of the art time shifting device today. They are the same.



winpitt said:


> The general consumer will not and has not agreed with you.


Says who?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Yeah, and Toyota got totally screwed when they went into the luxury car market. That Lexus thing has been a disaster for them.


When TiVo becomes in any way comparable to Toyota, I'll rethink that.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Taken a step further, that makes sub growth absolutely the most critical component of their company. They should sacrifice everything else at this point in order to even just try to retain some semblence of market penetration. The S3 strategy is contrary to that in every respect.


Especially considering the major value/revenue add initiatives depend on # of subs and sub growth rate to attract enough attention to succeed.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

Subscription growth should be in the S2 area, not S3 (at least not at this time). People with HDTV should be less price sensitive than people without HDTV.

Like I said before, having S3 saves me $30-$40 per month in cable bill, compared to getting a DVR from Comcast.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Especially considering the major value/revenue add initiatives depend on # of subs and sub growth rate to attract enough attention to succeed.


It will be much cheaper and more profitable for TiVo to add advertising eyballs through Comcast and Cox than it would be through the standalone products.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

jacksonian said:


> I was just looking through some old receipts and found one from 1995 for a fancy 4-head Panasonic VCR, discount priced from one of those electronic wholesalers for $304.


I used to buy VCRs in the $600-$800 range, eventually it got to the point where you couldn't spend that much, and all you could get was crap.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> I'm looking beyond sales in the tens of thousands.


Why? The HD market may be growing, but it is still a small fraction of the overall TV market, and TiVo simply can't compete with cable in the low-end HD DVR market (which is why they've formed partnerships with Comcast and Cox in that market). That just leaves the smallish high-end market. Until the price of building the S3 box comes down enough to be competitive in the broad market (and that market grows to a substantial size), the Series 2 boxes are going to have to provide the bulk of TiVo's sub growth.

That's not ideal or wishful or "happy talk," it's just reality.


----------



## CCourtney (Mar 28, 2006)

Anybody know how many S3's have been sold to date?

CCourtney


----------



## Rebate_King (Nov 10, 2004)

CCourtney said:


> Anybody know how many S3's have been sold to date?
> 
> CCourtney


my guess would be 13,587 units.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

CCourtney said:


> Anybody know how many S3's have been sold to date?
> 
> CCourtney


I'm guessing under 9K for the QTR, which means under 8K to date. (That would be Gross Sub Adds factoring in returns.)


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> It will be much cheaper and more profitable for TiVo to add advertising eyballs through Comcast and Cox than it would be through the standalone products.


Cheaper yes. Profitablity depends on revenue arrangements. Total Subs? I hope they at least replace DTV Subs.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Hi, I didn't have my numbers in front of me until this morning. The answer still isn't as simple as you seem to think. The margin and sales numbers on the S3 are a big unknown, and will impact SAC through TiVo's hardware margin. The impact of the S2DT unit is also an unknown because it hasn't been through a holiday season yet. Plus, its financial impact is hard to separate since we don't know the sales mix, and it showed up at the same time as the bundled pricing. There are a couple of other factors.
> 
> But, to simplify things as much as possible, we can ignore the S3, and assume the S2DT has little net impact. If we start with a Q3 baseline of 95K gross adds and $11M in sales and marketing, then assume another $11M in Q4, the $230 to $210 FY SAC range means about 210K to 310K subs. But that's not a likely scenario as TiVo will probably spend more. $16M sales and marketing gives a range of 250K to 350K. $20M and you need something in the 275K to 380K range, but I don't think TiVo will spend that much unless they have reason to believe that they can move 300K+ boxes.
> 
> Like I say, I'm ignoring the impact of the S3. If you assume an average margin of $150, then every 10K units they sell will knock four to seven bucks off the quarter's SAC, and about half that off of annual SAC, depending on total adds.


Ive looked at this from a lot of different directions and the only way I can see for your numbers to work out would be for an incredible turnaround to occur in the efficiency of SAC spending over what happened in recent QTRs, most particularly Q1 & Q2 of 2007. In fact, spending on SAC in the first two QTRs has been between 46% and 67% less effective, depending on how you look at it, in getting Gross Adds versus last year. I have to figure far less YOY SAC increases together with better YOY Gross Adds to get SAC below $250 for FY07. Scenarios to $210-230 are outliers that stretch credibility.

Increasing Gross Adds significantly to get above the bottoms of your ranges again requires extraordinary turnaround in performance of the New Marketing Plan, which did not look so good in the first 4.5 months.

Finally, I have a concern about the new products and one year commitment expirations causing higher Churn from TiVo-ites upgrading. That would hurt Net Adds and damage TiVos long term outlook. A .1% increase in Churn would cut 18K Net Adds/yr. An increase to 2% will wipe out half of TiVos growth.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> ...
> 
> Finally, I have a concern about the new products and one year commitment expirations causing higher Churn from TiVo-ites upgrading. That would hurt Net Adds and damage TiVos long term outlook. A .1% increase in Churn would cut 18K Net Adds/yr. An increase to 2% will wipe out half of TiVos growth.


While it certainly could be an issue- I PERSONALLY dont see churn getting much uglier because of commitments. Maybe the first 12 months that that year comes due they spike a bit as their was some pent up inability to cancel- but I would think at month 13 it would be someplace right back to where it was before they started that commitment thing. People still have the right to dump the box within 30 days. I MYSELF would GUESS that the 30 day window lets most people that are on the fence bail so no many are going to get to months 2-11 and be pissed that they cant cancel.

Of course all just speculation- it will be interesting to see what the numbers show when they come out.

I also very much DO agree with chuckybox's thought:


> Why? The HD market may be growing, but it is still a small fraction of the overall TV market, and TiVo simply can't compete with cable in the low-end HD DVR market (which is why they've formed partnerships with Comcast and Cox in that market). That just leaves the smallish high-end market. Until the price of building the S3 box comes down enough to be competitive in the broad market (and that market grows to a substantial size), the Series 2 boxes are going to have to provide the bulk of TiVo's sub growth.


and last bit- are we talking profit as a percent of the revenue they generate or profit as a gross number in the cox/comcast deals? As the directv deal shows- the total profit from those deals isn't that huge but as a percentage of the revenue and expenses related to them it's pretty hefty. Honestly I forget from my college classes which is the "preferred method".

I remember the example that:
-a small soda might cost a place 25 cents and they sell it for a buck- 75 cents or 75% profit
-a large might cost 50 cents and they sell it for 1.50- 100 cents but just 66% profit.

Which is better? I forget what the textbook says. But I suppose it depends on what you are trying to do?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> Which is better? I forget what the textbook says. But I suppose it depends on what you are trying to do?


In the restaurant business, lots of turnover.

For TiVo, lots of subs.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> Ive looked at this from a lot of different directions and the only way I can see for your numbers to work out would be for an incredible turnaround to occur in the efficiency of SAC spending over what happened in recent QTRs, most particularly Q1 & Q2 of 2007. In fact, spending on SAC in the first two QTRs has been between 46% and 67% less effective, depending on how you look at it, in getting Gross Adds versus last year. I have to figure far less YOY SAC increases together with better YOY Gross Adds to get SAC below $250 for FY07. Scenarios to $210-230 are outliers that stretch credibility.


1QFY06 SAC was artificially suppressed by the reversal of accumulated rebates, so it isn't a good benchmark unless you add that back in. And I still have questions about Q2 as I think it benefitted from an earlier inventory writedown, and some rebate reversal.

A major factor in Q3 and Q4 last year was the increase in rebate from $100 to $150. Obviously, we won't see that increase again this year (unless the rebate goes up again). So it really comes down to advertising efficiency (only a part of which will be due to the bundled pricing). Given that TiVo includes a lot of fixed costs in their sales and marketing line, and market conditions have changed, it is a bit difficult to extrapolate increased spend vs. results. But I was impressed with what was accomplished last season given the limited spend and inventory constraints early in the season.



> Finally, I have a concern about the new products and one year commitment expirations causing higher Churn from TiVo-ites upgrading. That would hurt Net Adds and damage TiVos long term outlook. A .1% increase in Churn would cut 18K Net Adds/yr. An increase to 2% will wipe out half of TiVos growth.


I am always amazed at how low TiVo's churn is, and keep expecting it to go up. I would have thought it would be 1.2% by now. I do expect some increase, but I don't know how much will be the result of the end of the 1-year commitment. The plan was put into place to reduce the short-term subscribers, as people who have used TiVo for a while tend to stick with it. Since the commitment only applies to new subs added to a large existing base, and those subs phased in over time, I don't see a big pent-up demand to cancel. But there might be some increase.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> A major factor in Q3 and Q4 last year was the increase in rebate from $100 to $150. Obviously, we won't see that increase again this year (unless the rebate goes up again). So it really comes down to advertising efficiency (only a part of which will be due to the bundled pricing). Given that TiVo includes a lot of fixed costs in their sales and marketing line, and market conditions have changed, it is a bit difficult to extrapolate increased spend vs. results. But I was impressed with what was accomplished last season given the limited spend and inventory constraints early in the season.


The box subsidy with the bundles is up about $69, or is it $99? over last year. Box prices at retail are down, but I don't know what happened with COGS.



ChuckyBox said:


> I am always amazed at how low TiVo's churn is, and keep expecting it to go up. I would have thought it would be 1.2% by now. I do expect some increase, but I don't know how much will be the result of the end of the 1-year commitment. The plan was put into place to reduce the short-term subscribers, as people who have used TiVo for a while tend to stick with it. Since the commitment only applies to new subs added to a large existing base, and those subs phased in over time, I don't see a big pent-up demand to cancel. But there might be some increase.


I think it'll approach 1% for Q3 and maybe 1.1% for Q4. You've got cases like replacing 1 or 2 SA STs with a DT. Later you've got CC enabled PCs.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> ...I think it'll approach 1% for Q3 and maybe 1.1% for Q4. You've got cases like replacing 1 or 2 SA STs with a DT. Later you've got CC enabled PCs.


I'm not sure either of those are going to cause massive increases in churn either (although as you guys point out it's so low and change can make a big blip)).

For the DT- I think many people would just add a DT. Folks with 2 SA's might go to 1 DT and one single tuner. But I'd GUESS most people into tivo enough to buy a new box would be into tivo enough to spend 6.95 to get another tv hooked up. Just a guess though.

Also- do you really think CC PC's are going to make a huge move? that's not exactly a lateral move from an SD standalone. It might be free but you would have to cough up $500 or 1000 or more to get a vista approved HTPC- and we're in this thread debating that $800 is or isn't too much to ask people to pay. So I think the only real people that jump to that are people that are S3 type customers and I'd think most people getting S3's now are either aware enough that CC HTPC's are on the way so they would wait or oblivious enough that it wont matter when they come out. If the speculation above is that S3's adds are in the tens of thousands how many are going to bail right away to get an HTPC with CC? People might pick HTPC over S3, but that would just slow sales I'd think.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

c3 said:


> Subscription growth should be in the S2 area, not S3 (at least not at this time). People with HDTV should be less price sensitive than people without HDTV.
> 
> Like I said before, having S3 saves me $30-$40 per month in cable bill, compared to getting a DVR from Comcast.


And your quote of savings is very unique. Most people would not be satisfied with OTA service. Most people are not. It is not an acceptable comparison.

For most people the S3 costs extra money - up front and over time.

The strongest increase in market penetration is in HD DVR. So, you're saying that TiVo sees the market different than any other vendor, and differently than sales receipts indicate?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jacksonian said:


> That was the state of the art time shifting device at the time. The S3 is the state of the art time shifting device today. They are the same.
> 
> Says who?


Sorry, but again you are incorrect. You are comparing the price of a device then with the price of a device now. They are not the same.

By your same argument, a $500 non-pda cell phone with a great user interface is a bargain because it's the same approximate cost as an analog handheld cell phone with less functions/features in 1996.

As for who says who? That would be sales receipts for DVR leases/purchases. The public.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> Why? The HD market may be growing, but it is still a small fraction of the overall TV market, and TiVo simply can't compete with cable in the low-end HD DVR market (which is why they've formed partnerships with Comcast and Cox in that market). That just leaves the smallish high-end market. Until the price of building the S3 box comes down enough to be competitive in the broad market (and that market grows to a substantial size), the Series 2 boxes are going to have to provide the bulk of TiVo's sub growth.
> 
> That's not ideal or wishful or "happy talk," it's just reality.


But that's the problem. I agree with you. Based on TiVo's stated strategy (according to you, I'm just assuming) they are forced to have S2s drive sub growth.

Unfortunately, I don't see any chance that S2's will continue to drive growth. I believe that their growth has way more than peaked, and that increasing competition from all other providers will continue to eat away TiVo subs.

And, TiVo has only limited partnerships with no delivered product for Comcast and Cox yet to my knowledge. When they do deliver then it's cannabilization again to further depress subs.

IMHO, TiVo really really needed a competitive HD dual tuner device in order to gain subs, and the S3 from a price perspective is not competitive to the general consumer. There just is no longer a sweet spot that TiVo can easily operate in.

I was personally hoping that the s3 would drive further penetration into the market. I'm bummed that it won't.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> But that's the problem. I agree with you. Based on TiVo's stated strategy (according to you, I'm just assuming) they are forced to have S2s drive sub growth.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't see any chance that S2's will continue to drive growth. I believe that their growth has way more than peaked, and that increasing competition from all other providers will continue to eat away TiVo subs.
> 
> ...


I think you are a bit early to be so pessimistic on teh S2- a significant majority of the population is still not HD- right now. THat will change in the coming months and years but at this point there are more potential customers with sd than HD. WHen that changes then there is a problem and tivo needs to be able to change with it.

I also dont think they view their cable deals as cannabilistic. They have said time and time again they dont like to be a hardware company. They want to sell software. Getting into cable lets them move to that model and that's where they want to be. THey wont depress total subs just tivo owned subs. IT's debatable what s more important but it seems HDTivo and CHuckybox who are both far more versed in think subject than I think market share is more important then margin. (plese correct if I'm wrong- I'm mostly going by HD's comments about selling soda's) So getting more "tivo powered" subs out there could be more important then have tivo 'owned' subs.

I beleive you when you say you hoped the S3 would drive sub growth but I dont know why you would come to that coclusion logically when over the past year or so tivo has gone on the record with their "not subsizing, high end" story (whatever the real truth that's what they have been telegraphing to the market). And I cant recall anyone speculatinig in earnest that the MSRP would EVERY be below $500 (maybe some hoped for $300 but I dont think anyone thought sub 500 was realistic to start). For the better part of a year now the speculation has ceratinly been in the $500 to $1000 range. I'm not sure if you guys in the "it costs too much to be mass market" camp think $500 wold be acceptable but I dont think that's any more mass market with the monthly fee then $800. To get mass market with a monthly fee you need to be down in the range of the S2's and the sac on those might be too high as it is if I'm understanding all the points of view here.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> I think you are a bit early to be so pessimistic on teh S2- a significant majority of the population is still not HD- right now. THat will change in the coming months and years but at this point there are more potential customers with sd than HD. WHen that changes then there is a problem and tivo needs to be able to change with it.
> 
> I also dont think they view their cable deals as cannabilistic. They have said time and time again they dont like to be a hardware company. They want to sell software. Getting into cable lets them move to that model and that's where they want to be. THey wont depress total subs just tivo owned subs. IT's debatable what s more important but it seems HDTivo and CHuckybox who are both far more versed in think subject than I think market share is more important then margin. (plese correct if I'm wrong- I'm mostly going by HD's comments about selling soda's) So getting more "tivo powered" subs out there could be more important then have tivo 'owned' subs.
> 
> I beleive you when you say you hoped the S3 would drive sub growth but I dont know why you would come to that coclusion logically when over the past year or so tivo has gone on the record with their "not subsizing, high end" story (whatever the real truth that's what they have been telegraphing to the market). And I cant recall anyone speculatinig in earnest that the MSRP would EVERY be below $500 (maybe some hoped for $300 but I dont think anyone thought sub 500 was realistic to start). For the better part of a year now the speculation has ceratinly been in the $500 to $1000 range. I'm not sure if you guys in the "it costs too much to be mass market" camp think $500 wold be acceptable but I dont think that's any more mass market with the monthly fee then $800. To get mass market with a monthly fee you need to be down in the range of the S2's and the sac on those might be too high as it is if I'm understanding all the points of view here.


I think again we're moving closer to agreement.

My point is that they haven't done enough to partner with MSOs soon enough. Now it's a game of catch-up after MSOs already have a product in the market. Since tiVo will need something in return, that obviously introduces cost for the MSOs to either eat or defray. Add to this that the general public things an SA8300HD is a "TiVo" and they don't understand the large difference between them from a service perspective. Then, many who do understand don't care because they don't want to pay the premium.

What that leaves me with is the belief that TiVo made a terrible mistake with the S3. It was a product that (even assuming that SAC would get worse), had the ability to generate large sub growth. It is the first - and only - TiVo product that can compete head to head with the SA8300HD or Moxi. MSOs can point out the feature/function gap between their products and the S2 easily - even though we'll all agree that the S2 interface and service from a quality perspective is far superior.

I also watched (with terror) the early pricing indicators of the S3 ($1K +). I simply hoped that since the market was changing so rapidly, TiVo would "get it". They didn't.

So, what they now have is a short term strategy so that they don't lose their arse on SAC with the s3, but have to sacrifice their future to do it. They'd have been FAR better off working much harder to establish partnerships with more MSOs (and with Moto/SA) as well as significantly subsidizing the S3. The more people who see the service difference between TiVo and the alternatives, the better it is for them. That will drive growth. I am dismayed that while the S3 could have been the savior for TiVo, it may in fact turn out to be one of the proverbial nails. i want a healthy TiVo but can't for the life of me see how that can continue. They cannot operate at a loss forever and stick around.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> It will be much cheaper and more profitable for TiVo to add advertising eyballs through Comcast and Cox than it would be through the standalone products.


ABSOLUTELY! The problem is that they only agreed for Moto products to my knowledge (which is a subset of Comcast and Cox). And, that they did it way to late. And, that there are no partnerships with Moto and/or SA. Just with the MSOs to my knowledge.

That is their core market - service. Not HW. They really missed the boat in capitalizing on that market when they had a chance. Now, MSOs have competitive product in the market so it's a much more difficult proposition to get a strong agreement in place for TiVo.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

My expectation is that sales of the S3 will drop like a rock once the diehard existing Tivo customers stop buying. If Tivo can't sell SD DT's when they are free, they sure aren't going to be selling S3's for $800 a pop. 

Someone way back in this thread said they hope sub growth would at least equal the DTV losses. I think pigs have a better chance of flying. If you look at the numbers standalone subgrowth has stagnated, while DTV losses are escalating rapidly.

Tivo is going to need major Comcast subs next year before we see net sub growth stop declining. If Comcast subs will optionally choose to pay for the Tivo upgrade every month is a major question in my mind and could very well determine Tivo's future. I just can't see many cable subs agreeing to pay $5 extra a month for Tivo software when that same $5 could get them more channels. On top of that only Comcast areas that use Motoroola boxes will be eligible next year.

And keep in mind that every DTV DVR sub was a Tivo sub. But only a few Comcast DVR subs will be Tivo subs. Much like DTV subs, Tivo will only get $1 month from Comcast subs. So they will need a boat load of them to generate significant revenue.

I'm tempted to conclude the S3 was a major distraction for Tivo at this point. They can't afford to subsidize the hardwrae they way cable and sat companies can. No matter much you love Tivo most consumers are not going to buy an expensive S3 when they can get an HR20 for $99. And it doesn't appear the S3 is any better quality than the HR20 today.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> I think again we're moving closer to agreement.
> 
> My point is that they haven't done enough to partner with MSOs soon enough. Now it's a game of catch-up after MSOs already have a product in the market. Since tiVo will need something in return, that obviously introduces cost for the MSOs to either eat or defray. Add to this that the general public things an SA8300HD is a "TiVo" and they don't understand the large difference between them from a service perspective. Then, many who do understand don't care because they don't want to pay the premium.
> 
> ...


screwing up the MSO's is something they did years ago under the previous management. It takes time to catch up for those mistakes. I dont blame the current management for that- they were dealt the hand they have and have to deal with the reality of the situation as best they can.

I dont really see anyway the S3 can fix the past. The hardware I think just costs too darn much at this point in time for them to do much by way of mass market.

Since it costs so much currently they basically have 3 choices:

Status quo- sell it for maybe $250- 350 at around the current SAC rate as the S2's - still WAY too high for mass market acceptance- seems they still wouldn't sell big but have high sac.

lowball- Run the SAC at like 2-3 times the current rate in an attempt to get it in the 0-99 range that might make it mass market acceptable but take years of service fees to get back the lost sac- hoping the hardware is used that long and is not supplanted by tivo's own OCAP or 2-way CC box or some competitor who can do 2-way before they make back their loss.- seems really ugly to me.

Make a profit- sell it for the Current MSRP of $800 and go with the "high end" moniker.

I'd vote the profit route is the way to go- but I dont think any of those 3 choices is a good thing.

Personally I would have preferred they subsidize it to the same degree as the S2's - cause I'd have 2 right now instead of one. But I can see there decision to go the profit route since the S3 probably cant hit mass market price levels right now without putting them in hock in a big way.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

some neat thoughts



HiDefGator said:


> My expectation is that sales of the S3 will drop like a rock once the diehard existing Tivo customers stop buying. If Tivo can't sell SD DT's when they are free, they sure aren't going to be selling S3's for $800 a pop.
> ...


I expect exactly that myself. I dont think you will ever see them for free or anything but I can see them getting to the point where they subsidize them equal to a DT and that gets you do something like half the price of it today without even factoring any drops in manufacturing costs that happen over time.



> My expectation is that sales of the S3 will drop like a rock once the diehard existing Tivo customers stop buying. If Tivo can't sell SD DT's when they are free, they sure aren't going to be selling S3's for $800 a pop.
> 
> Someone way back in this thread said they hope sub growth would at least equal the DTV losses. I think pigs have a better chance of flying. If you look at the numbers standalone subgrowth has stagnated, while DTV losses are escalating rapidly.
> 
> ...


agreed fat chance of making up the DIrectv subs without major adds from comcast/cox.

I also agree that tivo add-on's are likely to be a smaller subset of the cable dvr subs. But one big positive is once they get the software done for moto they basically provide it to half the cable subs in the country in a very short matter of time. Assuming the head end resources needed are minimal then they should be able to make deals with just about any operator fairly easily to revenue share any subs that tivo can get to add the option. They could walk into the hundreds of smaller companies and say they will go 50/50 with the operator on the $5 monthly fee- what would the downside be to the operator? They would make more money for doing nothing.

I also I wonder whether a moto DVR with a cablecard could then be added to an SA system. Assuming that the FCC forces the move to cablecard and cable companies have to buy DVR's with CC slots anyhow then tivo might not need to make software for SA STB's- instead just make a version of whatever headend resources are needed that can work on SA headends and then comcast could hand out MOTO cablecard DVR's with TIvo software on SA systems. IS that plausible?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> ...
> 
> I'm tempted to conclude the S3 was a major distraction for Tivo at this point. They can't afford to subsidize the hardwrae they way cable and sat companies can. No matter much you love Tivo most consumers are not going to buy an expensive S3 when they can get an HR20 for $99. And it doesn't appear the S3 is any better quality than the HR20 today.


It's tough to figure. But clearly they spend a TON of time and money to develop the thing. It wont be mass market anytime soon so it will take some time to pay that back if at ever. I wonder if they view it as a stepping stone or learning experience in opencable that they needed to do for the future? Or maybe they kept saying to themselves "we spent x million and y years already, why not spent a few million and a few months more at this point to get it done" and X and Y just kept getting bigger.

I'm happy as hell that they made it and as above I think for them the $800 was a good release price. But I do wonder if it was the best they could have done with their resources.

I guess hindsight is always 20/20


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> some neat thoughts
> 
> I expect exactly that myself. I dont think you will ever see them for free or anything but I can see them getting to the point where they subsidize them equal to a DT and that gets you do something like half the price of it today without even factoring any drops in manufacturing costs that happen over time.
> 
> ...


I can answer some of your questions. First, if you're defining "a very short matter of time" as anything less than a year, you're wildly optimistic. Here's the scoop - straight from the mouth of SA (who I had a conference call with this past Friday). SA generally requires a minimum of 6 months to deliver new code to an MSO for every single product regardless of the depth of the feature/function set that is being modified. Once it's provided to the MSO there is yet further testing required by the MSO before the MSO will release it to the public. That first 6 months starts AFTER detailed requirements are set in order to create the technical specification. The larger the feature/function set, and the more core functionality is changed, the longer the window. That's why users see very very infrequent code upgrades for example with the Moxi or 8300. Introducing TiVo based code into the product line is extremely time consuming from a testing perspective, so those windows widen even further.

That gets to a second issue - which also frankly affects CC. Each MSO (in particular with the SARA based systems - I'm less familiar with Moto) can and does modify compiled code on their own devices, creating normally multiple iterations of testing and debugging between the MSOs and SA/Moto.

Finally, you need to add to all of that that the MSO uses a separate Service Portal to manage interactive feature controls, which sits on top of everything else. Of course, that's also versioned and must then be included in full regression and integration testing with proposed platform releases.

That also answers your last question. To my knowledge, you will not be able to add a CC or TiVo equipped Moto device to a headend using SARA and the SA portal.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> screwing up the MSO's is something they did years ago under the previous management. It takes time to catch up for those mistakes. I dont blame the current management for that- they were dealt the hand they have and have to deal with the reality of the situation as best they can.
> 
> I dont really see anyway the S3 can fix the past. The hardware I think just costs too darn much at this point in time for them to do much by way of mass market.
> 
> ...


Well, I agree that with respect to the S3 you're right about the options. However, I think that they again (not to empasize it too much) absolutely needed to make the S3 relevant and a potential game changer - even if that meant taking huge losses and sacrificing already poor SAC.

I actually would disagree that pricing wouldn't have had a larger effect. I'd be willing to bet that were the S3 widely available, reliable, and priced at less than $350, you'd see a huge difference. Do I think they'd keep up with the cheap SA or Moto devices? No. But, they'd preserve far more market share and more likely retain a lot more subs that will absolutely leave TiVo because of the lack of a relevant product. To put a point on it - not having a reasonable HD entry will kill TiVo as we know it.

In my opinion they had no real choice if they wanted to play this game other than to lower the price. Not doing so for me means that they've either given up and are just marking time, or they're just as bad at managing the company as the former leaders are.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

winpitt said:


> And, TiVo has only limited partnerships with no delivered product for Comcast and Cox yet to my knowledge. When they do deliver then it's cannabilization again to further depress subs.


This is another important point. A TiVo box generates several dollars of gravy per month. The software version will only get them about $1-$2 or so.

How much churn will be generated by people switching to the software box?



MichaelK said:


> I'm not sure either of those are going to cause massive increases in churn either (although as you guys point out it's so low and change can make a big blip)).
> 
> For the DT- I think many people would just add a DT. Folks with 2 SA's might go to 1 DT and one single tuner. But I'd GUESS most people into tivo enough to buy a new box would be into tivo enough to spend 6.95 to get another tv hooked up. Just a guess though.
> 
> Also- do you really think CC PC's are going to make a huge move? that's not exactly a lateral move from an SD standalone. It might be free but you would have to cough up $500 or 1000 or more to get a vista approved HTPC- and we're in this thread debating that $800 is or isn't too much to ask people to pay. So I think the only real people that jump to that are people that are S3 type customers and I'd think most people getting S3's now are either aware enough that CC HTPC's are on the way so they would wait or oblivious enough that it wont matter when they come out. If the speculation above is that S3's adds are in the tens of thousands how many are going to bail right away to get an HTPC with CC? People might pick HTPC over S3, but that would just slow sales I'd think.


You are talking about "many" people and I am talking about .1%, .2%. That leaves lots of room for me to be right.

Yes I think CC equiped PCs are going to be a significant force and add another layer of competition to TiVo. TiVo is even more vulnerable as long as MRV/TTCG is disabled.


----------



## SteveHC (Oct 21, 2006)

My first S1 box was $419.99 + lifetime sub $199.00. 6 1/2 years later S3 with 2 tuners, vastly improved PQ and Audio, and a much larger hard drive , seems fairly priced to me at $800.00 + $199.00 for lifetime sub. 

I wish I had known 15% off was coming when I bought last week, but I am happy with the S3 at $800.00. I think if the prices get much lower I consider a second, before the sub transfer deal ends.

Steve


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

SteveHC said:


> My first S1 box was $419.99 + lifetime sub $199.00. 6 1/2 years later S3 with 2 tuners, vastly improved PQ and Audio, and a much larger hard drive , seems fairly priced to me at $800.00 + $199.00 for lifetime sub.
> 
> I wish I had known 15% off was coming when I bought last week, but I am happy with the S3 at $800.00. I think if the prices get much lower I consider a second, before the sub transfer deal ends.
> 
> Steve


When you got your first S1 box, was it possible for you to get a free (no purchase price) dual tuner DVR with equal storage capacity, lifetime hardware maintenance and monthly fees that were at worst no higher and most typically lower than what you paid?

I hate to have to keep repeating it, but back then, TiVo owned the market. Today TiVo is barely staying in the market. Can't compare then and now based on just pure unit price between two TiVo units.

For you - and perhaps me - it may sound fair. To the general consumer, it is absolutely mindblowingly ridiculous.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> Someone way back in this thread said they hope sub growth would at least equal the DTV losses. I think pigs have a better chance of flying. If you look at the numbers standalone subgrowth has stagnated, while DTV losses are escalating rapidly.


I think that's me and I was refering to hoping Cable Software would at least replace lost DTV subs only. Also I don't expect the timing, at least at first, to favor TiVo.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Well, I agree that with respect to the S3 you're right about the options. However, I think that they again (not to empasize it too much) absolutely needed to make the S3 relevant and a potential game changer - even if that meant taking huge losses and sacrificing already poor SAC.
> 
> I actually would disagree that pricing wouldn't have had a larger effect. I'd be willing to bet that were the S3 widely available, reliable, and priced at less than $350, you'd see a huge difference. Do I think they'd keep up with the cheap SA or Moto devices? No. But, they'd preserve far more market share and more likely retain a lot more subs that will absolutely leave TiVo because of the lack of a relevant product. To put a point on it - not having a reasonable HD entry will kill TiVo as we know it.
> 
> In my opinion they had no real choice if they wanted to play this game other than to lower the price. Not doing so for me means that they've either given up and are just marking time, or they're just as bad at managing the company as the former leaders are.


Although their track record isn't encouraging, I'd like to wait and see how TiVo reacts pricing in the next month before I pronounce judgement. There are already signs of S3s being available for substantially less than $800 (ie. TCS for $680  ) I don't reject the $800 initial price, but I would reject keeping it in that area 'til T-Day.

*I want to see how they couple November's price reductions, advertising, and software release to be more effective.*

I do think that price reductions will make big differences in volume. $599 will be meaningful. $499 a good increment above that. At $300 (box fee, ie. about $369) I think the SAC about equals the S2 SAC. At $369 adoption will be impressive by TiVo's standards (assuming the S3's bugs/irritations are worked out.)

One reason I say the above, is that the S3 really does provide impressive quality video, especially in its recording and scaling SD analog content. Its a very nice addition to a quality A/V system.

Personally, I've been sold on keeping it for $680 via TCS.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> The box subsidy with the bundles is up about $69, or is it $99? over last year. Box prices at retail are down, but I don't know what happened with COGS.


It depends on how you look at it. The price difference between the 40-hour boxes and the 80s was always exaggerated, and the cost of an 80G drive is now less than a 40 was back when they still made the 40-hour box. They've probably also realized some savings by dropping the 40s and 140s and producing only the 80s. So I think the differrence overall is somewhat less than $69.

If things remain as they are, about 1/3 of subs will come at the bundled SAC, and 2/3 at the retail SAC, the hardware component of which I expect to be a bit less than last year.



> I think it'll approach 1% for Q3 and maybe 1.1% for Q4. You've got cases like replacing 1 or 2 SA STs with a DT. Later you've got CC enabled PCs.


You're not going out on a limb much there with those numbers -- it's been at or just below 1% for several quarters now. Though I don't see CC enabled PCs being an issue. There have been so many "TiVo killers" proclaimed at this point that it isn't worth considering them until they actually show an impact. MCE was supposed to kill TiVo, and now a more expensive and complicated system that is limited to new hardware platforms is going to? Not likely.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> You're not going out on a limb much there with those numbers -- it's been at or just below 1% for several quarters now. Though I don't see CC enabled PCs being an issue. There have been so many "TiVo killers" proclaimed at this point that it isn't worth considering them until they actually show an impact. MCE was supposed to kill TiVo, and now a more expensive and complicated system that is limited to new hardware platforms is going to? Not likely.


A couple more .1%s shouldn't be written up as killing TiVo.

I certainly wouldn't want to go out on a limb when I get what I need by hugging the tree.


----------



## SteveHC (Oct 21, 2006)

winpitt said:


> When you got your first S1 box, was it possible for you to get a free (no purchase price) dual tuner DVR with equal storage capacity, lifetime hardware maintenance and monthly fees that were at worst no higher and most typically lower than what you paid?
> 
> I hate to have to keep repeating it, but back then, TiVo owned the market. Today TiVo is barely staying in the market. Can't compare then and now based on just pure unit price between two TiVo units.
> 
> For you - and perhaps me - it may sound fair. To the general consumer, it is absolutely mindblowingly ridiculous.


I am an OTA only user. Just which comparable dual OTA tuner DVRs are there that compete with the S3, I must have missed them. Most of the HDTV's don't even include a second tuner. As far as the general consumer, Tivo has always been a premium product, there are plenty of successful businesses that focus exclusively on the high end market and do very well. Look at Apple and BMW.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

SteveHC said:


> I am an OTA only user. Just which comparable dual OTA tuner DVRs are there that compete with the S3, I must have missed them. Most of the HDTV's don't even include a second tuner. As far as the general consumer, Tivo has always been a premium product, there are plenty of successful businesses that focus exclusively on the high end market and do very well. Look at Apple and BMW.


What? You're comparing BMW and Apple with TiVo? Seriously, you're kidding, right?

First of all, BMW did NOT focus on the high end market. BMW built their company on products like the BMW 2002 (70s) which was far from a luxury or high end product. Second, their product line is very broad. Third, even BMW has realized that in todays market they must continue to sell to the middle market. Note the sales volume of the 325 and 330, which eclipse all other models by factors.

Apple is similar. Apple did NOT start by focusing on the high end market. Completely the opposite. As a matter of fact, high pricing is what just about killed Apple several times, and the requirement to have relevant, competitive products has been drilled into them.

Third, both of these companies deliver a product which does NOT completely rely on something like an MSO to operate.

Fourth, as an OTA only user, you are in the very very very small fraction of a minority of users that is statistically meaningless in terms of adoption. I'm not insulting you - that's just reality. NOBODY has any interest in that market. Not even most users. But, BTW: Dish delivered the 921 which had OTA HD dual tuner DVR capability going on two years ago.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

winpitt said:


> And your quote of savings is very unique. Most people would not be satisfied with OTA service. Most people are not. It is not an acceptable comparison.


I'm not an OTA user. I get all of the Comcast non-premium HD channels and save $30+ per month.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

c3 said:


> I'm not an OTA user. I get all of the Comcast non-premium HD channels and save $30+ per month.


OK, so please explain how in gods name you could possibly save $30 per month. It is not possible. Period. Let's make it simple - at least in this region.

1) You must still pay the TiVo fee - anywhere from $8.05 to $12.95 per month. Unless you're grandfathered in with lifetime service, where you still needed to pay $195 or whatever. And that has no effect for new customers, because they can't get that. It would only apply to people having lifetime service.

2) You may or may not still need to pay for leasing CC.

3) You may or may not still need to pay for outlet fees, mirroring.

4) You still had to purchase the S3.

5) At least here, the "content" is EXACTLY THE SAME PRICE!. I could have a DVR with non-premium digital service, and it's still $10.95 - $12.95 per month total.

At best, discounting the fact that you had to purchase the $800 unit up front, you MIGHT save about $4 per month. If you have to pay for items 2 or 3, that's done.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

I have already explained it before. In order to get Comcast DVR, I have to pay for: $15 limited basic, $35 expanded basic, $10 digital classic, and $10 DVR. That's $70/month. Limited basic gives you the OTA HD channels. Digital classic gives you all of the non-premium HD channels (Discovery, ESPN, TNT, etc.) With S3, I don't have to pay $35 for expanded basic (no HD content), but I do have to pay $1.50 for the CableCards.

This is in the San Francisco Bay Area, which I would consider a major Comcast market. Longer term, I may not even want to keep the $10 digital classic.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

winpitt said:


> OK, so please explain how in gods name you could possibly save $30 per month. It is not possible. Period. Let's make it simple - at least in this region.
> 
> 1) You must still pay the TiVo fee - anywhere from $8.05 to $12.95 per month. Unless you're grandfathered in with lifetime service, where you still needed to pay $195 or whatever. And that has no effect for new customers, because they can't get that. It would only apply to people having lifetime service.
> 
> ...


With replacing 1 standard digital cable box, and one Moxi DVR my cable bill has gone down $21.00/month. This is including adding on the 4 cable cards to my bill at $1.50 each. Basically I am looking at 95 months to actually break even on purchasing (2) series3 with lifetime transfer, if I cared about that. I don't, the aggravation of using the Moxi is worth the money, and the non-hassle of IR-blasting from the series 2 to the regular digital cable box is also gone, and with it the odd non-record due to the cable box not tuning to the right channel.

If I had replaced just the Moxi alone I would have saved less money, but dividing it into only $1000 (799 + 199 transfer) the break even time would be about 62 months.

Note: not really carrying on an argument with you, just throwing some real numbers into the mix as I have both before and after cable bills now.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Leo_N said:


> With replacing 1 standard digital cable box, and one Moxi DVR my cable bill has gone down $21.00/month. This is including adding on the 4 cable cards to my bill at $1.50 each. Basically I am looking at 95 months to actually break even on purchasing (2) series3 with lifetime transfer, if I cared about that. I don't, the aggravation of using the Moxi is worth the money, and the non-hassle of IR-blasting from the series 2 to the regular digital cable box is also gone, and with it the odd non-record due to the cable box not tuning to the right channel.
> 
> If I had replaced just the Moxi alone I would have saved less money, but dividing it into only $1000 (799 + 199 transfer) the break even time would be about 62 months.
> 
> Note: not really carrying on an argument with you, just throwing some real numbers into the mix as I have both before and after cable bills now.


95 months is a painfully long break-even as far as that goes. It shows the economics are not favorable.

I hope both S3s are still in service or have some eBay value by then.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> 95 months is a painfully long break-even as far as that goes. It shows the economics are not favorable.
> 
> I hope both S3s are still in service or have some eBay value by then.


Well, as I said in the post, I really didn't care about the break even point. Some things are worth paying a premium to have. My 2 S3s are worth that to me over the POS cable DVRs.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> 95 months is a painfully long break-even as far as that goes. It shows the economics are not favorable.
> 
> I hope both S3s are still in service or have some eBay value by then.


Seriously, who's trying to work this out as a financial break even? You're paying a premium for a better product. End of story. If you just want the cheapest alternative, then you shouldn't be in this forum.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

Leo_N said:


> Well, as I said in the post, I really didn't care about the break even point. Some things are worth paying a premium to have. My 2 S3s are worth that to me over the POS cable DVRs.


Yep, this is what I've been saying. The S3 is a premium product that commands a premium price. The economics might work out for some people so that they come out ahead, but the vast majority of S3 buyers will buy the box because it is what they want, and price will be a secondary consideration.

We can argue all we want about what TiVo should be doing, but the fact is the company is offering a nice product that most of us are very happy with, and the company, in one form or another, will be in business for years -- giving us plenty of time to get value out of the boxes we've purchased.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Leo_N said:


> Well, as I said in the post, I really didn't care about the break even point. Some things are worth paying a premium to have. My 2 S3s are worth that to me over the POS cable DVRs.


Right, 95 months is only the financial breakeven in your particular case. There are lots of other worthwhile benefits.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

jacksonian said:


> If you just want the cheapest alternative, then you shouldn't be in this forum.


So, how's the weather over there in North Korea? Winter cold must be around the corner.

Are the sanctions putting any bite on you Regime Fat Cats yet?


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> Right, 95 months is only the financial breakeven in your particular case. There are lots of other worthwhile benefits.


Yep, and 95 months was the breakeven for (2) S3s. It was about 62 months if I had just replaced the Moxi with one S3.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> So, how's the weather over there in North Korea? Winter cold must be around the corner.
> 
> Are the sanctions putting any bite on you Regime Fat Cats yet?


Was this supposed to be funny?


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Leo_N said:


> With replacing 1 standard digital cable box, and one Moxi DVR my cable bill has gone down $21.00/month. This is including adding on the 4 cable cards to my bill at $1.50 each. Basically I am looking at 95 months to actually break even on purchasing (2) series3 with lifetime transfer, if I cared about that. I don't, the aggravation of using the Moxi is worth the money, and the non-hassle of IR-blasting from the series 2 to the regular digital cable box is also gone, and with it the odd non-record due to the cable box not tuning to the right channel.
> 
> If I had replaced just the Moxi alone I would have saved less money, but dividing it into only $1000 (799 + 199 transfer) the break even time would be about 62 months.
> 
> Note: not really carrying on an argument with you, just throwing some real numbers into the mix as I have both before and after cable bills now.


Again, your explanation doesn't make sense. You replaced a cable box and a Moxi. Then you add in the TiVo service cost. Then add the cost for the CC. So you're misrepresenting the equation. Yes, your cable bill went down, but you have not accounted for the TiVo service fee.

So, again - absolutely no way.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jacksonian said:


> Seriously, who's trying to work this out as a financial break even? You're paying a premium for a better product. End of story. If you just want the cheapest alternative, then you shouldn't be in this forum.


And that is pure nonsense. Last time I checked the title of this thread was about whether or not $800 was a good introductory price. So you're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you shouldn't be on the board? Nice.

Paying a premium is fine. It is HOW MUCH of a premium that is being questioned.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> Yep, this is what I've been saying. The S3 is a premium product that commands a premium price. The economics might work out for some people so that they come out ahead, but the vast majority of S3 buyers will buy the box because it is what they want, and price will be a secondary consideration.
> 
> We can argue all we want about what TiVo should be doing, but the fact is the company is offering a nice product that most of us are very happy with, and the company, in one form or another, will be in business for years -- giving us plenty of time to get value out of the boxes we've purchased.


So for those of us here using a very near-sighted approach IMHO, the price may be worthwhile.

For general acceptance in the market, it is likely far too high.

Lack of acceptance in the market will result in less investment in the S3 from TiVo, possibly resulting in poor support.

That's how it could hurt us.


----------



## kido (Aug 17, 2006)

I think the market will determine for itself whether the price is too high or not. Frankly, seeing as how bestbuy.com has the series 3 on 1-2 week backorder, that is a pretty good indicator that $800 is an acceptable cost for a lot of people. Are you seeing stacks of unsold series 3's laying around your local electronics stores? At least that would support your opinion. This whole discussion reminds me of what was posted on slashdot when Apple released the first ipod. They all thought you couldn't sell an 10GB mp3 player with drm for $499. We know how that worked out for Apple.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

winpitt said:


> And that is pure nonsense. Last time I checked the title of this thread was about whether or not $800 was a good introductory price. So you're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you shouldn't be on the board? Nice.


No, that's not what I'm saying. You seem to be the one here who enjoys slamming every post that disagrees with you with your *definitive* declarations. With the "near-sighted", and "just nonsense" posts, but wait, that's only your last two. We can certainly go back further if you'd like.

I said-- if you're trying to make this work out as a good financial break even vs. an inferior cable dvr, then you don't belong in this forum.

But I am questioning why YOU are here, other than to keep declaring that you are correct and that everyone else here is near-sighted and posting nonsense.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

winpitt said:


> For general acceptance in the market, it is likely far too high.


That's what's wrong with your whole "argument", the word *likely*. You have absolutely nothing to back up your point.

I can back up my point by:
a) being the target market
b) having purchase one already and will order my 2nd from TCF this weekend

As far as I can see, that's a successful launch for TiVo. Their market buying their product.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jacksonian said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying. You seem to be the one here who enjoys slamming every post that disagrees with you with your *definitive* declarations. With the "near-sighted", and "just nonsense" posts, but wait, that's only your last two. We can certainly go back further if you'd like.
> 
> I said-- if you're trying to make this work out as a good financial break even vs. an inferior cable dvr, then you don't belong in this forum.
> 
> But I am questioning why YOU are here, other than to keep declaring that you are correct and that everyone else here is near-sighted and posting nonsense.


So now everyone else here feels the same way? And you decide who belongs in the forum? How nice for you.

I'm not "slamming" anyone. This post is about whether $800 is a good introductory price. Not about a question as to whether the S3 is better than a Moxi or 8300.

I AM questioning people making claims such as they're saving $30 per month and getting the same content by using a TiVo. In other words, their numbers are at the very least highly questionable and not easily explained.

It's very interesting that the folks that keep defending the $800 price, and TiVo in general no matter what are the ones who then go on a personal attack.

I said that you indicating that I shouldn't be on this forum is nonsense. And it is.

I used the term "near-sighted" including myself, as I'm still interested in purchasing an S3.

The question is about the longer term. You don't seem to want to discuss logic. You'd rather just insult people and ban them from the forum.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jacksonian said:


> That's what's wrong with your whole "argument", the word *likely*. You have absolutely nothing to back up your point.
> 
> I can back up my point by:
> a) being the target market
> ...


And as already mentioned, the question is NOT whether you or I would purchase the S3. My point (also shared by others - though certainly not you) is that TiVo will not see "large" or "widespread" consumer adoption as a result of the pricing. That further, even if it is their intent to have only the very high end market targeted, that is a flawed strategy for TiVo which has negative effects for us.

The difference in our opinions is that while I'm willing to consider the S3 and pay for it, I'm not emotionally attached to either it - or TiVo. I'm OK with the fact that while I may personally be willing to pay for it, that doesn't mean that it's a good business decision for TiVo, or frankly a good decision by me.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

c3 said:


> I have already explained it before. In order to get Comcast DVR, I have to pay for: $15 limited basic, $35 expanded basic, $10 digital classic, and $10 DVR. That's $70/month. Limited basic gives you the OTA HD channels. Digital classic gives you all of the non-premium HD channels (Discovery, ESPN, TNT, etc.) With S3, I don't have to pay $35 for expanded basic (no HD content), but I do have to pay $1.50 for the CableCards.
> 
> This is in the San Francisco Bay Area, which I would consider a major Comcast market. Longer term, I may not even want to keep the $10 digital classic.


So a couple things. First, you're leaving out (as mentioned twice before thus far) the TiVo service costs.

Also, Comcast seems to be a bit different in your area - at least different than here with respect to what you need to subscribe to in order to get the DVR.

Finally, you need to recognize that your "discount" solution does not include content (expanded basic) which your pervoius solution did. That may make sense for lots of people and not for others. But it is an apples to oranges comparison since the content is different - unless you stated that up front.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

kido said:


> I think the market will determine for itself whether the price is too high or not. Frankly, seeing as how bestbuy.com has the series 3 on 1-2 week backorder, that is a pretty good indicator that $800 is an acceptable cost for a lot of people. Are you seeing stacks of unsold series 3's laying around your local electronics stores? At least that would support your opinion. This whole discussion reminds me of what was posted on slashdot when Apple released the first ipod. They all thought you couldn't sell an 10GB mp3 player with drm for $499. We know how that worked out for Apple.


Actually you can take a look at threads and see that the launch was screwed up logistically. My BB got a grand total of 3 (three) units. Does the fact that they sold 3 so far make it an "in demand" product?

Again, comparing the S3 to an iPod is just plain crazy. Apples and elephants.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

winpitt said:


> Again, your explanation doesn't make sense. You replaced a cable box and a Moxi. Then you add in the TiVo service cost. Then add the cost for the CC. So you're misrepresenting the equation. Yes, your cable bill went down, but you have not accounted for the TiVo service fee.
> 
> So, again - absolutely no way.


Actually yes I did. I took (2 x $799) + (2 x $199) = $1,996.00

My cable bill is 20.89/month cheaper including adding the cable card charges on.

1996/20.89 = 95.55 months to break even. And again, let me also state, I didn't really care if I broke even or not, I am willing to pay a premium for better equipment/service.

Now I'm not saying it's worth it to everyone, just throwing some hard numbers into the mix. None of these numbers are estimates.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Leo_N said:


> Actually yes I did. I took (2 x $799) + (2 x $199) = $1,996.00
> 
> My cable bill is 20.89/month cheaper including adding the cable card charges on.
> 
> ...


So I'm assuming that you had lifetime which you transferred?

I also agree that I also don't care about break-even. Wouldn't be currently testing cc and considering S3 if I were.

The discussion isn't in my mind about you or I. It's about users beyond us die-hard TiVo nuts. TiVo can't depend on us to sustain the business.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

winpitt said:


> So I'm assuming that you had lifetime which you transferred?
> 
> I also agree that I also don't care about break-even. Wouldn't be currently testing cc and considering S3 if I were.
> 
> The discussion isn't in my mind about you or I. It's about users beyond us die-hard TiVo nuts. TiVo can't depend on us to sustain the business.


Correct, I had 2 Series2 units with lifetime. I'll also agree Tivo can't depend on us for the long haul. But I'd still say $800 is a good starting spot. To me this is because with all the problems they've had with launching to a mostly tech-savvy group, the disaster would have been much much greater with a larger launch. I do think that they will need to start lowering the price and trying to increase market share in a hurry though.

I see the $800 price as any other tech launch.... put some desire in a few people, charge them high, and then start bringing in people on a sliding scale of downward price/higher quantity. Look at Razr phones from like 3 years ago, they were like $500, the same phone today is what, $30?

Sure people get pissed off because they feel they are being victimized for an initial higher cost, but hey, welcome to capitalism.

Not all that little dialog was aimed at your response either, just posting some other thoughts along with response to you.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

I haven't insulted anyone or banned anyone from anything. Your ridiculous exagerrations is what is nonsense here.


----------



## kido (Aug 17, 2006)

winpitt said:


> My BB got a grand total of 3 (three) units. Does the fact that they sold 3 so far make it an "in demand" product?


Yes.



winpitt said:


> Again, comparing the S3 to an iPod is just plain crazy. Apples and elephants.


I'm not comparing the S3 to the iPod. I'm comparing you to the people on slashdot who claimed the launch of a "never going to accepted in the marketplace due to high cost and limited functionality" mp3 player a failure before they had even seen one.

TiVo set the price where they did, and as far as I can tell they are selling like hotcakes.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

kido said:


> TiVo set the price where they did, and as far as I can tell they are selling like hotcakes.


I don't think anyone but Tivo knows today just how many are selling. They may or may not be selling like hot cakes. The other question is can they sustain those sales after the Tivo faithful that would have paid practically anything for one stop buying.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

winpitt said:


> So a couple things. First, you're leaving out (as mentioned twice before thus far) the TiVo service costs.
> 
> Also, Comcast seems to be a bit different in your area - at least different than here with respect to what you need to subscribe to in order to get the DVR.
> 
> Finally, you need to recognize that your "discount" solution does not include content (expanded basic) which your pervoius solution did. That may make sense for lots of people and not for others. But it is an apples to oranges comparison since the content is different - unless you stated that up front.


I'm not leaving out/ignoring the TiVo service cost. There are different costs: $12.95, $6.95, multi-year prepay, lifetime, etc. Whoever wants to do the comparison can include an appropriate number.

You can say Comcast is different in my area. I can say Comcast is different in your area. San Francisco Bay Area cannot be the only one with such pricing structure.

Some people want to buy apples instead of oranges. I have already seen many people asking if HD channels are included in limited basic. I have never had expanded basic ever since I bought my first TV.

As long as TiVo is selling as many S3s as they can make it, it's a good price. They can always lower the price when the demand goes down.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> So for those of us here using a very near-sighted approach IMHO, the price may be worthwhile.
> 
> For general acceptance in the market, it is likely far too high.
> 
> ...


sorry, but that is just silly that TiVo will be providing less support to the S3.
TiVo has deliberately priced high to make money on the hardware and have deliberately only put a certain amount of S3 into the distribution chain.
They are executing a specific plan for the S3 as a premium product. The price will very likely go down at some point to gain more sales but not because they are looking for mainstream acceptance.

so lack of acceptance in the market will not result in a change by TiVo, but lack of executing their business plan. You or I have no idea what number of units sold that plan entails but it looks to me like TiVo is selling according to its plan based on no units sitting in the suply chain.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jacksonian said:


> I haven't insulted anyone or banned anyone from anything. Your ridiculous exagerrations is what is nonsense here.


Well, you suggested I don't belong on this forum.

And I have not exagerated. I'm just not all emotional about my purchase I guess. I'm not saying that people "should not" buy the S3. I'm not saying that some people "won't" buy the S3.

I'm saying that the market (analysts and investors) question the overall TiVo strategy. That SAC has worsened. That sub growth is a real problem. That TiVo had/has a chance to have a meaningful product that might help regain some sort of market leadership, and that the introductory price is squandering that possibility.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> sorry, but that is just silly that TiVo will be providing less support to the S3.
> TiVo has deliberately priced high to make money on the hardware and have deliberately only put a certain amount of S3 into the distribution chain.
> They are executing a specific plan for the S3 as a premium product. The price will very likely go down at some point to gain more sales but not because they are looking for mainstream acceptance.
> 
> so lack of acceptance in the market will not result in a change by TiVo, but lack of executing their business plan. You or I have no idea what number of units sold that plan entails but it looks to me like TiVo is selling according to its plan based on no units sitting in the suply chain.


Sorry, but that would be an incorrect assumption. Let me give you a first hand case that is exactly the same and bears the same potential result.

Dishnet needed a dual tuner HD DVR. They released the 921. However, they had two problems. First, the price was high - $599 as I recall. Second, that as with the S3 there were reports of some software issues. For the record, the 921 was also a dual tuner HD (for DBS) as well as OTA - it could record in HD from all of those sources.

As a result of lack of adoption (even though a bunch were sold it did not become sufficiently mainstream and was a minor player) Dish end of lifed the 921. R&D as well as maintenance/support was cut way back, and instead those resources were reallocated to other products.

Also for the record, the 921 sold like hotcakes to the Dishnet faithful who just had to have it. Then once it got beyond that group, it died.

That is absolutely similar to what could happen here. To suggest that this is "silly" is a grossly optimistic belief.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

BTW: I was one of those "faithful" who bought the 921. I lived it.

Also, AGAIN as others have mentioned, many (including me) question (again) TiVo's business strategy. As do analysts.

Also, just about everyone on the planet has agreed that TiVo's core strength is in service - not hardware. And that fundamental to service is sub growth. 

This so-called strategy is completely contrary to such a belief.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

winpitt said:


> I'm just not all emotional about my purchase I guess.


C'mon, man!! This is TIVO!!!!! You have to get emotional!!!


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jacksonian said:


> C'mon, man!! This is TIVO!!!!! You have to get emotional!!!


Nah, I understand and am definitely a early adopter gadget kind of guy with disposable income that gets me into trouble (especially with the wife). That's why I'm "personally" thinking hard about getting the s3. Truth be told, I was really looking forward to it and was seriously caught by surprise that TiVo didn't get smarter about the cost. I figured the issue would be that I wouldn't be able to find one - not that they'd be that expensive. Having been burnt before in a VERY similar situation I'm not relishing the likelihood that it may happen again.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Sorry, but that would be an incorrect assumption. Let me give you a first hand case that is exactly the same and bears the same potential result.
> 
> Dishnet needed a dual tuner HD DVR. They released the 921.


It is not the same. TiVo also is coming from a long software line of S1 to S2 to S3 - they havea very proven UI and strong reliability factor. The 921 had no such lineage adn so was easily abandoned for a different approach by the company.

The cost will not doom the S3, it may be deals TiVo makes with MSOs that leaves a stand alone HD model redundent but I think you are just looking at this all wrong.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> It is not the same. TiVo also is coming from a long software line of S1 to S2 to S3 - they havea very proven UI and strong reliability factor. The 921 had no such lineage adn so was easily abandoned for a different approach by the company.
> 
> The cost will not doom the S3, it may be deals TiVo makes with MSOs that leaves a stand alone HD model redundent but I think you are just looking at this all wrong.


OK so for the sake of discussion...

Dish ALSO has a record of strong software for DVRs. The 5xx series (which I had 3 of) were extremely reliable - actually more reliable than any DVR I've ever touched. The UI is certainly not anywhere near TiVo of course. The 921 came from that same lineage. It was also cheaper than the S3.

TiVo could just as easily make a decision (with good reason) that they can no longer compete at the HW level, and abandon it for a different approach. Actually, from a financial perspective (and to SOMETIME actually earn a profit) TiVo should long ago sought out far more aggresively contracts with MSOs. Now may be too late.

Again - not saying that this WILL happen, but that if the S3 does not see adoption for more than just the very high end TiVo enthusiast, financial constraints will most certainly affect the depth of R&D and support allocated to it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

winpitt said:


> Again - not saying that this WILL happen, but that if the S3 does not see adoption for more than just the very high end TiVo enthusiast, financial constraints will most certainly affect the depth of R&D and support allocated to it.


TiVo has said they deliberately positioned the S3 as a high end product and will make money from the sale of hardware itself.

The trick is that they can R&D on the whole hardware line as far as software features goes becasue it will all end up being the same code base across S2 and S3. So if you want to say TiVo has the wrong buisness strategy, that is one thing, but if you want to say they have to sell S3 to a lot of people to execute it then that is just ignoring the very business strategy TiVo has stated.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

winpitt said:


> Well, you suggested I don't belong on this forum.
> 
> And I have not exagerated. I'm just not all emotional about my purchase I guess. I'm not saying that people "should not" buy the S3. I'm not saying that some people "won't" buy the S3.


Not emotional?

So you go onto the web boards of your microwave's company and explain to everybody how their business practices aren't any good.

Just the fact that you're here talking about how good/bad the business strategy of your consumer electronic product kinda proves you are emotional about the product no?

-smak-


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

I'll agree with winpitt that the best case scenario for TiVo long ago would have been to sell the UI/features to MSOs everywhere and get out of the hardware business. But I'm not privileged to the reasons that they didn't or couldn't. Perhaps the MSOs said no thanks, I don't know. 

But at this point, it is what it is, that ship has sailed. And I for one will keep paying for TiVo as long as they'll keep making them for me.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

smak said:


> Just the fact that you're here talking about how good/bad the business strategy of your consumer electronic product kinda proves you are emotional about the product no?


No, man, you got it all wrong. It's all about making a purchase decision, and endless hours of arguing with a bunch of people about the long-term viability of TiVo, cablecards, the Series 3 itself, and whether or not it is ever possible for an S3 to pay for itself vs. a cable DVR are all part of the normal process. Jebus, man, think of the children. Don't you realize the consequences if, say, three years from now a meteor were to hit TiVo HQ? You'd be out like $800 because your S3 might not get any more service updates. How would you feed your children then? Huh? But if that same meteor hit your cable company, you could just sign up for Dish. If everyone did that, then maybe, just maybe, a few less kids would go to bed hungry in some hypothetical future with a lot of unfortunate meteor impacts. Think about that next time before you post.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> No, man, you got it all wrong. It's all about making a purchase decision, and endless hours of arguing with a bunch of people about the long-term viability of TiVo, cablecards, the Series 3 itself, and whether or not it is ever possible for an S3 to pay for itself vs. a cable DVR are all part of the normal process. Jebus, man, think of the children. Don't you realize the consequences if, say, three years from now a meteor were to hit TiVo HQ? You'd be out like $800 because your S3 might not get any more service updates. How would you feed your children then? Huh? But if that same meteor hit your cable company, you could just sign up for Dish. If everyone did that, then maybe, just maybe, a few less kids would go to bed hungry in some hypothetical future with a lot of unfortunate meteor impacts. Think about that next time before you post.


I thought it was all about writing like a sell side analyst.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HDTiVo said:


> ...
> You are talking about "many" people and I am talking about .1%, .2%. That leaves lots of room for me to be right.
> ....


good point- i lost track of the order of magnitude involved.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> ...
> 
> I actually would disagree that pricing wouldn't have had a larger effect. I'd be willing to bet that were the S3 widely available, reliable, and priced at less than $350, you'd see a huge difference. Do I think they'd keep up with the cheap SA or Moto devices? No. But, they'd preserve far more market share and more likely retain a lot more subs that will absolutely leave TiVo because of the lack of a relevant product. To put a point on it - not having a reasonable HD entry will kill TiVo as we know it.
> ....


I dont think so- but there's no reason their plan might not be to drop the price to $350 on March 1.

They charged $99 for HMO when it came out- in something like 12 months time it was 100% less (AKA free). They either changed their mind on pricing really fast or they decided to tax the early adopters for whatever they could. There's no reason the S3 launch couldn't be the same.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> I dont think so- but there's no reason their plan might not be to drop the price to $350 on March 1.


Maybe March 1, 2008.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> ...
> 
> I AM questioning people making claims such as they're saving $30 per month and getting the same content by using a TiVo. In other words, their numbers are at the very least highly questionable and not easily explained.
> 
> ....


Winpitt-

maye you aren't following but those folks are trying to say that to get the cable company DVR they are forced to buy a lot of content that they dont want. By getting a tivo they can avoid paying for all that bundled stuff. That's how it saves them 20 or 30 or 40 bucks.

they NEVER say they are "getting the same content" as you point out that is impossible. Some people might save a few bucks getting the "same content" but 20, 30, or 40 clearly isn't getting the same content- its gettign the content those people want with a DVR.

Myself- i'm not one of them- I actually buy MORE from my cable company then I would without an S3.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

HDTiVo said:


> I thought it was all about writing like a sell side analyst.


Sell side analysts can't write. Most of them can barely read.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

HiDefGator said:


> ... The other question is can they sustain those sales after the Tivo faithful that would have paid practically anything for one stop buying.


I not even sure that matters.

I assume you mean can they sustain the current sales pace at this current MSRP.

What if they plan to drop the price to keep up the sales rate? We just dont know.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

winpitt said:


> BTW: I was one of those "faithful" who bought the 921. I lived it.
> ....


a lot of ammo in that post...


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

MichaelK said:


> What if they plan to drop the price to keep up the sales rate? We just dont know.


Maybe they'll raise the price. The $800 might just be an introductory price so that the TiVo faithful can get one before they raise the price to $1600 in order to attract the high-end buyers. $800 is kind of an insult to people who pay that much for a single ten-foot speaker cable. Who's going to put junk like that in a rack with their Krell monoblock amplifiers? Hmm, maybe $2500 would be a better choice.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Maybe March 1, 2008.


as I said- I dont believe it will happen march 1, 2007.

But to complain about their plan when we dont even know it is a little funny to me....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Maybe they'll raise the price. The $800 might just be an introductory price so that the TiVo faithful can get one before they raise the price to $1600 in order to attract the high-end buyers. $800 is kind of an insult to people who pay that much for a single ten-foot speaker cable. Who's going to put junk like that in a rack with their Krell monoblock amplifiers? Hmm, maybe $2500 would be a better choice.


could be - one never knows- do one?


----------



## Jerry_K (Feb 7, 2002)

I had a Dishplayer, my wife did not even use it once. Dish got it so screwed up I had to do restarts every half hour or so. I switched to DirecTiVo WOW, wife will not watch TV if there is no TiVo. She has two DirecTiVo series 2 units filled with season passes. I have a third sitting by just to record the odd thing she comes up with when four tuners are busy. 

Now I have an HDTV with great reception of HD over the air. I wouldn't touch any other brand of DVR with a hundred yard long pole. My wife asked this week, "Why haven't you gotten a TiVo for the new TV?" I told her they were too expensive. Just waiting for the price to come down. 

And it is just a bit. Right here at TiVo Community it is already 15% off.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> I dont think so- but there's no reason their plan might not be to drop the price to $350 on March 1.





ChuckyBox said:


> Maybe March 1, 2008.


Or Fall '07 with a 400GB drive, and a 750GB version for $500.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

ChuckyBox said:


> Maybe they'll raise the price. The $800 might just be an introductory price so that the TiVo faithful can get one before they raise the price to $1600 in order to attract the high-end buyers. $800 is kind of an insult to people who pay that much for a single ten-foot speaker cable. Who's going to put junk like that in a rack with their Krell monoblock amplifiers? Hmm, maybe $2500 would be a better choice.


I don't know why they sell to the general public at all. S3s should be restricted to Party Members.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> as I said- I dont believe it will happen march 1, 2007.
> 
> But to complain about their plan when we dont even know it is a little funny to me....


I thought we were just *worrying * about it.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

smak said:


> Not emotional?
> 
> So you go onto the web boards of your microwave's company and explain to everybody how their business practices aren't any good.
> 
> ...


What? My "microwaver's company"? WTH are you talking about?

No, this is a very fact and logic based discussion. What I really "want" to happen, what will "likely" happen and what "might" happen are all quite different. I am absolutely unemotional about this discussion.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> Winpitt-
> 
> maye you aren't following but those folks are trying to say that to get the cable company DVR they are forced to buy a lot of content that they dont want. By getting a tivo they can avoid paying for all that bundled stuff. That's how it saves them 20 or 30 or 40 bucks.
> 
> ...


 Then that's what they should say - that in their case they want less content, and the S3 allows them to get a DVR without paying for that extra content. Not that the TiVo is less expensive per month. They also don't say (until pushed) that they don't get the same content.

It also varies by region and MSO as well I guess. Fortunately (at least in the short term) people here don't need anything other than digital service to get a DVR. Not that it affects me - I also get quite a bit of extra content.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> Maybe they'll raise the price. The $800 might just be an introductory price so that the TiVo faithful can get one before they raise the price to $1600 in order to attract the high-end buyers. $800 is kind of an insult to people who pay that much for a single ten-foot speaker cable. Who's going to put junk like that in a rack with their Krell monoblock amplifiers? Hmm, maybe $2500 would be a better choice.


That's pretty funny.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> as I said- I dont believe it will happen march 1, 2007.
> 
> But to complain about their plan when we dont even know it is a little funny to me....


Oh, I don't know about that. They pretty much announced their strategy - focusing on only high end customers. Their current pricing is in-line with that strategy on the surface. While I think their market perception is completely wacked out, seems like any incremental price changes (and the current 15% is most definitely a small increment) don't change that position.

Analysts certainly aren't real happy with it. You look at a company with a market cap of only 617M, and what appears to be further degradation of EPS (which has always been negative) as well as negative book value per share. What I'm hoping for is a strategy that does NOT focus on a very questionable high end market niche unless the margin for their product is quite high. Here, the margin is at best zero (meaning no subsidy). So, again - the focus is on subs. The strategy doesn't support the position. Then you need to start digging in to look at SAC overall, which is also not a pleasant view.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Jerry_K said:


> I had a Dishplayer, my wife did not even use it once. Dish got it so screwed up I had to do restarts every half hour or so. I switched to DirecTiVo WOW, wife will not watch TV if there is no TiVo. She has two DirecTiVo series 2 units filled with season passes. I have a third sitting by just to record the odd thing she comes up with when four tuners are busy.
> 
> Now I have an HDTV with great reception of HD over the air. I wouldn't touch any other brand of DVR with a hundred yard long pole. My wife asked this week, "Why haven't you gotten a TiVo for the new TV?" I told her they were too expensive. Just waiting for the price to come down.
> 
> And it is just a bit. Right here at TiVo Community it is already 15% off.


I had five dishplayers (including the 921). All but the 921 were essentially flawless in terms of quality and reliability. In about 5 years of use, I think I had a total of 2 problem recordings. The 921 was obviously another story.

I'm really jealous that you can get OTA reliably. Even with my Channelmaster and rotator, I cannot get reliable OTA. My wife is ticked off that I got rid of the Dishplayers. She does like the HD display, but is VERY unhappy that I'm considering an S3 and will have absolutely no patience for any quality or software issues. The remembers quite well the 921 fiasco.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

winpitt said:


> Oh, I don't know about that. They pretty much announced their strategy - focusing on only high end customers. Their current pricing is in-line with that strategy on the surface. While I think their market perception is completely wacked out, seems like any incremental price changes (and the current 15% is most definitely a small increment) don't change that position.
> 
> Analysts certainly aren't real happy with it. You look at a company with a market cap of only 617M, and what appears to be further degradation of EPS (which has always been negative) as well as negative book value per share. What I'm hoping for is a strategy that does NOT focus on a very questionable high end market niche unless the margin for their product is quite high. Here, the margin is at best zero (meaning no subsidy). So, again - the focus is on subs. The strategy doesn't support the position. Then you need to start digging in to look at SAC overall, which is also not a pleasant view.


The thing is TiVo has always suffered from some amount of a combination of

- Not wanting to be in the business they are in.

- Not wanting to be in the business they need to be in.

- Not knowing what business they need to be in.

- Several other permutations.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

HDTiVo said:


> The thing is TiVo has always suffered from some amount of a combination of
> 
> - Not wanting to be in the business they are in.
> 
> ...


That about sums it up.


----------



## Jerry_K (Feb 7, 2002)

winpitt.

Do the Dish PVR's have MRV? TiVo was my wifes first love, MRV is now of utmost importance to her as well.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

winpitt said:


> Analysts certainly aren't real happy with it. You look at a company with a market cap of only 617M, and what appears to be further degradation of EPS (which has always been negative) as well as negative book value per share.


Not to say "I told you so," but this satisfies Bullwinkle's Law from the point of this thread's resurrection.

Thanks, everyone, for playing.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Jerry_K said:


> winpitt.
> 
> Do the Dish PVR's have MRV? TiVo was my wifes first love, MRV is now of utmost importance to her as well.


I can't say personally how well it works, but at least some of the product line was supposed to. I believe the 522 and newer, but honestly I'm not sure. None of the models I had supported MRV. There are certainly a bunch of things that the TiVo interface is a lot better at in terms of features. None of mine were DT either with the exception of the 921. The 921 was great from a feature perspective, but the reliability of the SW was awful. To be clear I mean that the reliability of the 921 sw was awful. The rest were extremely reliable.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

winpitt said:


> What? My "microwaver's company"? WTH are you talking about?
> 
> No, this is a very fact and logic based discussion. What I really "want" to happen, what will "likely" happen and what "might" happen are all quite different. I am absolutely unemotional about this discussion.


Yet here you are discussing it. You don't go on bulletin board's of the companies of all your consumer electronics do you? Talking about their finances, and their business plans?

Why would anybody even care about any of this unless they were emotional about the product?

-smak-


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

winpitt has some bug up his butt. Most likely he's a DirecTV plant/shill, trying (unsuccessfully) to create some sort of chaos in the cable/FiOS/Tivo threads. He's new as of a couple weeks ago, and has been non-stop being irrational in a number of cable/S3/FiOS threads.

Stop feeding the DirecTV trolls.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

smak said:


> Yet here you are discussing it. You don't go on bulletin board's of the companies of all your consumer electronics do you? Talking about their finances, and their business plans?
> 
> Why would anybody even care about any of this unless they were emotional about the product?
> 
> -smak-


Um, somebody would care about that in order to make an educated decision as to whether to invest $800 in a product which may or may not have a long lifespan but requires relatively significant up front commitment.

What would you like? Would you prefer that people avoid discussion about the effects of - for example - the product concerning an $800 introductory price? You know, the title of this thread?

What else would you prefer this discussion to be based on? Your emotions?

No - again - I am absolutely not emotional about this product at all. The fact that you can't seem to grasp that is surprising.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

AbMagFab said:


> winpitt has some bug up his butt. Most likely he's a DirecTV plant/shill, trying (unsuccessfully) to create some sort of chaos in the cable/FiOS/Tivo threads. He's new as of a couple weeks ago, and has been non-stop being irrational in a number of cable/S3/FiOS threads.
> 
> Stop feeding the DirecTV trolls.


Irrational? AfMagFab, you take the cake. You follow me around calling me a troll, shill or plant. You apparently aren't all that versed in the fundamentals of reading. Why don't you quit wasting time and put me on your ignore list so I don't need to listen to your personal attacks any more.

You truly do seem quite bothered by logical discussion. Would you feel more comfortable conversing with somebody who will call you names also? Sorry.


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

AbMagFab said:


> winpitt has some bug up his butt. Most likely he's a DirecTV plant/shill, trying (unsuccessfully) to create some sort of chaos in the cable/FiOS/Tivo threads. He's new as of a couple weeks ago, and has been non-stop being irrational in a number of cable/S3/FiOS threads.
> 
> Stop feeding the DirecTV trolls.


A troll is a troll, whatever his motivation and agenda. This one was easy to spot in any thread. He'll go away when he realizes that he can't accomplish anything by posting here, and not before.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

ChuckyBox said:


> A troll is a troll, whatever his motivation and agenda. This one was easy to spot in any thread. He'll go away when he realizes that he can't accomplish anything by posting here, and not before.


Wow.

What I'm trying to accomplish is to exchange information with others - including the current testing I'm doing and the possibility of picking up an S3 myself. Some of you are so blinded by your own opinions that you don't want to hear anything else - even from somebody thinking about getting an S3.


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

Well, seriously, how much *thinking* do you need to do? Do you want one? Can you afford one? Then either fish or cut bait.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

AbMagFab said:


> Stop feeding the DirecTV trolls.


There really is something wrong when I agree with AbMagFab.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Winpitt-
> 
> maye you aren't following but those folks are trying to say that to get the cable company DVR they are forced to buy a lot of content that they dont want. By getting a tivo they can avoid paying for all that bundled stuff. That's how it saves them 20 or 30 or 40 bucks.
> 
> ...


I can tell you that with the $21/month my cable bill has gone down, I am getting the same exact content. Granted I no longer have access to the VOD that never worked anyways. And now buying PPV is a little more of a pain. But I only buy PPV 4 or 5 times a year, so making a phone call to order it isn't all that bad.


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

jacksonian said:


> Well, seriously, how much *thinking* do you need to do? Do you want one? Can you afford one? Then either fish or cut bait.


I wanted the 921

I could afford the 921

I didn't think so much about the 921

I regretted the 921

Just wanting one and being able to afford one aren't enough. Otherwise I'd have a whole bunch of other stuff as well that I really don't need, or really aren't a smart decision.

But, this thread is about whether $800 is a good introductory price - not just for me but in general. At least that what it's supposed to be....


----------



## winpitt (Oct 17, 2006)

Leo_N said:


> I can tell you that with the $21/month my cable bill has gone down, I am getting the same exact content. Granted I no longer have access to the VOD that never worked anyways. And now buying PPV is a little more of a pain. But I only buy PPV 4 or 5 times a year, so making a phone call to order it isn't all that bad.


You paid for the transfer of lifetime support, right? Which you're not including. Not a big deal - I said before that for those who transfered lifetime there was a steep upfront cost, but potentially a monthly decrease after that. Of course by your own admission you need somthing like 6 or 7 years for it to finally break even - not that it means anything.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

winpitt said:


> You paid for the transfer of lifetime support, right? Which you're not including. Not a big deal - I said before that for those who transfered lifetime there was a steep upfront cost, but potentially a monthly decrease after that. Of course by your own admission you need somthing like 6 or 7 years for it to finally break even - not that it means anything.


Yep, the transfer cost was included in my calculations. And yes it was actually like 8 years for calculating 2 S3 units.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Leo_N said:


> Yep, the transfer cost was included in my calculations. And yes it was actually like 8 years for calculating 2 S3 units.


The problem with calculations like that is that they don't take into account technology changes that could make the S3 obsolete, or require an additional hardware purchase/rental before the savings are realized.

No, if you are in the 800.00 is a good price camp justifying it over time isn't going to work. In fact to me if it takes 7-8 years to realize a break even point that tells me right there it isn't worth it from an economic standpoint and becomes an entertainment budget expense.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> The problem with calculations like that is that they don't take into account technology changes that could make the S3 obsolete, or require an additional hardware purchase/rental before the savings are realized.
> 
> No, if you are in the 800.00 is a good price camp justifying it over time isn't going to work. In fact to me if it takes 7-8 years to realize a break even point that tells me right there it isn't worth it from an economic standpoint and becomes an entertainment budget expense.


Nope, not necessarily justifying it. Just showing what my hard numbers worked out to be. Also keep in mind that time frame was a breakeven point on (2) Series3 units. This was replacing (1) Moxi and (1) digital STB. If I had been replacing 2 Moxi's the time also would have been lower.

What actually justified my cost to me was the much higher recording capacity, the much nicer UI, the speed increase going from the Moxi to the S3, and with the digital STB/Series2 not having the IR blaster screwing up a channel change every now and then. The $20.89 decrease on my cable bill is just icing on the cake to me.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Leo_N said:


> Nope, not necessarily justifying it. Just showing what my hard numbers worked out to be. Also keep in mind that time frame was a breakeven point on (2) Series3 units. This was replacing (1) Moxi and (1) digital STB. If I had been replacing 2 Moxi's the time also would have been lower.
> 
> What actually justified my cost to me was the much higher recording capacity, the much nicer UI, the speed increase going from the Moxi to the S3, and with the digital STB/Series2 not having the IR blaster screwing up a channel change every now and then. The $20.89 decrease on my cable bill is just icing on the cake to me.


That's great. I hoped that the S3 would be a means to add STB connectivity with a device I liked at a comparative expense over the cable box. The 800.00 is too much for the buy in on a device you have to pay monthly on.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

btwyx said:


> There really is something wrong when I agree with AbMagFab.


+1

LOL


----------



## jacksonian (Nov 3, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> In fact to me if it takes 7-8 years to realize a break even point that tells me right there it isn't worth it from an economic standpoint and becomes an entertainment budget expense.


Umm, I still don't understand who's trying to make this "worth it from an economic standpoint". Of course it's an entertainment expense!


----------



## ChuckyBox (Oct 3, 2005)

jacksonian said:


> Umm, I still don't understand who's trying to make this "worth it from an economic standpoint". Of course it's an entertainment expense!


No kidding. If you want to save some money, shut off the cable entirely and check out some books from the library. It's cheaper and you'll end up smarter.


----------



## 1283 (Sep 8, 2000)

BTW, why are we wasting our time in this thread instead of watching the accumulated programs on our TiVos?


----------

