# New type of in-Tivo ads



## Leo Valiant (Apr 19, 2000)

I feel like I'm just missing the thread here because I can't believe there's no discussion about this...

Two new things over the past couple of days on my S3 Tivo.

The famous star ads on the main menu now are banner-like. They are colored like a banner and now have a small picture in them.

The commercials that have that pop-up green thumb ad now make tones when fast forwarding through them. They don't make the tone when playing through them at normal speed.

These new ads are not on my S2s.


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

I've seen the new star stuff on my s2, but not the green-thumb stuff.

I'm a 30sec skip man. I don't see the green-thumb stuff at all.

I'm a heck of a lot more bothered by the new ad strip to the right of the message bodies. It squishes up the posts and just eats up my browser page real estate!


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

The new TiVo alert sound is already being discussed here. As mentioned there, we aren't hearing it on FF. 

Also noticed the new banner style ads...and that they rotate fairly quickly. We're on broadband and if I click and watch one of the ads it doesn't come back up, but the ones I haven't looked at (I refuse to give Martha Stewart any support ) keep returning. Whatever the case, if TiVo is deriving some revenue from them that's fine with me as long as it helps keep the subscription rates down.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I don't have a problem with the practice. It doesn't present a significant impediment to doing what TiVo has promised us we can do with our TiVos.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I haven't seen the changes described, but I did notice something else I hadn't seen before last night: an ad in the form of an HME app, under "Music, Photos and More".


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

jmoak said:


> I'm a heck of a lot more bothered by the new ad strip to the right of the message bodies. It squishes up the posts and just eats up my browser page real estate!


Heh, I actually appreciate the ad strip for the same reason you dislike it. My laptop's widescreen, and I always felt that the posts on TCF were too wide when viewing them in a maximized window.

On topic, I noticed the new banner star ads for the first time last night, they definitely stand out more. I have no problem with the change.



wmcbrine said:


> I haven't seen the changes described, but I did notice something else I hadn't seen before last night: an ad in the form of an HME app.


What for? And where in the interface were you prompted with it?


----------



## caa8 (Sep 14, 2003)

I'm still new to the Tivo HD (just converted from an S1). Has it always had ads in the screen that comes up at the end of a recording? I saw this twice last night, where we hit the end of a show and it popped up the "delete/keep" screen and at the bottom of that there was an ad. Can't remember what it was for -- maybe Jeep?

I don't hear beeps in the commercials that have the thumbs up thingy, but I've mostly watched HD recordings so far and some of it was in real time. I've noticed that there are fewer sounds from Tivo on the HD recordings. Sometimes I press a button and it takes me a second to realize it actually did something.

It's funny that they are making these ads look so different from the content. I've found that makes ads less effective. I notice them the first time or two, but after that my mind will automatically skip over them without reading. I did occasionally look at the old star ads on the main menu on the S1. That's how I learned about the lifetime transfer offer for the HD!


----------



## dirtypacman (Feb 3, 2004)

I don't like the new Banner Ads... I think they are ugly.

That being said how much time do I spend on my Main Menu... about 2 seconds so do as they wish.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

The new yellow star banner ads are just as ignorable as the "old style" yellow star ads once you get used to the difference. I've been seeing these banner ads for at least a week now and I have 2 S2 tivos.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

Never clicked the old ones and will never click the new ones.


----------



## Leo Valiant (Apr 19, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> I've been seeing these banner ads for at least a week now and I have 2 S2 tivos.


I just checked again, and both my S2s have the Martha Stewart and Jaguar ads, but they are not in the new banner-ad style like my S3 has. I wonder if TiVo is rolling this out slowly like the do with new versions to see the call-back or negative response?


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Well, I take it back...I'm seeing banner ads that I've already clicked on, plus the other ones. I'd rather not see ones that I've already looked at, but it's not a big deal either way I guess.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

jmoak said:


> I'm a heck of a lot more bothered by the new ad strip to the right of the message bodies. It squishes up the posts and just eats up my browser page real estate!


It took me a minute to figure out what you guys were talking about. Then I realized Firefox and AdBlock were doin' their job! :up:


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

astrohip said:


> It took me a minute to figure out what you guys were talking about. Then I realized Firefox and AdBlock were doin' there job! :up:


Is their a version of AdBlock for TiVo?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

astrohip said:


> It took me a minute to figure out what you guys were talking about. Then I realized Firefox and AdBlock were doin' there job! :up:


Doesn't quite do it for me. I mean, I don't see the ads, but I still have a big blank space on the right now, with the message text squeezed over to the left. However, I can remove it with the "Nuke Anything" extension, though I have to do it manually.


----------



## blam (Nov 15, 2007)

There really should be no ads on the service as I already pay a good amount of money for it. I'm amazed that there are menu banner ads after I finish watching and now big ads on the menu. And the big banner ads on the meu are the worse, now my eye is totally drawn to it when I start up the menu. And I can't help but think, WHY ARE THEY MAKING MONEY OFF OF LOOKING AT THE MENU OF THIS THING?

And don't kid yourself, it is only going to get worse.

Tivo should:
* If they are going to put ads on it, I should not be paying a monthly fee
* If they are going to make me pay for it, tell me up front that I will also be paying in ads too
* Provide a "ad free" subscription plan that comes with no ads

Tivo has a great loyal customer base. They shouldn't be so quick to extract money from us since we have already paid for the box and pay for the monthly "tv listing service".


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

blam said:


> And don't kid yourself, it is only going to get worse.


Slippery Slope! Slippery Slope!


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

Oh please... that whole 'if I'm paying I shouldn't see ads thing' doesn't hold water. What about cableTV? You pay for your TV right, and they show ads.

If they *didn't* show ads, then you'd have to pay a bunch more. I'm perfectly happy for TiVo to generate revenue in other ways so they can keep the subscription rates low.

At least the TiVo ads don't get in the way of anything. You need not ever look at one or select one. Heck, you don't even have to use an extra key press to avoid them because the are never the default selection. Compare that to TV and radio ads that interrupt the programming. Or some webpages that use splash screens where you need to hit 'ignore' or 'skip' or 'close' to get to the content (or otherwise wait a while).

TiVo needs other revenue sources to keep the subscription prices where they are, and, so long as it doesn't interfere with the actual user experience, then bless them for it.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

fredct said:


> Oh please... that whole 'if I'm paying I shouldn't see ads thing' doesn't hold water. What about cableTV? You pay for your TV right, and they show ads.
> 
> If they *didn't* show ads, then you'd have to pay a bunch more. I'm perfectly happy for TiVo to generate revenue in other ways so they can keep the subscription rates low.
> 
> ...


+1 :up:

A little more perspective in today's ad-driven world: Satellite radio (XM, Sirius). Same principle; you pay for a good receiver (often more than a basic TiVo ) and then about $5 to $13/mo. for a subscription, almost on par with TiVo. Some stations have ads, some don't...and what do you get? A bunch of songs Ooooo. No video, very little control, no recording, no WLs, no Unbox, no FFwell, you get the idea. I know, I know most of us also pay for cable, but you don't have to any more than you have to pay for satellite radio.

If the day comes that they force me to watch the ads (as with some DVD's ) before I can watch the show that I want to watch...bye bye TiVo. Until then TiVo's still a pretty decent product for the price IMHO and if a couple of little inoffensive one line ads keep the price down I'm okay with that too. 



jmoak said:


> Slippery Slope! Slippery Slope!


LMAO!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

blam said:


> There really should be no ads on the service as I already pay a good amount of money for it.


You're not paying a good amount of money. TiVo service is a bargain.


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

Leo Valiant said:


> I just checked again, and both my S2s have the Martha Stewart and Jaguar ads, but they are not in the new banner-ad style like my S3 has.


I'm the opposite ... my S2 is showing the banner-style gold star and the same ads are the old style on my S3 and THD.

So yeah, maybe it's a switch that's slowly being flipped?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

As I was hitting the 30ss button I saw a glimpse of a thumbs up ad so I backed up to see what happened when I ff through it. What I got was a billboard ad in the center of the screen that covered the actual commercial that was being ff'd. It looks like they finally figured out how to do these ads that they tried to do several years ago, but failed miserably.

regular play speed








The same part of that ad at fast forward


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

At 3XFF a 30 second commercial is onscreen for half a second. TiVo can do whatever they want during that half second.


----------



## Atomike (Jun 12, 2005)

> You're not paying a good amount of money. TiVo service is a bargain.


Nope. Logical fallacy. For you, perhaps. For others, you have no knowledge or perspective to make this claim. Based on the universal love of the Tivo concept, yet lackluster Tivo adoption, it seems most people disagree that it's a bargain.


----------



## riddick21 (Dec 12, 2006)

This sucks. I actually don't mind the star ads its actually nice to see the menu have something different on it from time to time. Sometimes there's actually things that interests me like car ads. However when the Ad starts to overpower the rest of the UI I think there is something seriously wrong. TiVo please don't screw up a beautiful UI by placing ads all over it. The current practice is fine and fairly elegant but with these new banners when does it end? Next thing you know we will have to look at an ad before we can access the now playing list. Please TiVo just stick to the star ads they grab my attention plenty. The sad thing is that nobody is going to leave tivo over a couple of ads so things are just going to get worse and worse unless the draw a line themselves.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Atomike said:


> Nope. Logical fallacy. For you, perhaps.


Go back and READ the message I replied to. How is my reply any less specific to me than the blanket generalization I replied to? So, *no* -- *not* a logical fallacy. Instead, it's a mirroring reply, showing out ridiculous blam's original insinuation that he pays, "a good amount of money".

The point is simple: People are adopting a proprietary tenor with regard to what TiVo provides, as if their needs are more important than TiVo's. In a business transaction BOTH sides have to agree, or everyone goes home. There is nothing in what TiVo ever offered anyone that precludes what they're doing, so if they make more money doing so than not doing so, then they SHOULD do it. The folks at TiVo are constrained by the principles of good PR from saying so, but the rest of us, who have no association with TiVo other than as customers, are not.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

riddick21 said:


> TiVo please don't screw up a beautiful UI by placing ads all over it. The current practice is fine and fairly elegant but with these new banners when does it end?


it ends when TiVo looses more money over the ads then they gain in revenue from them. The only slippery slope is how far the customers will let it go. I am still waiting for that subscriber that draws the line by canceliing his subscription.

as for me, I am not bothered by them if it is just image on the screen and I continue to use my TiVo and remote as I always have


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> it ends when TiVo looses more money over the ads then they gain in revenue from them.


:up:



ZeoTiVo said:


> The only slippery slope is how far the customers will let it go.


I don't think that's a consideration at this point. I think TiVo, just from a marketing standpoint, has very strongly resisted doing what the customers are effectively willing to accept -- so much so that that consideration you highlighted here, while unquestionably a valid constraint, is no where near the "critical path" of consideration given the current situation. People like to complain about advertisements, but evidence from other quarters shows that their tolerance for advertising, as a group, knows practically no bounds, so far.



ZeoTiVo said:


> I am still waiting for that subscriber that draws the line by canceliing his subscription.


And, of course, what you mean is "those thousands of subscribers" because one subscriber won't make a bit of difference.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

riddick21 said:


> <snip>The current practice is fine and fairly elegant but with these new banners when does it end? Next thing you know <snip>


riddick21--I'm not picking on you, but I see responses like this quite often, so I thought I would throw in my .02 . . .

TiVo has managed to slipstream all sorts of ads & promos into their products over the years, and so far it has been (almost) universally acknowledged as (paraphrasing) "not bad, but if they...". Is it possible that we can admit that TiVo *does* know what they are doing, and that they *intentionally* choose methods of ads that are mostly unobtrusive.

They put a Star Banner on the home page, and people scream about, even though it takes *zero effort* to ignore it, since it's at the bottom of the screen. So then users say "ok, but if they..."

Or they ad the promo to the Delete/Keep screen, that also requires *zero effort* to ignore it, since it's at the bottom. People kick & scream, then acknowledge "well, that's ok, but if they..."

TiVo can do almost anything they want, as long as they don't interfere with my TV viewing. They have never given us any indication that they intend to put promos at the beginning of recordings, or force us to watch 15 second intros, or any of that shyte. So why are we so worried about that slippery slope? Why not wait until *they actually do something truly repugnant* before we all start yelling for their heads?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> :up:
> 
> I don't think that's a consideration at this point. I think TiVo, just from a marketing standpoint, has very strongly resisted doing what the customers are effectively willing to accept -- so much so that that consideration you highlighted here, while unquestionably a valid constraint, is no where near the "critical path" of consideration given the current situation. People like to complain about advertisements, but evidence from other quarters shows that their tolerance for advertising, as a group, knows practically no bounds, so far.
> 
> And, of course, what you mean is "those thousands of subscribers" because one subscriber won't make a bit of difference.


yep. TiVo is thinking about subscriber perception versus reality in being careful over how far they go with advertising and most likely loose some revenue alredy from advertisers who would rather the ads make the user react differently to avoid them.

I mention the one subscriber as it points to the idea that despite Tivo inc.'s caution subcribers could likely put up with more advertising before bailing in significant numbers. I have yet to see anyone specifically cancel over advertising so any subs TiVo may have lost due to advertising is likely extremely low and very insignificant at this point.


----------



## blam (Nov 15, 2007)

You can blame Google for this.

They showed how you can take advantage of a customer base and force ads onto them.

And now every gadget, phone, tv device is trying to do the same.

Pretty soon, you'll open your fridge and there will be a damn banner ad in front of the milk you are reaching for.

I don't care what you say, TiVo is a device, like a stereo. It should not have ads on the interface. I've already paid for the device. And the cost of getting a friggin' program listing database sent to me, well the monthy subscriber fee is way beyond what that costs to get it to the box. So I figure TiVo is getting their money. They don't need to make more from selling my menu to others. Yes, it is my menu, just like a stereo knob is my knob, and they should keep their hands off of it.

I really think the people at TiVo are great. But I surmise they've got a couple of ad guys taking over with promises of great riches, when all that is going to happen is they are going to kill the joy of just simply using it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

blam said:


> I don't care what you say, TiVo is a device, like a stereo. It should not have ads on the interface.


the ads have been there for years, why did you get a tiVo if you felt it should not have ads? Seriously, this is not a flame but a question.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

blam said:


> You can blame Google for this.
> They showed how you can take advantage of a customer base and force ads onto them.


What's this? Before Google's ad-space dominance, the web was still awash with ads. At least Google has the courtesy to have some reasonable and clearly defined guidelines about what ad content and presentation should be like.


> And now every gadget, phone, tv device is trying to do the same.
> 
> Pretty soon, you'll open your fridge and there will be a damn banner ad in front of the milk you are reaching for.


Not really making a point here, but my milk has advertisements on it for other dairy products from the same company. I just thought it was funny you used that particular item as an example since I only noticed the ads were there the other day.


> I don't care what you say, TiVo is a device, like a stereo. It should not have ads on the interface. I've already paid for the device. And the cost of getting a friggin' program listing database sent to me, well the monthy subscriber fee is way beyond what that costs to get it to the box. So I figure TiVo is getting their money. They don't need to make more from selling my menu to others. Yes, it is my menu, just like a stereo knob is my knob, and they should keep their hands off of it.
> 
> I really think the people at TiVo are great. But I surmise they've got a couple of ad guys taking over with promises of great riches, when all that is going to happen is they are going to kill the joy of just simply using it.


TiVo's business plan has always revolved around ad-driven revenue. Which is one of the reasons they've yet to strike a profit:without a critical mass of subscribers, advertisers are unwilling to spend much on the platform.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

blam said:


> It should not have ads on the interface. I've already paid for the device.


These arguments tend to boil down to statements like this: A "should not" declaration, as if there is some moral issue involved. It's simply not the case. The only justification for a "should not" declaration is evidence showing that the company would definitely be harmed, with respect to achieving *its* objectives, if they did what they allegedly "should not".


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

blam said:


> I don't care what you say, TiVo is a device, like a stereo. It should not have ads on the interface. I've already paid for the device.


It's both a device (cost me ~$350) and a service ($7/month). I've paid for my paper & mags, yet both have ads. I pay for HBO, yet they run promos between every show. I pay for cable, yet 90% of the channels have ads, many for the same cable service *I already subscribe to!*

Unfortunately, your argument is specious. The fact you pay for something has zero effect on whether it contains ads.


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

blam said:


> You can blame Google for this.
> 
> They showed how you can take advantage of a customer base and force ads onto them.


That's really funny. Acting as if Google started ads. Ads have been all over th internet since long long long before Google became any kind of big. Btw, compare Google's front page to, say, Yahoo's main page, and tell me again that Google is the ad-crazy web source.



> And now every gadget, phone, tv device is trying to do the same.


Web customers have proven time and again that they are not willing to pay fr content. Think Slate.com's original subscription model, NYTimes recently dropped pay-for-content approach, etc. In lieu of that, yes, advertising supports the internet.

Now for device like TiVo and others obviously its different, but any ad revenue still works to keep the subscription prices lower.



> Pretty soon, you'll open your fridge and there will be a damn banner ad in front of the milk you are reaching for.


Funny that you've never noticed a lot of the ads that there already have been for years on food packaging.



> I don't care what you say, TiVo is a device, like a stereo. It should not have ads on the interface. I've already paid for the device. And the cost of getting a friggin' program listing database sent to me, well the monthy subscriber fee is way beyond what that costs to get it to the box. So I figure TiVo is getting their money. They don't need to make more from selling my menu to others. Yes, it is my menu, just like a stereo knob is my knob, and they should keep their hands off of it.[/quite]
> 
> You greatly misunderstand the costs to TiVo to support the devices. Its a lot more than guide data. First, they have to make up for the loss on every hardware unit they sell. Then they have to pay for the tech support and customer service calls. The bandwidth necessary to support things like TiVoCast and the ongoing development efforts. And lastly there are costs like guide data.
> 
> ...


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

caa8 said:


> I'm still new to the Tivo HD (just converted from an S1). Has it always had ads in the screen that comes up at the end of a recording? I saw this twice last night, where we hit the end of a show and it popped up the "delete/keep" screen and at the bottom of that there was an ad.


I just started noticing this on my TiVo HD too. I don't remember ever seeing that on my S2 or S1.

Are they introducing this to S2s and S1s too? (I don't have my S1 anymore, and only my wife watches the S2.) If they are, it seems slightly shady to me, because before the ads were confined to the main menu, so when we paid for lifetime, the impression I got was going to be a machine with lifetime guide data, possibly subsidized by a certain amount of ad revenue. With the ads increasing their exposure to our TiVoing, creeping into the other menus, it seems like a decrease in value of what we thought we were buying when we spent our lifetime money.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

timckelley said:


> . With the ads increasing their exposure to our TiVoing, creeping into the other menus, it seems like a decrease in value of what we thought we were buying when we spent our lifetime money.


yep, they ended up on another menu and yes all series 2 and up have it. However notice that you do nothing different with the remote - eg the same keep recording is highlighted, the same up arrow highlights "delete recording" and the space below that was empty before. This is how TiVo is being careful on where it puts ads. If there was a true slippery slope the ads would be in now playing already


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yep, they ended up on another menu and yes all series 2 and up have it. However notice that you do nothing different with the remote - eg the same keep recording is highlighted, the same up arrow highlights "delete recording" and the space below that was empty before. This is how TiVo is being careful on where it puts ads. If there was a true slippery slope the ads would be in now playing already


Yes, I suppose it would be picky to say that simply because we can see it in the menu choices, we object and find it offensive.

Your mentioning of which menu choice is highlighted, reminds of something I've meant to say in way of complimenting TiVo's UI: If I'm watching a show, even if it's a suggestion, and then I get interrupted and have to resume later, I hit the <TiVo> button to interrupt the show. Then later on, even if it's the next day, as long I hit several times, it knows to go to the same show and resume where I left off. No cursoring down or up needed. It goes to <Now Playing> <Suggestions> <Show Title> <Resume Playing>. In all 4 steps, the correct choice is already highlighted so I just have to hit .

I've always (more than other people I know) been a stickler for minimizing keystrokes, including in programs I write. (I'm an applications programmer who writes programs for other users in my company to use.) I definitely appreciate the thought that TiVo put into minimizing the cursoring around I need to do.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

timckelley said:


> Yes, I suppose it would be picky to say that simple because we can see it in the menu choices, we object and find it offensive.


 well anyone can not like them. That is subjective after all


> I've always (more than other people I know) been a stickler for minimizing keystrokes, including in programs I write. (I'm an applications programmer who writes programs for other users in my company to use.) I definitely appreciate the thought that TiVo put into minimizing the cursoring around I need to do.


and that is my litmus test on ads on TiVo. As long as I keep hitting the remote buttons the same as before, with that well done minimal button presses approach then ads are no big deal and at worst just something mildly annoying but ultimately ignored on the screen; at best it is something of actual interest to the TiVo user and gives some timely info if optionally selected.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

timckelley said:


> If they are, it seems slightly shady to me, because before the ads were confined to the main menu, so when we paid for lifetime, the impression I got was going to be a machine with lifetime guide data, possibly subsidized by a certain amount of ad revenue. With the ads increasing their exposure to our TiVoing, creeping into the other menus, it seems like a decrease in value of what we thought we were buying when we spent our lifetime money.


What made you think that the practices in place when you purchased your lifetime subscription would prevail forever? That was never any part of any lifetime subscription agreement. As a matter of fact, the agreements always made clear that the nature of the service could change over time. It was our choice to purchase lifetime service, without knowing when and how the service would change over time. We need to take personal responsibility for our decision in that regard.


----------



## blam (Nov 15, 2007)

Just thought I'd use what TiVo is doing on their menu to get you to read my post. Isn't it annoying...

Anyway, the worse part is that the banner ad is bigger than the rest of the menu items. It has a bigger weight on the screen.

In fact, all the rest of the menu items are now all squished to make room for it.

So that instead of looking for your menu item and oh yeah, at the bottom there is an extra menu item that happens to be an ad, now the first thing you see is the big ugly banner ad that has more of a presence than the others.

So now, instead of the tivo menu being:

menu item 1
menu item 2
menu item 3
menu item 4
menu item 5
menu item ad

no big deal, unobtrusive.

that happens to have an extra item that is an ad, now the tivo menu is this:

menu items
menu items
menu items
BANNER AD BANNER AD BANNER AD BANNER AD
BANNER AD BANNER AD BANNER AD BANNER AD
BANNER AD BANNER AD BANNER AD BANNER AD

which just sucks.

now the menu is not about being a menu and oh year, here something you may be interested in.

the tivo menu is now about delivering this banner ad and forcing me to look at it before my eye catches my menu items. 

absolutely annoying...

TiVo why are you killing your interface?

It will only get worse...

TiVo can you please come up with a premier options that I can pay to opt-out of these ads and make my tivo ad free?

I'll pay you for the trouble of not having to spend time hacking the box to get rid of the ads.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I haven't seen 3 banner ads ever. Can you get a screenshot?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

blam said:


> Just thought I'd use what TiVo is doing on their menu to get you to read my post. Isn't it annoying...


No. Not at all. Why would you think it would be? 



blam said:


> Anyway, the worse part is that the banner ad is bigger than the rest of the menu items. It has a bigger weight on the screen.


Since its objective is to capture your attention, that makes sense. Advertisements work because people see them, resonate with what they offer, and then follow-up on them. You cannot get to steps two and three without getting successfully through step one.



blam said:


> which just sucks.


If you had any doubt about your previous message having communicated effectively that you didn't like it, please rest assured that they were effective. No reasonable person in this thread could possibly think that you prefer things the way they are. 



blam said:


> TiVo why are you killing your interface?


Without speaking for TiVo, I suspect the answer is that they're diligently trying to fulfill their *fiduciary* responsibilities.



blam said:


> It will only get worse...


The more we've invented better ways to avoid advertising, smart folks have worked hard to come up with better ways to deliver advertising despite those avoidance techniques. That will never end. The only way to live in an advertising free world is to ban advertising. Our country, however, is fostered by a strong consumer economy. Without a strong consumer economy, our broader economy will, at best, falter, and at worst, collapse.



blam said:


> TiVo can you please come up with a premier options that I can pay to opt-out of these ads and make my tivo ad free?


This is really a good approach to this issue. However, understand that you're basically going to end up paying for four things: (1) The loss of revenue associated with fewer eyes falling on those ads; (2) The additional loss of revenue associated with a biasing of the remaining eyes falling on those ads away from folks who tend to pay more for things; (3) the costs of actually crafting the offering, converting it to design changes, implementing those design changes, and supporting them going forward; and (4) an additional premium over and above all that to capture all the added value that a typical premium service customer will perceive from the offering.

Essentially, a premium service is typically priced just pennies below the point where a customer would be indifferent between the premium service (at the premium price) and the regular service. If that doesn't fully cover the costs, outlined as (1), (2), and (3) above, then a company should not consider offering the service.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

bicker said:


> You're not paying a good amount of money. TiVo service is a bargain.


For the record, I've used and subscribed to Tivo since 2001. I love the interface and have supported them to the tune of a couple thousand bucks for the privilege of getting TV lineups. That said:

Their cost cannot by any stretch be considered a "bargain."

I have two Tivos and digital cable- that means I'm paying roughly 50% of the cost of _the cable service itself_ for something that can be considered a free service to anyone not stupid enough to lock into Tivo.

Look, I'm all for capitalism, but let's be honest here: Tivo charges a lot of money because they can, and they cram ads down our throats because they can and make even more money doing so.

The industry is becoming more and more competitive- Tivo is going to have to shift their paradigm away from this or they're going to continue to fade away.

[edit]

And for the record, I'm not bothered by the ads if they remain unintrusive as they are. Nothing wrong with getting a few bucks from advertisers as long as they don't fck with my ability to FF etc. Once that happens, I'll be throwing a few boxes in the dumpster and calling DirecTV.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> Their cost cannot by any stretch be considered a "bargain."


You need to read my message in the context of the message it was a reply to. The previous poster made a capricious statement implying that TiVo costs more than it should. So in reply I made a capricious statement implying that TiVo costs less than it should. I should have been more clear about what I was doing: The reality is that neither is *objectively *true, and both are capricious statements. It's okay to make capricious statements. This is a discussion board -- everyone is entitled to their opinion. The point is that no opinion is "correct".



rodbac said:


> I have two Tivos and digital cable- that means I'm paying roughly 50% of the cost of _the cable service itself_ for something that can be considered a free service to anyone not stupid enough to lock into Tivo.


Your disparaging remarks about others notwithstanding, there is no requirement that a premium service that enhances some feeder service must cost less than the feeder. Each price is typically based on the incremental amount of value the corresponding service provides.

To be fair, the problem with TiVo is that COST to provide the service to you exceeds customer-perceived VALUE. If this was a black-and-white world, then that would result in TiVo simply ceasing operations. (How good is the service if it no longer exists?) However, TiVo is making a go of things, as best as they can, but the price has to get higher, without the costs going higher, or this cannot continue. So either the things TiVo pays for must get a lot cheaper, quick, or your perception of value from what you're already receiving must change.

Fair notice: I'm not betting on TiVo to win that race.



rodbac said:


> Look, I'm all for capitalism, but let's be honest here: Tivo charges a lot of money because they can


Quite the opposite: TiVo charges a lot of money *because the have to*.



rodbac said:


> and they cram ads down our throats because they can and make even more money doing so.


They're not "making any money", dude. THAT'S the problem!



rodbac said:


> The industry is becoming more and more competitive


Strictly speaking, no it isn't. No one else is stupid/brave enough to offer an independent DVR to the US consumer market.


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

blam said:


> Just thought I'd use what TiVo is doing on their menu to get you to read my post. Isn't it annoying...


...and just like I do to what TiVo is doing on their menu, I read the first 2 lines (I lost interest when you pegged it as "annoying") and simply skipped the rest of your post.

It looked kinda long and I'm sure getting all of that out was therapeutic for you, and just like the what TiVo is doing on their menu, I found it uninteresting and simply paid it no mind.

The mere existence of your post on the page does not bother me, as long as you don't come into my house and force me to read it!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

blam said:


> Just thought I'd use what TiVo is doing on their menu to get you to read my post. Isn't it annoying...
> 
> Anyway, the worse part is that the banner ad is bigger than the rest of the menu items. It has a bigger weight on the screen..


This is where I stopped reading since I saw you had some annoying banner ad text typed out way too many times.
Interestingly enough it was much like I read the main Tivo menu of

Find programs
Music, Photos, Products and More

not much else I need on a regualr basis since I have a remote button for Live TV and the TiVo button to hit Now playing list without even looking at any menu. Someday I will actually remember the shortcut keys for the other two. Have fun with being annoyed by the minor things in life.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> I should have been more clear about what I was doing: The reality is that neither is objectively true, and both are capricious statements.


I understand, but the point is that while technically anything that someone is willing to pay for isn't "overpriced", it can be argued that Tivo's service is because it's a service that is offered for free by everyone else in the industry.



> Strictly speaking, no it isn't. No one else is stupid/brave enough to offer an independent DVR to the US consumer market.


"Independent" is a meaningless distinction to the consumer. If DTV/Dish/Comcast/whoever is offering a DVR (and they all are), Tivo's market is becoming more competitive. The fact that they're doing it from the outside doesn't mean I should be more forgiving (speaking as the agnostic consumer).



> Your disparaging remarks about others notwithstanding, there is no requirement that a premium service that enhances some feeder service must cost less than the feeder. Each price is typically based on the incremental amount of value the corresponding service provides.


Of course there's no requirement- this is a capitalist society after all. This admittedly is a fairly weak point, but going back to industry analysis, the "value" of something as trivial as a schedule can't be considered large when it is something that is provided free by *every* other service that provides it.

Re: my disparaging remark- apologies. I was including myself in that, of course, so intended it as self-deprecating rather than insulting.



> TiVo is making a go of things, as best as they can, but the price has to get higher, without the costs going higher, or this cannot continue.


Agreed. It just appears (judging by my dissatisfaction with them lately) they're toeing the line with me, dangerously close to being ditched.



> They're not "making any money", dude. THAT'S the problem!


Noted. I'll remember that before beating them up too badly.

They're not asking for my opinion, but I believe they'd be better served in the long run treating their customers like royalty rather than objects from which to extract as much cash as possible.

The former may cost them a small amount now, but the latter is a short-sighted business model- I don't think I'm unique in viewing them as less and less "worth it."*

*As I said earlier, I've been a monthly-paying customer with two Tivos for almost 7 years. I don't expect to get an ass-kissing for it, but when my old S2 broke down and we were in the process of moving, I cancelled the sub for the second box, being told I would still be eligible for the MSD when I started the second acct back up. So I finally get settled, go to re-up and they play the "gotcha" game with me, telling me not only do I not get the same price for the second box as before (because I "cancelled" and didn't "transfer"), but I also *have* to commit to a year despite the fact I bought the box retail (not through some deal with them for which they might expect a commitment).

So now, due to their efforts to squeeze a few more bucks a month out of me, I'll be *seriously* considering bailing on them in 12 months. They've invited the competition in with a customer who was happy to pay them nearly $200/yr. Not smart, IMO.


----------



## riddick21 (Dec 12, 2006)

rodbac said:


> I understand, but the point is that while technically anything that someone is willing to pay for isn't "overpriced", it can be argued that Tivo's service is because it's a service that is offered for free by everyone else in the industry.


Who exactly is offering it for free?


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Let's not lose track of the big picture. TiVo has two main purposes: time-shifting and skipping ads.

TiVo severely diminishes the *value* of their product to many customers when they force ads at us.

TCI cable here, nee AT&T, eventually Comcast, did the same thing with their STBs. Annoying ads plastered all over the screens. I replaced them with DirecTiVos as soon as I could. Cable lost many thousands of dollars from me over the years. But now TiVo does the same???


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

rodbac said:


> for something that can be considered a free service to anyone not stupid enough to lock into Tivo.


What the heck are you talking about? Exactly who provides DVRs and DVR service for free? Care to name one?

What you're probably talking about is guide data, which is a ridiculous minimization of what TiVo does. I don't think many people here would pay ~$10/month or more for guide data alone. What is being paid for is all the other features and services. If this is what you're saying, please, don't try to pass that off as valid.

Btw, speaking of guide data, not even Zap2It Labs provides it for free anymore. If you want pure guide data - without a DVR, Season Passes, Wishlists, GuruGuides, Unbox direct downloads, TiVoCasts, MRV, TiVoToGo, TiVoToComeBack, or anything else - you can buy that, and that alone, for $20/year here: http://www.schedulesdirect.org/

Free? Please.



rodbac said:


> *As I said earlier, I've been a monthly-paying customer with two Tivos for almost 7 years. I don't expect to get an ass-kissing for it, but when my old S2 broke down and we were in the process of moving, I cancelled the sub for the second box, being told I would still be eligible for the MSD when I started the second acct back up. So I finally get settled, go to re-up and they play the "gotcha" game with me, telling me not only do I not get the same price for the second box as before (because I "cancelled" and didn't "transfer"), but I also *have* to commit to a year despite the fact I bought the box retail (not through some deal with them for which they might expect a commitment).
> 
> So now, due to their efforts to squeeze a few more bucks a month out of me, I'll be *seriously* considering bailing on them in 12 months. They've invited the competition in with a customer who was happy to pay them nearly $200/yr. Not smart, IMO.


Which is all fine and well, but has nothing to do with ads. I have to wonder if you're using ads as an excuse to consider dropping TiVo when it really has little to nothing to do with the reason you're unhappy with them in the first place.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> Who exactly is offering it for free?


You're right- they all have a DVR fee, so despite the fact that they offer the TV schedule for free without the DVR, to be fair to Tivo, that DVR fee has to be considered charging for the schedule.



> Exactly who provides DVRs and DVR service for free?


DVR service: no one, as I admitted. That was a mistake to phrase it that way on my part.

DVRs themselves: everyone but DirecTV, and then, only for their HD DVR AFAIK (Dish, Comcast, Cox, Charter, et al all offer them free...)



> What is being paid for is all the other features and services.


If you're telling me that if you received the guide data free, you'd still pay $13/mo (per box, roughly- you only have one?) for the other stuff, I think you're in a vast, vast minority. I have stuck with Tivo partly because of those things, and I'd give them up in a second to save the $25/mo I'm paying out.

It's anecdotal so pointless to argue about, but I know half a dozen people who use Tivo, and most of them don't give two squirts about something so handy as MRV, let alone buying movies or ripping their shows to their PCs.



> I have to wonder if you're using ads as an excuse to consider dropping TiVo when it really has little to nothing to do with the reason you're unhappy with them in the first place.


I'm crabby with the direction they seem to be moving- the ads, while they don't bother me now nor have they ever, are just another possible indication of that so it seemed appropriate to bring it up in this thread.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

rodbac said:


> You're right- they all have a DVR fee, so despite the fact that they offer the TV schedule for free without the DVR, to be fair to Tivo, that DVR fee has to be considered charging for the schedule.
> 
> DVR service: no one, as I admitted. That was a mistake to phrase it that way on my part.
> 
> DVRs themselves: everyone but DirecTV, and then, only for their HD DVR AFAIK (Dish, Comcast, Cox, Charter, et al all offer them free...).


first tell us how much money you send to the cable company each month and then we will talk. The cable or sat companies do nothing for free and make a profit each year. This idea of TiVo is overcharging since they do not have a larger business model to work in but have to be upfront in the total cost of their DVR to the consumer is just not workable.

Sure you would have the cable service anyhow and if you feel the included in cable service DVR and monthly DVR fee works just fine for you then go for it. but you are comparing apples and oranges if you compare just the fee part of cable DVR service.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rodbac said:


> I understand, but the point is that while technically anything that someone is willing to pay for isn't "overpriced", it can be argued that Tivo's service is because it's a service that is offered for free by everyone else in the industry.


However that argument would be invalid because the assertion is incorrect. No one offers what TiVo offers "for free". That's the _opposite_ of "everyone".



rodbac said:


> "Independent" is a meaningless distinction to the consumer.


I don't dispute that, at all. Often, though, folks do make the distinction between a customer-owned box (i.e., "independent") and a leased box. That was the point I was making.



rodbac said:


> Of course there's no requirement- this is a capitalist society after all. This admittedly is a fairly weak point, but going back to industry analysis, the "value" of something as trivial as a schedule can't be considered large when it is something that is provided free by *every* other service that provides it.


Again, your assertion is invalid because the facts within it are inaccurate. The companies you mentioned in your message -- "DTV/Dish/Comcast/whoever" -- not for free.



rodbac said:


> Noted. I'll remember that before beating them up too badly.


It's an important point: We can say "it's not worth it (to me)" but given the circumstances, the only bad decision we can peg on TiVO in this regard is the decision to stay in business.



rodbac said:


> They're not asking for my opinion, but I believe they'd be better served in the long run treating their customers like royalty rather than objects from which to extract as much cash as possible.


They can't afford to do what you expect.



rodbac said:


> The former may cost them a small amount now


No, the former may mean they cannot make payroll, eventually. It may also destroy their credit rating, resulting in an inability to get further seed money, investments, or loans.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> The cable or sat companies do nothing for free...


Except give their customers DVRs so they can collect a fee every month for the service.

Look, I'm not saying Tivo necessarily should be giving their boxes away. My point is that the industry they're in is a tough one, and they're wanting to charge a pretty hefty premium both for the hardware and the service, which makes them a moderately poor value (to many people as evidenced by their fiscal troubles (I'm told)) compared to the companies they're competing with.

Yeah, the cable and sat companies aren't in the same dire straits Tivo evidently is, but that's not my concern and is really irrelevant to the discussion.

The simple fact is that they charge more than anyone else for data service to a piece of hardware that everyone else gives away.

I happen to find their advantages worth the premium at this point, but if you consider how disenfranchised I, a longtime happy-to-pay-$200-a-year customer, am with them, it's obvious their business model needs some tweaking or they should just sell their IP to someone who can make it competitive again.


----------



## rodbac (Aug 16, 2005)

> No one offers what TiVo offers "for free". That's the opposite of "everyone".


Covered.



> Often, though, folks do make the distinction between a customer-owned box (i.e., "independent") and a leased box. T


I see, and fair, but since Tivos no longer function without the sub, there's no effective difference except that you can hack your Tivo to get a lot more storage (can't do that to a leased box) and lose your warranty.


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

rodbac said:


> Except give their customers DVRs so they can collect a fee every month for the service.
> 
> Look, I'm not saying Tivo necessarily should be giving their boxes away. My point is that the industry they're in is a tough one, and they're wanting to charge a pretty hefty premium both for the hardware and the service, which makes them a moderately poor value (to many people as evidenced by their fiscal troubles (I'm told)) compared to the companies they're competing with.


Its not that hard to get a S2DT for free after-rebate, or pretty close to it. Amazon, TiVo, and other places regularly have specials.

And while its true that the cable company ones typically are free upfront, you do have to realize and acknowledge that you're typically paying for less powerful hardware, with fewer features, and a lower capacity. CableCo DVRs are typically ~40 hours, don't have network connections for advanced features.

And, if you get a more advanced one like an HD one, you typically most certainly pay an upfront free *and* sign a commitment for the CableCo ones too.

Now you say that most people you know aren't interested in things like movie downloads or MRV. That's fine, but that doesn't mean its not part of the equation. There's no doubt that TiVo sweeter spot is with people who want to, and do, do more with their DVRs. If you want a very minimal DVR with a minimal to no upfront cost, TiVo probably isn't your best choice.

Lastly, with even a 1 year pre-pay package you pay about $11/month or less for TiVo. My cable company, for one, charges $12/month, and many of them change an additional 'outlet fee' on top of that.

Long story short is you're looking at half of the picture without acknowledging the rest of it, especially when you say things like this:



> The simple fact is that they charge more than anyone else for data service to a piece of hardware that everyone else gives away.


Its not like you pay more up front, get less (or the same), and pay more per month for TiVo - which is what you're trying to imply. You actually pay more upfront, get a lot more, and then usually pay less per month. That's not the right choice for everyone, but its certainly a valid option.

And I haven't even gotten into MSD or the user interface 



> Yeah, the cable and sat companies aren't in the same dire straits Tivo evidently is, but that's not my concern and is really irrelevant to the discussion.


It is irrelevant except when you try to frame the ad-revenue as greed. Wanting to break even is typically not considered greedy. Drop that and the counter goes away.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

rodbac said:


> Except give their customers DVRs so they can collect a fee every month for the service.


 you forgot to include how much money you send the cable company every month. There is no upfront cost to the customer but be sure every subscriber is paying for the cost of those DVR boxes. if you want to make an argument that TiVo charges too much then you need to deal with that fact.



> Look, I'm not saying Tivo necessarily should be giving their boxes away. My point is that the industry they're in is a tough one, and they're wanting to charge a pretty hefty premium both for the hardware and the service, which makes them a moderately poor value (to many people as evidenced by their fiscal troubles (I'm told)) compared to the companies they're competing with.


 TiVo does not *want* to charge a hefty premium. They simply have no where else to get the cost of the hardware and normal business expenses (include R&D for new features) back vs. being able to recoup it under other fees.

So sure any smart person will look at the direct added costs to themselves for a given functionality. In fact in my case I only had Standard basic cable tier and to get a DVR from TWC I would have to (at the time years ago) pay them another 30$ a month and then pay DVR fees on top of that. Getting a 200$ Tivo (240 model then) and not getting the digital tier I did not wnat I broke even in a little over a year with a TiVo. since then the quality of the product and MRV/TTG which I use quite a bit has kept my perceived value of the product quite high.



> Yeah, the cable and sat companies aren't in the same dire straits Tivo evidently is, but that's not my concern and is really irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> The simple fact is that they charge more than anyone else for data service to a piece of hardware that everyone else gives away.


 huh, funny how they were sure not giving me any DVR until I signed onto some premium service. Kind of like a 3 free pizzas If I buy the 25$ coupon. 



> it's obvious their business model needs some tweaking or they should just sell their IP to someone who can make it competitive again.


 they tweak the business model all the time. What would you do different that would not end up costing too much money?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> TiVo severely diminishes the *value* of their product to many customers when they force ads at us.
> 
> Annoying ads plastered all over the screens.
> 
> ...now TiVo does the same???


Huh? Are we using the same TiVo? Remind me where ads are plastered all over & forced at us?

How is a line on a screen, *that requires zero effort to ignore or skip*, forced at us?

Geez, these "Ads Killed the TiVo" threads are preposterous. Note to self: ignore in future.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And I think this points out the problem that folks like Phantom Gremlin face: They don't like ads at all, and are trying to project a sense of hazard on that basis, but in order to be able to do so they have to resort to such hyperbole that their entire point has no credibility. The way things are, the complaints should be on the order of, "Ads are annoying. Bummer." And instead some folks are posting, "Oh my gosh, the sky is falling!" 

And yes, we do get that such things are progressive, but they're progressive because our tolerance changes over time. An analogy: A couple of weeks ago, I started weight lifting again, after about a year and a half off. I went right back to what was almost my old routine; my muscle memory remembered how, and my strength hadn't vanished. Two days later, I was in intense pain. I started back up too quickly. I was out of commission for a week. So a week ago, I started again, doing a very basic set of exercises, at lower weight levels, with fewer reps and fewer sets. Two days later, I did it again, but with a few more reps. And I'll continue to progressively make my work-out more intense. And guess what? Three months from now, when I'm back up to where I was a year and a half ago, I WON'T feel any pain two days later. 

I'm just waiting for someone to attack that analogy -- someone who doesn't realize that advertising IS indeed, at least in part, the "pain" that pays for our TiVo experience. If you don't get the analogy, think about it some more.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bicker said:


> I'm just waiting for someone to attack that analogy -- someone who doesn't realize that advertising IS indeed, at least in part, the "pain" that pays for our TiVo experience. If you don't get the analogy, think about it some more.


And before you know it you won't feel a thing while you do 10 reps of lifting a bull elephant.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Give me time.... getting older.... need to become that lean, mean fighting machine I always dreamed I could become, before it is too late!


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

astrohip said:


> How is a line on a screen, *that requires zero effort to ignore or skip*, forced at us?


Read msg #42 in this thread. The guy is reporting not one but *three* ad lines. He joined recently so maybe he's a troll. But if not, this is a very ominous development. I'm paying TiVo $10/mo to get away from ads, not to have them pushed at me in menu screens.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I've never seen more than one ad per page on my TiVos. I think what he really meant in #42 was this:

*program choice or menu item
program choice or menu item
program choice or menu item
program choice or menu item
program choice or menu item
program choice or menu item*
|------------------------------|
|* ICON banner advertisement *|
|------------------------------|


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I called him on the 3 ads in #43. No response. I also haven't seen ads in a larger font (except in the keep-or-delete menu at the end of the program - but that one's been discussed to death)


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

bicker said:


> I've never seen more than one ad per page on my TiVos. I think what he really meant in #42 was this:
> 
> *program choice or menu item
> program choice or menu item
> ...


You are correct...the OP simply meant that the single ad (in his opinion) was more prominent or carried more "weight" than the rest of the menu items due to the additional graphic(s) surrounding it...not that there were three lines of ads.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Yup -- only one ad per page, and not in a larger font. The most remarkable things about the ads is that they're framed and that they have an icon, to call attention to them, for the reasons discussed earlier.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

There goes the "unobtrusive" argument. Of course they could have made the ads a different color to make them stand out even more - probably the next slip down the slope........


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

But does the "no new keystrokes imposed" argument still hold?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoyK said:


> There goes the "unobtrusive" argument.


No, not really. The ad links are unobtrustive AFAIC.



RoyK said:


> Of course they could have made the ads a different color to make them stand out even more - probably the next slip down the slope........


Or they could have put the ads on the top of the list, or within a non-scrolling frame (as in the competing iGuide software) meaning you would be more likely to have to scroll down to see menu options beyond the first handful. Anything short of that doesn't qualify as obtrusive in my book.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

timckelley said:


> But does the "no new keystrokes imposed" argument still hold?


Yup. But one thing at a time.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> ... this is a very ominous development.





RoyK said:


> probably the next slip down the slope........


Bull Shyte. It's no slippery slope. And it's not ominous. It's an easy to ignore method of advertising. How many times does it take before it sinks in, *there is no extra effort required in the least to ignore these promos.* TiVo has purposely chosen methods that are unobtrusive. And yes, they continue to find new ways to use them. Is that a slippery slope? Not when it's this easily ignored.

If the day comes when TiVo creates a promo that we can't skip thru, or FF thru, or requires extra clicks to get around, then you can come back and give me an "I told you so". Until that day, get real.

BTW, you ain't paying TiVo $10 to get away from ads. They charge you $10 for their service. You can consider it paying for whatever you want, it's their charge and their TOS.

I gotta quit these threads, they're bad for my BP.


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

RoyK said:


> There goes the "unobtrusive" argument.


Not at all. Semantics aside, the whole point is that you need to do absolutely nothing to skip them. Obstructive is really the term. Modest changes in color of font size doesnt mean it changes my usage in any way.


----------



## qunewsguy (Sep 19, 2006)

I've got no problem with these ads myself. They're not forcing me to click anything and they're always at the bottom of the menus they show up on. Nothing's been shoved off my screen and I haven't been forced to view or press any ads in order to watch my shows so I'm fine with it. If my choices are Tivo going bankrupt or having to see these "intrusive" ads on screen once in a while, I'll most certainly take the ads because I've lived in cable company DVR land and it ain't fun, unless you consider constant clipping, missed recordings, and incorrect lineups worth your money.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

I say we file a class action lawsuit over this!

somebody had to say it


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Bull Shyte. It's no slippery slope. And it's not ominous. It's an easy to ignore method of advertising. How many times does it take before it sinks in, *there is no extra effort required in the least to ignore these promos.* TiVo has purposely chosen methods that are unobtrusive. And yes, they continue to find new ways to use them. Is that a slippery slope? Not when it's this easily ignored.


It is the definition of the slippery slope - increase little by little. Exactly what is happening. Fortunately the slope hasn't been very steep so far. You may find it easy to ignore them, others don't. Personally I find an accented band with a star at one end and a big white XF or a picture of a convicted female felon at the other rather difficult to ignore. Not requiring us to click on an ad is not the same thing as making it easy to ignore.



astrohip said:


> If the day comes when TiVo creates a promo that we can't skip thru, or FF thru, or requires extra clicks to get around, then you can come back and give me an "I told you so". Until that day, get real.


If that day ever comes I won't be back because I will no longer be a TiVo subscriber.



astrohip said:


> BTW, you ain't paying TiVo $10 to get away from ads. They charge you $10 for their service. You can consider it paying for whatever you want, it's their charge and their TOS.
> 
> I gotta quit these threads, they're bad for my BP.


Relax. Enjoy your Thanksgiving. Its a difference of opinion here, not the end of the world.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

RoyK said:


> It is the definition of the slippery slope - increase little by little. Exactly what is happening.


A slippery slope is when you can't tell when the situation has crossed over from tolerable to bad.

Many folks here have defined the criteria as what the ads do to the usability of the UI (appearance nonwithstanding). If you don't have to respond differently then that's an acceptable action on TiVo's part. One nice aspect of this criterion is that it's straightforward to tell when TiVo has crossed the line - and as of yet they haven't.

Ads on the TiVo are sort of a symbiotic thing - if you care about keeping your TiVo you care about TiVo Inc. remaining a going concern, just profitable enough. Ads help keep the balance sheet in TiVo's favor and away from additinoal subscription price hikes.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

pdhenry said:


> A slippery slope is when you can't tell when the situation has crossed over from tolerable to bad.
> 
> Many folks here have defined the criteria as what the ads do to the usability of the UI (appearance nonwithstanding). If you don't have to respond differently then that's an acceptable action on TiVo's part. One nice aspect of this criterion is that it's straightforward to tell when TiVo has crossed the line - and as of yet they haven't.


And many of us define it differently.



pdhenry said:


> Ads on the TiVo are sort of a symbiotic thing - if you care about keeping your TiVo you care about TiVo Inc. remaining a going concern, just profitable enough. Ads help keep the balance sheet in TiVo's favor and away from additinoal subscription price hikes.


TiVo is a business - not a group of college kids with a good idea working out of a garage or a charity needing support. If they strike a balance between providing a benefit to the customers at a price the customer is willing to pay they will succeed. If they continue to turn off the customer with annoyances and software riddled with bugs they won't.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoyK said:


> If they strike a balance between providing a benefit to the customers at a price the customer is willing to pay they will succeed.


Where did you get that idea?  Lots of "good" businesses fail. Not everything is sufficiently profitable to be sustainable long-term, regardless of what "balance" you strike. A lot of things are simply too costly for there to be a profitable business case for offering them.



RoyK said:


> If they continue to turn off the customer with annoyances and software riddled with bugs they won't.


Or alternatively, they can continue to succeed regardless of how much they turn you off with things that annoy you and bugs that affect you. Look at TiVo's competition. Basically, the cable company DVRs are beating the pants off TiVo in the marketplace, complete with things that annoy some customers, and software that some folks would surely claim is "riddled" with bugs. Yet they're doing business like gangbusters. No, Roy, you're off-target. The things you are focusing on aren't important to the customers who matter as you would like us to believe.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bicker said:


> .......
> Or alternatively, they can continue to succeed regardless of how much they turn you off with things that annoy you and bugs that affect you. ......


If you define success as managing to avoid closing their doors. I define it as continuously showing a profit - something that they are yet to do.


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

RoyK said:


> It is the definition of the slippery slope - increase little by little. Exactly what is happening. Fortunately the slope hasn't been very steep so far.


Slippery slope, more often than not, is a logical fallacy, requiring a great stretch of causation of events that in no way actually cause each other. Using a slippery slope argument is what people turn to when they don't have an actual event to point to thats unacceptable, and instead need to fear monger about what else it could (but probably won't) mean.

Combining it with the straw man, it makes an effective fear tactic, but doesn't relate to reality in the slightest.

1. A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2. B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3. B is wrong; therefore
4. A is wrong. (straw man)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy

Next time you find yourself referring to a slippery slope, step back and realize you're probably wrong, if that's the best logic you can come up with.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

fredct said:


> Slippery slope, more often than not, is a logical fallacy, requiring a great stretch of causation of events that in no way actually cause each other. Using a slippery slope argument is what people turn to when they don't have an actual event to point to thats unacceptable, and instead need to fear monger about what else it could (but probably won't) mean.
> 
> Combining it with the straw man, it makes an effective fear tactic, but doesn't relate to reality in the slightest.
> 
> ...


That was quite good and could be applied to a lot of what's going on in the world these days. TiVo ads are not a matter of life and death&#8230;or even a paper cut.

Nice dose of reality. Thanks! :up:


----------



## Leo Valiant (Apr 19, 2000)

You can ignore street billboards too, but they still are an eyesore to the landscape. Some places pass laws against putting them up.

This thread is focusing on the banner ad, but the ad tone alert is pretty annoying. I would say it's obtrusive. You're purposely trying to ignore the ads and TiVo is going *"I will not be ignored" Bleep-Bleep-Bleep.* It sounds like a voicemail/SMS alert on a cell.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

RoyK said:


> Relax. Enjoy your Thanksgiving. Its a difference of opinion here, not the end of the world.


Smartest thing either of us has said yet. Well put, and thanks! :up:


----------



## qunewsguy (Sep 19, 2006)

Here's the thing, has Tivo ever promised specifically that you're paying for their product in order to skip advertisements altogether? Not that I can recall. Your monthly fee goes towards the guide data and extra features Tivo provides. The ability to skip commercials just comes with the territory. If they need to add additional revenue by putting small ads in the interface that's fine. It's still wayyyyy better than sitting through 15 minutes of commercials in a TV show.

Just as long as they don't force us to sit through entire programs and commercials without the fast forward feature available. I can picture it now, the Tivo Series 4, now with the peanut remote sans a fast forward button. Now *THAT *would be a slippery slope.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Here's what TiVo Central looks like on my TiVo HD right now:

Now Playing List
Watch Live TV
Find Programs
Music, Photos, Products, & More
Showcases & TV Guide
Messages & Settings
TM Thanksgiving Break Movie Specials!
* Sneak a peek at the new Jaguar XF


The TM above is a "TiVo man" symbol. The * above is a five pointed yellow star.

I would classify both bottom lines as ads. And yes, I have a picture.

And, yes, this is a PITA. Whenever I want to turn off my TiVo I must go to Messages & Settings. It just became even more difficult to turn the box off.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Here's what TiVo Central looks like on my TiVo HD right now:
> 
> Now Playing List
> Watch Live TV
> ...


We're seeing the same thing. But I guess I'd still say...so what? An ad for Unbox videos and an ad for a Jag. Big deal. We took a look at the movie specials and even checked out the ad for the car...but no one broke our fingers making us push the remote buttons to get there...could have just as easily ignored them.

In the six plus years we've had TiVo we've never turned any of them off. I know there must be a valid reason. 



> It just became even more difficult to turn the box off.


 Why? The Messages and Settings line is in exactly the same place as it's always been on the TiVo Central menu. Even if that changed, pushing a little button one or two times more is a PIA? But its not a PIA to sit down at a computer and write a detailed post complaining about it? How many keystrokes and time does that take?

I guess some of us have a very low pain threshold or different ideas of what constitutes discomfort when it comes to our posteriors.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

richsadams said:


> In the six plus years we've had TiVo we've never turned any of them off. I know there must be a valid reason.


Simple explanation: not everyone's home viewing environment matches yours.

On my series 1 it didn't matter because the box always buffered live TV anyway. On my DirecTiVos it matters a lot because the boxes stop buffering when off. Which means much less wear and tear on the crappy consumer grade hard drives. Offhand I don't know what the default is for TiVo HD but why should I have to think so hard about whether or not a TiVo needs to be turned off. I have three TiVos going to the A/V receiver, two are DirecTiVos, one is a TiVo HD. Why should they be running their hard drives if I'm not watching or recording?

We turn our TV on and off during the day. But we just leave the A/V receiver on all day because it takes much less power than a TV and it's just one less switch to turn on and off. *However,* if we leave the A/V receiver and a TiVo on, then we have (annoying) sound from the speakers even without the TV on.



> Why? The Messages and Settings line is in exactly the same place as it's always been on the TiVo Central menu.


Yes it is a PITA. I can turn off a DirecTiVo from the front panel without viewing the TV. I can even turn it off "blind" by hitting:
TiVo
then Page Down
then Select. (standby function)

But it's much more complicated to turn off a TiVo HD:
TiVo
then Page Down
then arrow up (move up from ad) 
then Select (messages and settings)
then Page Down
then Select (standby function)

*OOPS!* That doesn't work anymore because now there are a variable number of lines of ads and not one. So instead the sequence becomes:
Tivo
then arrow down
then arrow down
then arrow down
then arrow down
then arrow down
then select (messages and settings)
then Page Down
then select (standby function)

Simple, huh? *NOT!!!* Rube Goldberg would be proud of TiVo's idea of an "off" switch, which isn't an "off" switch anyway!

The really sad thing is that some marketing pukes at TiVo thought it was a good idea to sell their souls to Satan for some extra coin, and in doing so to ridiculously complicate what used to be a relatively common and relatively simple thing for me to do.

A total of 9 button presses of 4 different buttons just to put the box into standby.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is inconvenienced by this, I'm just more likely to complain than most.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoyK said:


> > Or alternatively, they can continue to succeed regardless of how much they turn you off with things that annoy you and bugs that affect you. Look at TiVo's competition. Basically, the cable company DVRs are beating the pants off TiVo in the marketplace, *complete with things that annoy some customers, and software that some folks would surely claim is "riddled" with bugs*. Yet they're doing business like gangbusters.
> 
> 
> If you define success as managing to avoid closing their doors. I define it as continuously showing a profit - something that they are yet to do.


Who are you talking about? Comcast is doing GREAT! (Did you ever READ the message you replied to?  )


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I would classify both bottom lines as ads.


You would be wrong. The second-to-last is an entry point for Amazon Unbox, a TiVo special service.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bicker said:


> Who are you talking about? Comcast is doing GREAT! (Did you ever READ the message you replied to?  )


I was referring to TiVo.
(Did you ever READ the message you replied to?  )


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bicker said:


> You would be wrong. The second-to-last is an entry point for Amazon Unbox, a TiVo special service.


And you would be wrong. Amazon Unbox, while some may enjoy it and find it useful, is a commercial enterprise and this is a promotion for it -- an ad.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoyK said:


> I was referring to TiVo.
> (Did you ever READ the message you replied to?  )


I sure did read the message, and all you've confirmed is that either you didn't read, or didn't understand, my earlier message.

Read it again. Ask questions if you don't understand.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin: This is not the first time 2 ads have appeared on the TiVo Central Screen. As long ago as three years there were two separate lines for ad content on my S2 240 and 540, AND they weren't right next to one another at the bottom; one ad was placed between two regular menu items and the other was in the usual bottom position. These would be in addition to the Showcases area.

Also, there is a TiVo remote command which you can program into a universal remote to enable a single-button standby Alternatively, you can start a previously recorded program and pause it, then just switch off the television. S3s(I believe, I don't own one to verify) and Standalone S2s spin their drives even in standby so it's no real advantage to standby over pausing the video, unless the lights are a distraction as well.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> We turn our TV on and off during the day. But we just leave the A/V receiver on all day because it takes much less power than a TV and it's just one less switch to turn on and off. *However,* if we leave the A/V receiver and a TiVo on, then we have (annoying) sound from the speakers even without the TV on.


Hopefully you'll soon figure out that it's many fewer button pushes just to turn of your A/V receiver and not worry about turning off your TiVo. But feel free to complain all you want.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Simple explanation: not everyone's home viewing environment matches yours.
> 
> On my series 1 it didn't matter because the box always buffered live TV anyway. On my DirecTiVos it matters a lot because the boxes stop buffering when off. Which means much less wear and tear on the crappy consumer grade hard drives. Offhand I don't know what the default is for TiVo HD but why should I have to think so hard about whether or not a TiVo needs to be turned off. I have three TiVos going to the A/V receiver, two are DirecTiVos, one is a TiVo HD. Why should they be running their hard drives if I'm not watching or recording?
> 
> We turn our TV on and off during the day. But we just leave the A/V receiver on all day because it takes much less power than a TV and it's just one less switch to turn on and off. However, if we leave the A/V receiver and a TiVo on, then we have (annoying) sound from the speakers even without the TV on.


Ah, that makes a bit of sense now...thanks for clarifying. For some reason I thought I remembered you saying in previous posts that you were using Comcast (exclusively) like we are across town. Didn't realize you had DirecTV as well.

With regard to hard drives; I'm from the camp that believes there is a great deal more stress involved when they are turned on and off than if just left on all of the time. A majority of HDD's fail during startup. When you turn a hard drive on there is a surge of electricity that push platter spinup to speeds of as much as 10,000 rpm. It will then begin to warm up and reach an optimum operating temperature. The platters will begin to spin at the required speed and the the cooling fan will keep it at an appropriate temperature.

When you turn the drive off the platters spin down, the read/write heads park and the hard drive cools down. Depending on the situation, temperature swings (called thermal cycling) and voltage surges when powering on may reduce the life of a hard drive when shutting them down regularly. It's not the green thing to do, but for longevity hard drives last longer when left alone. YMMV.

I guess we've been lucky never having had a hard drive failure in all of these years. Knock on wood. *touching head*

IIRC, the HDD's in S3's and THD's continue to spin 24/7 even in standby mode, so I don't think you're accomplishing your goal by "turning it off" except that you dont hear the output because you have your receiver on. Might be better to just turn the receiver off?



Phantom Gremlin said:


> A total of 9 button presses of 4 different buttons just to put the box into standby.


Hopefully *gonzotek's *earlier suggestions can eliminate that issue.



Phantom Gremlin said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one who is inconvenienced by this, I'm just more likely to complain than most.


I'm sure you're not alone.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

gonzotek said:


> S3s(I believe, I don't own one to verify) and Standalone S2s spin their drives even in standby so it's no real advantage to standby over pausing the video, unless the lights are a distraction as well.


There are at least two advantages to using Standby on an S3:

1. Less power usage -- maybe not a huge difference, but it's still there.

2. Recordings are not interrupted by the Emergency Alert System force-tuning a different channel. This is a big deal when you have a system that does tests every night, like mine.

I have the discrete code for Standby programmed to the Power key on my URC-6131 remote. (It also works as "LiveTV" when the Tivo is already in Standby.)


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> There are at least two advantages to using Standby on an S3:
> 
> 1. Less power usage -- maybe not a huge difference, but it's still there.
> 
> ...


Understood about #1...but is that actually true if the HDD doesn't spin down, etc.?

Interesting about #2. They don't do that here, but from what I've read on the forum it's a real nuisance.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> 1. Less power usage -- maybe not a huge difference, but it's still there.


Urban legend. Oh, you mean you're not moving the read head around?


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Hopefully you'll soon figure out that it's many fewer button pushes just to turn of your A/V receiver and not worry about turning off your TiVo. But feel free to complain all you want.


I can program my TiVo remotes to do volume up/down to my A/V receiver. However, I can't program my TiVo remotes to power up/down my A/V receiver.

Remember the WAF and the KAF (kid acceptance factor?). It's relatively easy to put a DirecTiVo into standby, using just the factory remote. It's not possible to power down the A/V receiver using the factory remote.

Believe it or not, not everyone in this world is obsessed with gadgets and complicated procedures. Most just want a simple way to turn off their TV when they're not using it. Most people don't even want to think of an A/V receiver as a separate piece of electronics. They just want a simple way to turn off their TV!

The SAT-T60 DirecTiVo remote of many years ago made that simple task quite easy. Every TiVo remote since then makes it more and more difficult to do.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Every TiVo remote since then makes it more and more difficult to do.


Not true. The Glo remotes can be programmed to turn off 3 separate devices, *and* are learning remotes, which should be able to control any brand of tv, receiver, and cable box. One of those 'devices' could be the standby command for a TiVo, learned from your old DTV remote.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

richsadams said:


> Ah, that makes a bit of sense now...thanks for clarifying. For some reason I thought I remembered you saying in previous posts that you were using Comcast (exclusively) like we are across town. Didn't realize you had DirecTV as well.


I pay Comcast $10/mo to get locals in HD on my one TiVo HD box. Actually Comcast cable is nearly "free" because of the way they discount the Internet service in a bundle.

I can't afford to get rid of DirecTV. I have 4 active DirecTiVos and am thinking of reactivating another one. I could technically replace those with TiVo HD boxes, but:

Comcast service prices are higher than DirecTV for equivalent programming
standalone TiVo monthly service costs for 4 boxes (combined with Comcast additional outlet fees) are extortionate compared to DirecTiVos. We're talking an extra $50/mo compared to DirecTivos!
Thanks to the discussions on tivocommunity I was aware of the deteriorating business situation betwen TiVo and DirecTV. So I was able to snag R10 receivers at a bargain price before they disappeared.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

gonzotek said:


> Not true. The Glo remotes can be programmed to turn off 3 separate devices, *and* are learning remotes, which should be able to control any brand of tv, receiver, and cable box. One of those 'devices' could be the standby command for a TiVo, learned from your old DTV remote.


That's a good point. I have never owned an S3 so I often forget about that remote.

I've seen people complain about the lettering wearing off the Glo remotes, but is that just a cosmetic issue?


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> That's a good point. I have never owned an S3 so I often forget about that remote.
> 
> I've seen people complain about the lettering wearing off the Glo remotes, but is that just a cosmetic issue?


We've had our S3/Glo remote for about a year now and the lettes, numbers, etc. are just fine.

We've programmed it to:

1. Control our TV on/off
2. Control our Integra (Onkyo) receiver on/off, volume, mute, etc. (The discreet on/off takes up device two and three on the TiVo remote.)

So for us it's a TiVo remote one-button push to turn the HT on and off. But again, we really don't have a reason to power TiVo down.

We also have a "very smart" Sony all-in-one remote w/touch screen and all of that. I spent hours programming it, macros and all and it works fine with our TiVo, TV, DVD player, CD player plus other stuff. But 95% of the time we just watch TiVo/TV so the Sony remote collects a lot of dust.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Urban legend. Oh, you mean you're not moving the read head around?


No, I mean that the video generation is turned off. It's not of the same magnitude as the hard drive, but it does draw power.


----------



## blam (Nov 15, 2007)

Funny but true...

I got a TiVo because there were too many ads on TV.

I wonder what I'm going to go to when there become too many ads on my TiVo?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> No, I mean that the video generation is turned off. It's not of the same magnitude as the hard drive, but it does draw power.


So are you proposing that they've powered down the chip, or that they've just stopped pushing those 1s and 0s around? How much money do you think you're saving?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

blam said:


> Funny but true...
> 
> I got a TiVo because there were too many ads on TV.
> 
> I wonder what I'm going to go to when there become too many ads on my TiVo?


What's your alternative? Seriously.

Have you ever used a cable DVR? Ads all over the place (like right in the guide). But they are mostly unobtrusive (like the TiVo ads), so it's not a biggie. Ads won't drive *anyone* to make a DVR choice (regardless of the steam generated in this thread). Price, UI, etc will drive the DVR choice.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Ads won't drive *anyone* to make a DVR choice (regardless of the steam generated in this thread).


Huh?

The obtrusive ads plastered all over the GUI of my TCI / AT&T cable box were *precisely* why I bought my original S1 TiVo.

It was only *after* I bought the TiVo that I realized how great the recording / time shifting capability was.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Huh?
> 
> The obtrusive ads plastered all over the GUI of my TCI / AT&T cable box were *precisely* why I bought my original S1 TiVo.
> 
> It was only *after* I bought the TiVo that I realized how great the recording / time shifting capability was.


You're right. I should have said "The ads on a TiVo will not drive a single user away, regardless of the commotion raised in this thread."


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

astrohip said:


> You're right. I should have said "The ads on a TiVo will not drive a single user away, regardless of the commotion raised in this thread."


I liked the "steam generated" equation better...lots of hot air here.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> So are you proposing that they've powered down the chip, or that they've just stopped pushing those 1s and 0s around? How much money do you think you're saving?


 If I'm saving $0.01 a year, it's worth it, because it's zero effort for me. Someone who didn't have the Standby discrete code programmed into their remote might feel differently, of course.

Somewhere here, there's a thread where someone actually measured power consumption in and out of Standby. I don't remember the results, but there was a distinct difference, and IIRC it was larger than people expected. (I want to say it was on the order of 5 watts, but I really don't remember.)


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> If I'm saving $0.01 a year, it's worth it, because it's zero effort for me. Someone who didn't have the Standby discrete code programmed into their remote might feel differently, of course.
> 
> Somewhere here, there's a thread where someone actually measured power consumption in and out of Standby. I don't remember the results, but there was a distinct difference, and IIRC it was larger than people expected. (I want to say it was on the order of 5 watts, but I really don't remember.)


I wonder though if the power saved is offset or negative when TiVo is powered back up...the power supply, bringing the HDD back up to speed (if it spins down), the fan, CPU, MB chips, etc.

Then there's the impact of repeated power surges on all of the equipment involved. If it does indeed shorten the lifespan, what is the impact (dollars-wise and environmentally) for the required resources it takes to build replacement parts?

There are always many more things to ponder than immediate or perceived savings.

Our Integra amp goes into "standby" when you turn it "off", but it can be powered completely off with a hard switch. The manufacturer recommends powering it completely off for long-term non-use of 30 days or more otherwise it's better for the unit (according to them) to leave it in standby mode...and it has no moving parts.

No argument either way...just wondering if there's a measurable point if/when it makes sense to leave it on or turn it off?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Indeed. That discussion comes up quite often in DLP forums. Currently, the most reliable information I've seen indicates that it is worth spending the extra money and wear-and-tear on the DLP bulb for an hour, even if you're not watching, rather than incurring the wear-and-tear on the bulb from turning it off and turning it back on.


----------



## Budget_HT (Jan 2, 2001)

Point of clarification: a TiVo placed in standby mode only shuts off a few features, including output to the TV. Standby does NOT shut down the TiVo power supply.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I _used_ to put my Tivo in standby. I don't think the HD even spins down -- If I remember right, upon coming out of standby, there was live TV in the buffer.

I'll have to double check that.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

Budget_HT said:


> Point of clarification: a TiVo placed in standby mode only shuts off a few features, including output to the TV. Standby does NOT shut down the TiVo power supply.


Standby turns off the video output, suppresses Emergency Alert channel changes on the HD models, and tells the TiVo that noone is using the TiVo, so it is free to consider recording suggestions. That's it. The hard drive is still spinning, to record the 30-minute buffer.


----------



## blam (Nov 15, 2007)

astrohip said:


> What's your alternative? Seriously.
> 
> Have you ever used a cable DVR? Ads all over the place (like right in the guide). But they are mostly unobtrusive (like the TiVo ads), so it's not a biggie. Ads won't drive *anyone* to make a DVR choice (regardless of the steam generated in this thread). Price, UI, etc will drive the DVR choice.


True, there are ads everywhere and alternatives are tough to find. But I've been told that the media system that you can get with Vista is actually finally pretty good.

I'm going to investigate that.

But yes, I believe the alternate will be to just get a small computer, and some software (windows media center) to record tv shows. Should work.

For someone like me, who refuses to accept that ads should be on every interface we use, I think that is probably the alternative, just build my own TiVo.

btw: The ads on comcast's system are trully horrible. Have you ever tried to find a movie for the kids to watch on saturday using the on demand system, and had a violent movie preview blasting from the video box on the upper left. Pretty funny when you have to send the kids out of the room in order to just order a movie!


----------



## Joybob (Oct 2, 2007)

What I don't get is why sell these ads only to spend the money on ads on thedailyshow.com


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I'm sure that as soon as that avenue becomes more popular, and therefore advertising eyes become more lucrative, even Windows Media Center will start finding ways of imposing ads. The reality is that they don't call it "advertising supported television" for nothing... the more we come up with ways to avoid ads, the more advertisers will find ways to ensure that we see their ads, as long as they're willing to pay for the production of our programming. 

The real answer to the advertising quandary is to aim for a system whereby viewers pay for programming directly, instead of via eyes. So if you spend $150 on cable today, let's talk about paying $300 or more, to additionally cover that portion of the costs of production that are currently borne by advertising.


----------



## fredct (Nov 15, 2004)

blam said:


> True, there are ads everywhere and alternatives are tough to find. But I've been told that the media system that you can get with Vista is actually finally pretty good.
> 
> I'm going to investigate that.
> 
> But yes, I believe the alternate will be to just get a small computer, and some software (windows media center) to record tv shows. Should work.


Windows Media Center? My girlfriend used that at college. Its fine - didn't really suffer from missed recordings, although I'm pretty sure it didn't have anything like wishlists, and definitely didn't have suggestions. Perhaps they've upgraded some. The other downside is you can't take a current copy of Windows and add Media Center, you must buy it with a new PC. Pretty stupid.

The other downside if you have to watch tv on your computer, or have your computer set up somewhere near the tv and run cabling over. Also, if anything else much is running in the background, or you have a modestly old computer, don't be surprised if the video is jumpy - that happened on a regular basis.

Unless you're talking about a special purpose computer without monitor hooked up to the TV. That's a perfectly reasonable option, but it will cost a good deal more than a TiVo, and you won't get a lot of the same features. But if you're hell-bent on avoiding ads of any stripe, that's probably the way to go, for a good sized cost.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

fredct said:


> The other downside is you can't take a current copy of Windows and add Media Center, you must buy it with a new PC. Pretty stupid.
> 
> That's a perfectly reasonable option, but it will cost a good deal more than a TiVo, and you won't get a lot of the same features.


Not sure about now, but you could buy XP MCE and install it yourself, without a new computer. Currently, MCE is built into the higher tiers of Vista and doesn't require a new computer.

Cost is not so clear cut - if you're just interested in analog cable or OTA standard def programming, you could do it for a few hundred bucks. If you're going HD OTA or clear QAM, the lowest might be 2-3x the cost of a TiVo HD since you'll need a better video card and a more expensive tuner. Of course you won't be able to decode digital cable unless you invest over $1k to get a machine with the ATI CableCARD decoder, but on the other hand a PC will do a ton more than just tune TV and there's no service fees.

PC DVRs probably appeal to a different audience than a TiVo STB. I run both, but I'm geeky like that.


----------



## blam (Nov 15, 2007)

Okay, though I hate the new banner ad on the menu, I can at least see it being relevent if it is promoting a new show.

But, what I can't see, is having a credit card ad from chase on my TiVo Menu now.

Are you kidding me? A credit card ad sent to my TiVo?

And I shudder to think what sort of information they are sharing now with Chase. I can imagine them matching my viewing habits to what my spending limit could be.

What is next, a Viagra ad? Probably...

Honestly, looks like my beloved TiVo is on the fast track down the tubes...

You know what, I'm going to call up and opt-out of credit card junk mail sent to my TiVo. I figure I can tell the credit card company to not send me snail mail, not call my house, why shouldn't I be able to tell them not to send me junk mail in the form of a banner to my tivo menu.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Because you've never been promised that.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

blam said:


> And I shudder to think what sort of information they are sharing now with Chase. I can imagine them matching my viewing habits to what my spending limit could be.


Please read the Privacy Policy (which you agreed to when signing up to the TiVo Service): http://www.tivo.com/abouttivo/policies/tivoprivacypolicy.html
Specifically this section:


> Commerce Partners. When you elect to participate in a special offer or engage in a transaction with TiVo or a Third Party advertiser or promoter, TiVo will collect and disclose your Commerce Information to the commerce partner sponsoring and/or fulfilling the promotion. In addition to fulfilling your request, that commerce partner may also use your Commerce Information to send you other information in which you might be interested consistent with its own privacy policies. *This information is disclosed only upon your affirmative response to an offer.*





blam said:


> You know what, I'm going to call up and opt-out of credit card junk mail sent to my TiVo. I figure I can tell the credit card company to not send me snail mail, not call my house, why shouldn't I be able to tell them not to send me junk mail in the form of a banner to my tivo menu.


Good luck. Please let us know the results of your efforts.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

blam said:


> And I shudder to think what sort of information they are sharing now with Chase. I can imagine them matching my viewing habits to what my spending limit could be.


well it does not fit your FUD on ads but even if you OPTED into the least private info sharing with TiVo, your DVR data or income, etc.. would never be shared in a manner that is personally identifiable. Since you most likely stayed at default privacy then at most TiVo would say that x number of folks in zip code 12345 watched some show and here is the ad viewing breakdown in that zip code.

so land the black helicopter, the worst it got for you is seeing chase credit card and their logo.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

blam said:


> What is next, a Viagra ad?


I checked out the Showcases last night. I hadn't done that in ages, since they're all ads now, but I'd just seen some first-generation Tivo footage that reminded me of when they used to be sort of useful. Anyway, I saw "Run a business from your own home / Crazy Fox", as well as "Free Info / Start Your Own Business & Make Extra Income! / SMC". I found these disturbingly sleazy. There were also SIX credit card ads.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Face it: TiVo owners are generally interested in buying things, so credit card ads are very well targeted at TiVo owners.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> I checked out the Showcases last night. I hadn't done that in ages, since they're all ads now, but I'd just seen some first-generation Tivo footage that reminded me of when they used to be sort of useful. Anyway, I saw "Run a business from your own home / Crazy Fox", as well as "Free Info / Start Your Own Business & Make Extra Income! / SMC". I found these disturbingly sleazy. There were also SIX credit card ads.


guess it is time to stop watching TV and throw away any printed media with ads as well


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

blam said:


> Honestly, looks like my beloved TiVo is on the fast track down the tubes...


Didn't we just get thru this entire thread, debating this. And finally reach some uneasy peace. Or agree to disagree? And you gotta start this shyte all over again?

Ok, you're right. PLEASE go toss your beloved in the trash, so the rest of us can get back to debating other life-threatening issues. 



blam said:


> What is next, a Viagra ad? Probably...


Only if it thinks you need it. Which it can tell based on your viewing habits. Which it has now shared with every pharmacy in the USA.

Guess you shoulda opted out a little quicker . . .


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

windracer said:


> I'm the opposite ... my S2 is showing the banner-style gold star and the same ads are the old style on my S3 and THD.


I'm curious if anyone still has the old style ads. My S2 has been showing the new style "banner" ads since this thread was posted. My S3 still shows the old style ads nearly a month and a half later. It never changed.


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

morac said:


> I'm curious if anyone still has the old style ads. My S2 has been showing the new style "banner" ads since this thread was posted. My S3 still shows the old style ads nearly a month and a half later. It never changed.


  All of ours are showing the newer style.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

morac said:


> I'm curious if anyone still has the old style ads. My S2 has been showing the new style "banner" ads since this thread was posted. My S3 still shows the old style ads nearly a month and a half later. It never changed.


My TiVo HD shows the newer ads, my Series3 never has. Who knows!


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

richsadams said:


> A little more perspective in today's ad-driven world: Satellite radio (XM, Sirius). Same principle; you pay for a good receiver (often more than a basic TiVo ) and then about $5 to $13/mo. for a subscription, almost on par with TiVo. Some stations have ads, some don't...and what do you get? A bunch of songs&#8230; Ooooo. No video, very little control, no recording, no WL's, no Unbox, no FF&#8230;well, you get the idea. I know, I know most of us also pay for cable, but you don't have to any more than you have to pay for satellite radio.


Then you haven't heard of XM's "Inno" made by Pioneer!!  Please click the link to read / scan through a very thorough review, complete with pictures.

I have this radio (cost me ~$200), and to record a song, I just press and hold down the "XM" button (comparable to the TiVo button, present on the radio _and _on the remote, compare to TiVo that doesn't have any buttons on the unit, BTW). It records from then on, as well as anything already captured in its 10-minute buffer. You can listen to Live Radio or previously recorded content.

This was certainly an interesting day for me to stumble into your post, because I just got back from a 10+ hour trip where I was the only occupant of the vehicle. Just before leaving, they started playing this song that I'd been wanting to hear since Thanksgiving but never did! I recorded it and I swear I listened to that song the whole way (except at some points when I'd get bored, but then Live Radio would get boring and I'd return right back to it.) I remember at least two other trips in just this way, with a song that I recorded and just kept playing over and over again.

You can basically use the radio as either an XM radio (Live) or an ipod-type device. I bought one of the latter. Never loaded a single song onto it. My XM radio is almost exclusively used in my car and I record songs very often, building my collection. This radio only has like a 1 gig HD, so ~250 songs if not less before you have to start deleting. You can also hook it up to your PC and load songs from your own HD, BTW. If songs are in general too cheesy for you, some people prefer to record Talk Shows and listen later. Oh, with this radio you can also schedule recordings! I don't use that feature, but it's really quite popular.

They do too have FF! You can't rewind Live XM but you can rewind and FF your recordings. What's even cooler, the RR or FF goes faster and faster as you hold down the button, hence you can get to the middle of a several-hour recording very quickly. I believe this particular faster-FF feature was in response to a customer / fan suggestion from the site I posted you to. They are able to update software on this radio.

The closest thing to WL is probably their "TuneSelect." On most XM radios you can tell them you like a song you are hearing and would like to be alerted whenever it comes up again. On this one you can type in a song title / artist you like and it will notify you with a beep. The complaint is that the beep is somewhat quiet, though, as it comes through the little radio and not your speakers.

Like TiVo, they seem to be struggling. What is it with these companies having Excellent service, but somehow not being able to get the word out to potential customers?! People wonder the same thing about XM radio, they say more folks would pay for the service if they knew all they could get by purchasing a radio and signing up for service. The two companies are much more similar than it would seem (this seems to be the only on-topic part of my message, BTW. Sorry for veering off topic  )


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

JaneiR36 said:


> Then you haven't heard of XM's "Inno" made by Pioneer!!  Please click the link to read / scan through a very thorough review, complete with pictures.
> 
> I have this radio (cost me ~$200), and to record a song, I just press and hold down the "XM" button (comparable to the TiVo button, present on the radio _and _on the remote, compare to TiVo that doesn't have any buttons on the unit, BTW). It records from then on, as well as anything already captured in its 10-minute buffer. You can listen to Live Radio or previously recorded content.
> 
> ...


Oh sure...now I have to buy a whole _other _toy! Thanks a lot!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JaneiR36 said:


> Like TiVo, they seem to be struggling. What is it with these companies having Excellent service, but somehow not being able to get the word out to potential customers?!


I think you're selling them short. It is very possible for there to be simply no highly-profitable business model for something. How much the greatest fans love something is not a good bellwether; how much the casual observer loves something is.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> guess it is time to stop watching TV and throw away any printed media with ads as well


I chuckle every time I see someone compare TiVo to printed media. 

Are the ads on TiVo of the "pay-on-click" variety? If so, making an effort to NOT click on the ads sends a silent but powerful message to TiVo and the advertisers. Maybe they'll wake up and finally realize that this is of no value to them.

___


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Fixer said:


> I chuckle every time I see someone compare TiVo to printed media.
> 
> Are the ads on TiVo of the "pay-on-click" variety? If so, making an effort to NOT click on the ads sends a silent but powerful message to TiVo and the advertisers. Maybe they'll wake up and finally realize that this is of no value to them.
> 
> ___


Ok, so how would you replace the revenue that the ads generate? Let's make a couple of assumptions:

1) Tivo can not make money with just (the current) hardware fees and monthly subscriptions. (They have only had one profitable quarter in their history and no indication that is going to change.)

2) The revenue of the hardware barely covers the cost of the hardware. I have heard the S3 actually is a little profitable out the door, but the S3DT and HD are both loss leaders to generate subscriptions. I actually believe Tivo loses money on the hardware, but expects to make it up in subscription fees.

So if you were the CEO of Tivo how would you return raise your income and still eliminate ads?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It's not even a matter of replacing the ad revenue. To justify getting rid of the links to ads, you'd have to provide a business case that there is more profit to be derived from doing so than not doing so. That would mean that large numbers of the more profitable customers would have to eschew the product based primarily on the existence of the links to ads. That's simply not the case, and likely will never be the case unless some competing device, in the same general price range and aimed at users with the same general level of technical capability, comes along without ads or links to ads.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

RBlount said:


> 1) Tivo can not make money with just (the current) hardware fees and monthly subscriptions. (They have only had one profitable quarter in their history and no indication that is going to change.)


It doesn't take a genius to figure out that TiVo is in the wrong business.



RBlount said:


> 2) The revenue of the hardware barely covers the cost of the hardware. I have heard the S3 actually is a little profitable out the door, but the S3DT and HD are both loss leaders to generate subscriptions. I actually believe Tivo loses money on the hardware, but expects to make it up in subscription fees.


I call bullcrap on this. If they're not earning a wee bit of profit from the hardware, then they should find a different OEM. Sure, they have rebates, but geez, just about every CE company has rebates. All I hear are excuses. 

___


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Fixer said:


> It doesn't take a genius to figure out that TiVo is in the wrong business.
> 
> I call bullcrap on this. If they're not earning a wee bit of profit from the hardware, then they should find a different OEM. Sure, they have rebates, but geez, just about every CE company has rebates. All I hear are excuses.


No, all you hear are facts. You really don't have any understanding of TiVo finances given your claims.

Figures from the last full year annual report:
Hardware Revenues: $88.74 million
Hardware Rebates: $48.136 million
Cost of Hardware Revenues: $112.212 million

So total hardware cost was $160 million and total hardware revenue was $88 million. It's not even close. The service (and advertising) revenue very heavily subsidize the hardware. (With the HD hardware, they are now cutting back on the subsidy.) Their business model is very different from what you envision.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> If so, making an effort to NOT click on the ads sends a silent but powerful message to TiVo and the advertisers. Maybe they'll wake up and finally realize that this is of no value to them.
> 
> ___


no effort needed by anyone to not click on them  I have noted in these threads many times over you can use the DVR like you do already and in fact it would take extra effort *to* click on them.

even at that most ads work on a low percentage response rate. TiVo has the unique ability though to provide repsonse rate accurtae to many decimal places, so if the ads were not working for the advertisers they would be gone already. So, please don't hurt yourself making sure you do not click on the ads


----------



## richsadams (Jan 4, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> no effort needed by anyone to not click on them  I have noted in these threads many times over you can use the DVR like you do already and in fact it would take extra effort *to* click on them.
> 
> even at that most ads work on a low percentage response rate. TiVo has the unique ability though to provide repsonse rate accurtae to many decimal places, so if the ads were not working for the advertisers they would be gone already. So, please don't hurt yourself making sure you do not click on the ads


 +1 :up:


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

CrispyCritter said:


> No, all you hear are facts. You really don't have any understanding of TiVo finances given your claims.
> 
> Figures from the last full year annual report:
> Hardware Revenues: $88.74 million
> ...


What claims did I make? Since TiVo does not provide content, they're product has little value to the consumer regardless of how much they sell the hardware for. They're really not in a position to subsidize anything. If they can't produce a box that's worth something to the consumer, then they shouldn't be in business

I like this:


Tivo Corp said:


> ...Our primary source of revenues is from consumers, who subscribe directly to the TiVo service and pay us monthly fees of up to $19.95 per month. We also offer consumers the option to prepay for one to three years of TiVo service at prices ranging from $179 to $399....
> 
> ...Consumers may not be willing to pay for our products and services. Many of our customers already pay monthly fees for cable or satellite television. We must convince these consumers to pay an additional subscription fee to receive the TiVo service. Consumers may perceive the TiVo service and related DVR as too expensive. In order to continue to grow our subscription base, we may need to reduce our costs and lower the price of our DVR or service fees. The availability of competing services that do not require subscription fees or that are enabled by low or no cost DVRs will harm our ability to effectively attract and retain subscriptions.


Boo-hoo; poor, poor TiVo. Cry me a freakin' river why don't ya. The more you folks keep treating this company like a charity case, the more they will take you for granted.

___


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> even at that most ads work on a low percentage response rate. TiVo has the unique ability though to provide repsonse rate accurtae to many decimal places, so if the ads were not working for the advertisers they would be gone already. So, please don't hurt yourself making sure you do not click on the ads


This makes me wonder: Has TiVo had anyone return to them for their advertising needs, or has it all been "one shots"?

___


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> Boo-hoo; poor, poor TiVo. Cry me a freakin' river why don't ya. The more you folks keep treating this company like a charity case, the more they will take you for granted.
> 
> ___


so why do YOU send TiVo money then


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so why do YOU send TiVo money then


I bought the box and paid for lifetime before I was fully aware of TiVo's business practices. I hang on to it, well, because it's paid for. _*shrugs*_ Is that a good enough answer for you?

___


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> I bought the box and paid for lifetime before I was fully aware of TiVo's business practices. I hang on to it, well, because it's paid for. _*shrugs*_ Is that a good enough answer for you?
> 
> ___


yep that is


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> This makes me wonder: Has TiVo had anyone return to them for their advertising needs, or has it all been "one shots"?
> 
> ___


movies and car companies. Also American Express seems to hang in the showcase forever

TiVo is in the Catch22 of needing a larger subscriber base to get Ad momentum to really have an ability to replace subscriber dollars with ad dollars


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Fixer said:


> What claims did I make?


How about "I call bullcrap on this. If they're not earning a wee bit of profit from the hardware, then they should find a different OEM."?

Face it, your comments have shown you have no idea what you're taking about regarding TiVo's finances.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

CrispyCritter said:


> How about "I call bullcrap on this. If they're not earning a wee bit of profit from the hardware, then they should find a different OEM."?
> 
> Face it, your comments have shown you have no idea what you're taking about regarding TiVo's finances.


Dude, you're clueless. :down: That's merely a suggestion, not a "claim". If TiVo found a competitive price point that consumers are willing to absorb, yet their cost is still too high, then they need to find a cheaper manufacturer. How much clearer can I be?? 

___


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> Dude, you're clueless. :down: That's merely a suggestion, not a "claim". If TiVo found a competitive price point that consumers are willing to absorb, yet their cost is still too high, then they need to find a cheaper manufacturer. How much clearer can I be??
> 
> ___


so you think TiVo just called someone out of the phone book to make the boxes? Maybe perhaps TiVo was completely focused on cost in designing/making the 540, DT and TiVo HD. I am sure they constantly look at how to lower costs but there is only so low you can go.

The TiVo does not have a business model that works solely as a Consumer Electronic device to record TV. Until you get that, you will be stuck in this world of wanting just a DVR from TiVo - call your cable company for one of those.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

Fixer said:


> Dude, you're clueless. :down: That's merely a suggestion, not a "claim". If TiVo found a competitive price point that consumers are willing to absorb, yet their cost is still too high, then they need to find a cheaper manufacturer. How much clearer can I be??


Yes, I agree, you've been extremely clear. You made a false claim and got caught on it.

What exactly is the "this" in "I call bullcrap on this" that you can possibly think you can wiggle out of? You were wrong and now you are just playing games with us rather than debating.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

One thing our "friend" Fixer may not realize is that there is not necessarily a profitable business case to be made for every product or service we customers may want. A great product, provided as efficiently as possible, still may not be profitable. That's life. We consumers therefore lose out, one way or another, because of the laws of physics and finance -- not necessarily for any other reason.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

CrispyCritter said:


> Figures from the last full year annual report:
> Hardware Revenues: $88.74 million
> Hardware Rebates: $48.136 million
> Cost of Hardware Revenues: $112.212 million
> ...


From TiVo's latest Annual Report:

*"To date, we have incurred significant losses and have had substantial negative cash flow. During the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007, our cash used to fund our operations was $33.5 million and we had a net loss of $47.8 million. As of January 31, 2007, we had an accumulated deficit of $741.8 million."* 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*"We have incurred significant net losses and may never achieve sustained profitability.

We have incurred significant net losses and have had substantial negative cash flows. During the fiscal years ended January 31, 2007, 2006, and 2005, our net losses were $(47.8) million, $(37.0) million, and $(79.8) million, respectively. As of January 31, 2007, we had an accumulated deficit of $(741.8) million. The size of future net losses will depend in part on our subscription revenues and on our expenses. We will need to generate significant additional revenues to achieve profitability.

We face intense competition from a number of sources, which may impair our revenues, increase our subscription acquisition cost, and hinder our ability to generate new subscriptions.

The DVR market is rapidly evolving, and we face significant competition. Moreover, the market for in-home entertainment is intensely competitive and subject to rapid technological change. As a result of this intense competition, we could incur increased subscription acquisition costs that could adversely affect our ability to reach or sustain profitability in the future. If new technologies render the DVR market obsolete, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to cover our expenses and obligations." *


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Wow. That's pretty severe wording.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

bicker said:


> Wow. That's pretty severe wording.


It's actually pretty standard for that portion of the report, which is the "what can go wrong" section intended to avoid lawsuits. Eg 2002


> We have recognized limited revenue, have incurred significant losses and have had substantial negative cash flow. During the fiscal year ended January 31, 2002, the one-month transition period ended January 31, 2001 and the calendar year ended December 31, 2000, we recognized revenues of $19.4 million, $989,000 and $3.6 million, respectively. As of January 31, 2002, we had an accumulated deficit of $463.0 million. We expect to incur significant operating expenses over the next several years in connection with the continued development and expansion of our business. As a result, we expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. The size of these net losses depends in part on our subscriber revenues and on our expenses. With increased expenses, we will need to generate significant additional revenues to achieve profitability. Consequently, we may never achieve profitability, and even if we do, we may not sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.


and 2004 (I didn't bother looking again at other years; I assume it's the same)


> We have incurred significant net losses and may never achieve profitability.
> We have incurred significant net losses and have had substantial negative cash flows. During the fiscal years ended January 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002 our net loss attributable to common stockholders was ($32.0) million, ($82.3) million, and ($160.7) million, respectively. As of January 31, 2004, we had an accumulated deficit of ($577.3) million. We expect to incur significant operating expenses over the next several years in connection with the continued development and expansion of our business. As a result, we expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future. The size of these net losses depends in part on our subscription revenues and on our expenses. We will need to generate significant additional revenues to achieve profitability. Consequently, we may never achieve profitability, and even if we do, we may not sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.
> We face intense competition from a number of sources, which may impair our revenues, increase our subscription acquisition cost, and hinder our ability to generate new subscriptions.
> The DVR market is rapidly evolving and we expect to face significant competition. Moreover, the market for in-home entertainment is intensely competitive and subject to rapid technological change. As a result of this intense competition, we could incur increased subscription acquisition cost that could adversely affect our ability to reach sustained profitability in the future. If new technologies render the DVR market obsolete, we may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to cover our expenses and obligations.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

CrispyCritter said:


> It's actually pretty standard for that portion of the report, which is the "what can go wrong" section intended to avoid lawsuits.


Yes, if this was in the 'risks' section then it talks about earthquakes and wildfires threatening the business.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

So, can losses like TiVo's go on indefinitely or is there a point at which they'll have to sell out?


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

ah30k said:


> Yes, if this was in the 'risks' section then it talks about earthquakes and wildfires threatening the business.


I don't see that there:

http://investor.tivo.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-07-81563


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Wow. That's pretty severe wording.


yes. It is the "but we did tell you" clause for investors on the dark side of the business model, bleakest picture.

but if anything points to why TiVo would be sued for malfeasance if they did not pursue ad revenue, it would be this part of the filing.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

fallingwater said:


> So, can losses like TiVo's go on indefinitely or is there a point at which they'll have to sell out?


I agree that the 3/4 billion dollars accumulated deficit is rather amazing. But even more amazing is that they have absolutely no long-term debt at all! They keep selling stock.

They can keep on going for years to come without any problem.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

fallingwater said:


> I don't see that there:
> 
> http://investor.tivo.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-07-81563


Page 28/29:
*Our Business could be adversely impacted in the event of a natural disaster. *Our corporate headquarters is located in Alviso, California which is where the overwhelming majority of our employees work. Our primary servers are located nearby in San Jose, California. Alviso and San Jose lay near the San Andreas Fault, a major source of earthquake activity in California. In the event of an earthquake or similar natural disaster, our ability to continue operations could be adversely affected and our business could be harmed.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

CrispyCritter said:


> I agree that the 3/4 billion dollars accumulated deficit is rather amazing. But even more amazing is that they have absolutely no long-term debt at all! They keep selling stock.
> 
> They can keep on going for years to come without any problem.


They can keep going as long as people keep investing in the company and the majority of the people don't sell. If everyone who had TiVo stock tried to sell today, the company would go bankrupt. Basically TiVo needs to keep its investors happy.

TiVo is actually in a weird position. Practically everyone has heard of TiVo (though they might not all know what exactly it is), yet TiVo has a hard time selling boxes whether they advertise or not. Advertising is an added expense and it doesn't result in additional revenue actually hurts the company. For years, TiVo didn't advertise (or if they did I never saw it) hoping to sell based on word of mouth. That didn't work too well so now they are going on an advertising blitz. We'll have to see the past year's financial statement (due out in March) to see how well that worked out for them.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

morac said:


> They can keep going as long as people keep investing in the company and the majority of the people don't sell. If everyone who had TiVo stock tried to sell today, the company would go bankrupt. Basically TiVo needs to keep its investors happy.


Not directly true. Typically, once a company sells stock, it doesn't buy it back. So they don't have to worry about people selling stock.

Except . . . if everyone tried to sell at once, the price would plunge, and there would be no ability to sell even more stock in the future to continue raising bonfire fuel.

[disclaimer: I own an extremely minor amount of TiVo stock]


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

astrohip said:


> Typically, once a company sells stock, it doesn't buy it back.


What? Companies buy stock back all of the time if they think that is the best use of their cash reserves (as opposed to dividends or investments). Oh, this assumes they are profitable! Buying back stock increases shareholder value because the profits are shared among fewer shareholders.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> You're not paying a good amount of money. TiVo service is a bargain.


Well, it's quite possible to do both, of course. I paid a rather whopping big pile of money for my house, yet it was definitely a great bargain. To my perspective, I wouldn't say the TiVo service is cheap, but I would certainly classify it as reasonable - especially the multi-service discounts and the 3 year options. The lifetime service can really be a bargain if (as I did with my Series I) you manage to keep the DVR going for 7 years.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

ah30k said:


> Page 28/29:


You're right. After scrutinizing all 17 pages of Risk Factors and looking again at that 3/4 billion I wonder...?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Bull Shyte. It's no slippery slope. And it's not ominous.


Well, it could be a portent of less unobtrusive things to come. I'm not saying it is, but that's sort of the whole idea of a slippery slope. The grade generally is milder at the top but gets steeper and steeper as one descends further. That said, I'm not really worrying about it. I've noticed the ads, but that's all.



astrohip said:


> BTW, you ain't paying TiVo $10 to get away from ads. They charge you $10 for their service. You can consider it paying for whatever you want, it's their charge and their TOS.


I started to call "Bull Shyte" too, when I first read his post, but then I think I caught on to what he means. A DVR is a moderately good way to avoid advertising to a great extent. Certainly it is easier to do so with a DVR than with live TV. To that end, I think he is saying one of the "features" for which he pays his money is the ability to avoid adds. It's kind of convoluted, but I suppose in a way it's a valid notion.



astrohip said:


> I gotta quit these threads, they're bad for my BP.


Threads like this don't raise my BP. I get a real kick sometimes laughing at the mud fight down in the pit.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

RoyK said:


> If they strike a balance between providing a benefit to the customers at a price the customer is willing to pay they will succeed.


Lots of businesses have done precisely that and failed miserably.



astrohip said:


> If they continue to turn off the customer with annoyances and software riddled with bugs they won't.


So you're saying Microsoft went bankrupt 20 years ago? The terms "annoying" and "bug-riddled" are synonymous with Microsoft.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> I think you're selling them short. It is very possible for there to be simply no highly-profitable business model for something. How much the greatest fans love something is not a good bellwether; how much the casual observer loves something is.


That's very true, however the reverse should not be, yet disturbingly is. In case after case I see throngs of people flocking to various companies seemingly for no other reasons than to pay way too much for an inferior product and the privilege of being abused by a lousy, impertinent, incompetent customer support system. It boggles my mind.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> One thing our "friend" Fixer may not realize is that there is not necessarily a profitable business case to be made for every product or service we customers may want. A great product, provided as efficiently as possible, still may not be profitable. That's life. We consumers therefore lose out, one way or another, because of the laws of physics and finance -- not necessarily for any other reason.


Well, true, depending on how badly we want it. If the demand is high enough, the cost can eventually go through the roof high enough to make any business profitable. On the other hand, when the price does start to rise precipitously, it very quickly spawns competition. This is in large measure precisely what is happening in the DVR market. That, and of course the regulatory quagmire in which we now find ourselves. 'Not to say TiVo hasn't made some mistakes, as well.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

fallingwater said:


> So, can losses like TiVo's go on indefinitely or is there a point at which they'll have to sell out?


Well, it depends on a number of things. Showing a net profit on the books at the end of the year can actually be somewhat problematical for a company, depending on how it is organized and what classes of stock are offered. At the very least, a company which is losing money doesn't incur as large a tax burden. It also depends on the market sector and customer confidence, and whether the company is privately held, owned by a larger corporation, or publicly traded. There are some companies who have rarely ever shown a profit in over 100 years, yet continue to grow like a weed. Others fail miserably despite showing significant but lower than predicted profits year over year. Corporate finances are very complex, and although I have a significant responsibility for certain aspects of my company's financial workings I am certainly no accounting expert. To greatly over-simplify, however, a publicly traded company in a stable market is very likely to do well as long as it exceeds its financial predictions - even though they might be low - and can show an overall increase in value of its stock or its dividends, hopefully concommittent with an increase in assets and real profitibility. Broadly speaking, such a situation is easiest for a service company with significant real assets whose customers are under long term contracts (think AT&T) and most difficult for a service company with no real assets whose customers purchase the service on a one time only basis (think of an auto repair shop). Manufacturers and merchandise companies fall somewhere in the middle.

Note also that a publicly traded company with no majority stockholder is "sold out" at the outset. Even gong bankrupt (chapter 11) does not mean the company ceases to exist. MCI is still around, you know, although now they call themselves "Verizon". Even chapter 13 bankruptcy does not necessarily mean the company wholly ceases to exist, although in order to continue to do business after chapter 13 they (or at least their assets) must indeed be purchased by some other entity under court direction.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

fallingwater said:


> You're right. After scrutinizing all 17 pages of Risk Factors and looking again at that 3/4 billion I wonder...?


I must say I was a little surprised at the numbers. 'Not by the 3/4 billion in debt, but by the relatively small numbers of loss and revenue. I thought they were a bigger company than that. Of course how bad a debt is depends on how big one's assets are, how big one's liabilities are, and how much revenue one can expect. AT&T has over $60 Billion in debt, with liabilities of over $156 Billion as of Q3 2007. Unless they pull a boneheaded stunt like Bernie Ebbers did, I don't see them going bankrupt any time soon. Of course, they also brought in about $2.7 Million per business day in unlevered free cash during the same period. They could completely cover TiVo's entire yearly net loss in cash in just over a month and still show a profit.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ah30k said:


> What? Companies buy stock back all of the time if they think that is the best use of their cash reserves (as opposed to dividends or investments). Oh, this assumes they are profitable! Buying back stock increases shareholder value because the profits are shared among fewer shareholders.


Actually, if a company winds up with too much cash in reserve, they had probably better buy back some stock. Not doing so is one fairly good way to make ones self a target for a hostile takeover unless the majority stockholders are rock solid. At best the tax man will come along at the end of the year and want a rather large bite of all that cash unless it gets re-invested somewhere or distributed to stockholders - assuming the stock bears dividends.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Not directly true. Typically, once a company sells stock, it doesn't buy it back. So they don't have to worry about people selling stock.
> 
> Except . . . if everyone tried to sell at once, the price would plunge, and there would be no ability to sell even more stock in the future to continue raising bonfire fuel.


Not only is that nonsense from the standpoint of astrohip's rebuttal, but it is also important *who* is buying and selling the stock, and how much. A momentary surge in buying and selling on the part of minor stockholders can very significantly impact stock prices, but usually has relatively little in the way of a long term affect on the business. Anything which causes the major stockholders to begin selling off or buying up stock is a huge concern, however, fluctuating stock prices quite aside.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

CrispyCritter said:


> Yes, I agree, you've been extremely clear. You made a false claim and got caught on it.
> 
> What exactly is the "this" in "I call bullcrap on this" that you can possibly think you can wiggle out of? You were wrong and now you are just playing games with us rather than debating.


Caught? ROFL!!! Caught doing what? I'm still trying to figure out what "claim" I supposedly made.  Suggesting that TiVo find a different OEM to lower their costs is not a "claim". Maybe you should pull you head out of your a... er, the sand? LOL!! 



ZeoTiVo said:


> The TiVo does not have a business model that works solely as a Consumer Electronic device to record TV. Until you get that, you will be stuck in this world of wanting just a DVR from TiVo - *call your cable company for one of those.*


When I had cable, I did. Now that I'm using satellite, I did again.  As I've stated before, TiVo is in the wrong business. They need to get out of hardware sales all together. Regardless of whether or not their software implementation is superior to everyone else's, the sat and cable co.s are eating them alive on the hardware. The sad fact is that TiVo does not offer anything of value to the consumer if the providers already have an "all in one" solution. A pretty UI just won't cut it. Also, seeing that TiVo's latest products only work with cable or OTA, they've pretty much pushed themselves out of the market that their current subscription numbers so heavily rely on; the satellite customer.

___


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> When I had cable, I did. Now that I'm using satellite, I did again.


so why are the ads such a big deal to you if you use other DVRs?



> As I've stated before, TiVo is in the wrong business. They need to get out of hardware sales all together. Regardless of whether or not their software implementation is superior to everyone else's, the sat and cable co.s are eating them alive on the hardware. The sad fact is that TiVo does not offer anything of value to the consumer if the providers already have an "all in one" solution. A pretty UI just won't cut it. Also, seeing that TiVo's latest products only work with cable or OTA, they've pretty much pushed themselves out of the market that their current subscription numbers so heavily rely on; the satellite customer.
> 
> ___


the idea of TiVo getting out of the hardware business is hardly a new one. It was painfully obvious YEARS ago that you can not sell a DVR as solely a DVR for the price point needed to cover all the costs especially since the unit needs very reliable Guide data on an ongoing basis or be useless.

TiVo no longer heavily relies on DirectTV subscriptions as they are well aware that reltionship is over.

really you are just regurgitating hwat I said but in a different way.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> I must say I was a little surprised at the numbers. 'Not by the 3/4 billion in debt, but by the relatively small numbers of loss and revenue. I thought they were a bigger company than that. Of course how bad a debt is depends on how big one's assets are, how big one's liabilities are, and how much revenue one can expect.


Absolutely!

TiVo is not a big company. Perhaps the most unusual aspect of TiVo, Inc. is that it apparently has never even considered selling out, even though one of its founders has recently moved on.

Frankly I'll be surprised if TiVo doesn't eventually become absorbed into a larger enterprise. I hope that their fate won't parallel ReplayTV's, and don't believe it will, in part because TiVo, Inc. is the last survivor!


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so why are the ads such a big deal to you if you use other DVRs?


Are you that naive? It's the principle of the whole thing. TiVo charges a relatively high fee for a relatively simple "service" which has *no consumable content on it's own*. They then have the cojones to place third party advertising on a system that I own? That's messed up in my book. _*shakes head*_



ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo no longer heavily relies on DirectTV subscriptions as they are well aware that reltionship is over.





TiVo Corp said:


> *A significant part of our installed subscription base results from our relationship with DIRECTV* which we expect to decrease in the future due to DIRECTVs support of a competing DVR by NDS.
> 
> DIRECTV no longer has the right to manufacture and distribute TiVo DVRs to DIRECTV subscribers, As a result of this and DIRECTVs support of a competing DVR by NDS we expect the number of our DIRECTV with TiVo subscriptions to decrease in the future. As a consequence of the loss of these future high margin revenues from these DIRECTV with TiVo service subscriptions, our business may be harmed.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing current numbers will show a TiVo-owned gain of a couple of hundred thousand and a DirecTiVo loss of few hundred thousand. Needless to say, their subscription numbers are still heavily padded by DirecTV.

Zeo, you, and others, have always touted that the ads are easy to ignore and that people should get over it. You also say that TiVo should do whatever it takes to make additional revenue. So, if advertisers won't buy into TiVo unless it's a "pay if viewed" model, would you change your "just ignore it" philosophy?

___


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> Are you that naive? It's the principle of the whole thing.


 not naive at all. I pegged you as arguing solely on principle versus any actual inconvience long ago 


> Zeo, you, and others, have always touted that the ads are easy to ignore and that people should get over it. You also say that TiVo should do whatever it takes to make additional revenue. So, if advertisers won't buy into TiVo unless it's a "pay if viewed" model, would you change your "just ignore it" philosophy?
> 
> ___


I am not a "just ignore it", myself. TiVo is not my charity case so I do not click on every ad but if an ad interests me I will click on it and see what is up. All I have said is that TiVo should pursue revenue oppurtunities (especially if the revenue is not from me directly) and as long as I can use my DVR like I do now then I have no problem with the ads and no understanding why others are really bothered*

*NOTE everyone is entitled to their own subjective opinion without checking with me first


----------



## Atomike (Jun 12, 2005)

> TiVo is not my charity case


Said the man with more than 13,000 posts.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...All I have said is that TiVo should pursue revenue oppurtunities (especially if the revenue is not from me directly) and as long as I can use my DVR like I do now then I have no problem with the ads and no understanding why others are really bothered.


Why does TiVo have to "pursue revenue opportunities" anyway? I want them to sell me the box and sell me the guide data needed to make it work, then leave me the hell alone!! The transaction is between be me and TiVo Corp., no one else!! If they can't turn a profit from that relationship, then they need to pack it up. If they can't sell their boxes and service and its own merits, then they screwed up somewhere. The only reason to keep track of me, or send third party advertisements to me, is because the box is tethered to them, and they want their cake and eat it too.

___


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Fixer said:


> Why does TiVo have to "pursue revenue opportunities" anyway? I want them to sell me the box and sell me the guide data needed to make it work, then leave me the hell alone!! The transaction is between be me and TiVo Corp., no one else!! If they can't turn a profit from that relationship, then they need to pack it up. If they can't sell their boxes and service and its own merits, then they screwed up somewhere. The only reason to keep track of me, or send third party advertisements to me, is because the box is tethered to them, and they want their cake and eat it too.


For the same reason the CATV people are pushing hard to make it law that they are able to mount whatever software they want on your television and DVR without your having a say-so in the matter. At least TiVo isn't trying to have congress pass a law which makes it illegal to fast forward through a recorded commercial or change channels during a commercial.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fixer said:


> If they can't turn a profit from that relationship, then they need to pack it up. If they can't sell their boxes and service and its own merits, then they screwed up somewhere.


That is not correct. It is perhaps the case that there is no profitable business model to be had, in the United States, for what you want, at the price-point you want it at.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Fixer said:


> Why does TiVo have to "pursue revenue opportunities" anyway? I want them to sell me the box and sell me the guide data needed to make it work, then leave me the hell alone!! The transaction is between be me and TiVo Corp., no one else!! If they can't turn a profit from that relationship, then they need to pack it up. If they can't sell their boxes and service and its own merits, then they screwed up somewhere. The only reason to keep track of me, or send third party advertisements to me, is because the box is tethered to them, and they want their cake and eat it too.
> 
> ___


Shareholders are the only ones that TiVo needs to report to, not you the consumer, and they want revenue and profit. It doesn't matter from where. If TiVo leaves money on the table then they are being negligent.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Fixer said:


> Why does TiVo have to "pursue revenue opportunities" anyway? I want them to sell me the box and sell me the guide data needed to make it work, then leave me the hell alone!! The transaction is between be me and TiVo Corp., no one else!! If they can't turn a profit from that relationship, then they need to pack it up. If they can't sell their boxes and service and its own merits, then they screwed up somewhere. The only reason to keep track of me, or send third party advertisements to me, is because the box is tethered to them, and they want their cake and eat it too.
> 
> ___


Wow, just wow.  You obviously don't want Tivo then. In your case, you would be better to sell your Tivo and find an alternative solution. Something like MythTV or Windows Media Center would probably be better suited for your needs.

Tivo's business model can not survive the way you envision it, so there is really two options: (1) Tivo reinvents itself in your vision, not likely or (2) you discontinue your relationship with Tivo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> Why does TiVo have to "pursue revenue opportunities" anyway? I want them to sell me the box and sell me the guide data needed to make it work, then leave me the hell alone!! The transaction is between be me and TiVo Corp., no one else!!


yep, and TiVo inc. is making deals with advertisers. It is not advertisers who are somehow breaking into your DVR, it is TiVo placing them there.

Also the transaction clearly defined the service and the fact that ads could be a part of it. If you do not like that but agreed to it anyway then the onus is on you to end the relationship - which brings us full circle to my original point.  In your case, why not sell the Lifetimed box and move on?


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Also the transaction clearly defined the service and the fact that ads could be a part of it.


They read the TiVo terms to me when I purchased over the phone, and for some reason I do not remember them saying TiVo will advertise to you over this box you are trying to purchase. Maybe I had zoned out by then. Like any other agreement that apparently gets buried in the fine print, we'll just have to inform potential customers by word of mouth, so they can factor that into their decision-making process, if they'd truly be bothered by it. Sounds a lot like credit card companies who charge 29.99% interest on credit cards just because the customer missed one payment, and surely enough, "Defaulting" on that account is clearly defined as missing even one payment!

There's a reason why they say it's easier to retain 9 customers than to get one new one. In my own case, if the ads truly bothered me enough to quit TiVo, I'd be saying goodbye to three years of pre-paid service. I'd have to be stinking rich to be able to afford that, which I am not. On the other hand, if I felt strongly enough that paying for TiVo entitled me to an ad-free service, I might not have spent the money signing up to begin with.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Ok, now I am seeing an ad in a different place, with shows in a Now Playing folder. I have a folder for the CSI episodes that I have been recording. When I go in to this folder, I am seeing a gold star ad for "Miss America:Reality Check" below the list of episodes.

Now this is the first time I have seen an ad in the Now Playing list (much less in a show folder.) I checked all my other show folders, and none of them have an ad. Is this possibly a glitch or is Tivo started adding ads to the Now Playing list? 

(Just for full disclosure, I am not, currently, complaining about Tivo ads in general or even the specific placement of this ads. I fully understand Tivo's need to use advertising revenue to supplement subscriptions. I am just curious if this IS a new ad placement or maybe some sort of glitch. Please do NOT use this post as starting point for another argument about Tivo ads in general. Thanks.)


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

RBlount said:


> Ok, now I am seeing an ad in a different place, with shows in a Now Playing folder. I have a folder for the CSI episodes that I have been recording. When I go in to this folder, I am seeing a gold star ad for "Miss America:Reality Check" below the list of episodes.


Came here to say the same. I am seeing Miss America gold star in my The Amazing Race 12 Group tonight.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Also the transaction clearly defined the service and the fact that ads could be a part of it. If you do not like that but agreed to it anyway then the onus is on you to end the relationship.


In other words, buyer beware? :down:

___


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

RBlount said:


> Tivo's business model can not survive the way you envision it.


Why not? I believe the vast majority of all business operate on the model I mentioned; build it and they will come. TiVo sells a hard product AND sells service with it. This service doesn't contain any true, user consumable content, so TiVo is not spending any money in that regard. If they can't profit from that, then the investors need to put their money into someone else and not waste their time with TiVo

___


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

RBlount said:


> Ok, now I am seeing an ad in a different place, with shows in a Now Playing folder. I have a folder for the CSI episodes that I have been recording. When I go in to this folder, I am seeing a gold star ad for "Miss America:Reality Check" below the list of episodes.


I have not seen these. However, using the "Left" button after a show rather than the TiVo button always meant I would not see an ad on the Keep or Delete menu. But I think they have "fixed" this for certain shows so that you do see an ad, perhaps specifically taylored to watchers of that show. Coming to think of it, I haven't had a lot of shows left to watch (I'm guessing due to the writers' strike), and it would seem like the only ones without ads were my Manually scheduled recordings.


----------



## greg_burns (May 22, 2004)

JaneiR36 said:


> I have not seen these. However, using the "Left" button after a show rather than the TiVo button always meant I would not see an ad on the Keep or Delete menu. But I think they have "fixed" this for certain shows so that you do see an ad, perhaps specifically taylored to watchers of that show. Coming to think of it, I haven't had a lot of shows left to watch (I'm guessing due to the writers' strike), and it would seem like the only ones without ads were my Manually scheduled recordings.


Those have been around since Rudolph's airing back in '06. Although they are becoming much more frequent (at least on my Tivo). Not that there's anything wrong with that. /Seinfeld


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

greg_burns said:


> Those have been around since Rudolph's airing back in '06. Although they are becoming much more frequent (at least on my Tivo). Not that there's anything wrong with that. /Seinfeld


Geez Louise!! I wonder how many ads there are all over this TiVo thing that I just haven't seen yet!!!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fixer said:


> Why not?


Because customers aren't willing to pay enough.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fixer said:


> Why not? I believe the vast majority of all business operate on the model I mentioned; build it and they will come. TiVo sells a hard product AND sells service with it. This service doesn't contain any true, user consumable content, so TiVo is not spending any money in that regard. If they can't profit from that, then the investors need to put their money into someone else and not waste their time with TiVo
> 
> ___


they spend money for the guide data and the infrastructure expense and upkeep. It is in their filings. They of course charge more than it costs and the service model is their business plan.

For media server - Microsoft deals with the cost of the guide data since they have always been a sell the software for a one time fee business model for the end consumer. Microsoft has nice high profit margins to work with though veruss the non-existant profit margin on initial purchase for TiVo. Note that replay and TiVo both tried to charge all the money up front - eg a 40 hour Series 2 for 500$ and this did not work for either company


----------



## TiVotion (Dec 6, 2002)

Personally, I've developed the ability to pretty much navigate the menu without really looking too closely at it. At the end of a program, when presented with the "Delete/Keep" choices, I've noticed a star ad at the bottom of the choices. I realize it's there, but not once have I actually yet read one, and I don't intend to. I couldn't tell you what those stars are trying to tell me. 

Yes, it's a small, quirky, psychological victory only for myself, but since I'm old school and over the years I've really enjoyed not having those sections of the menus infiltrated by ads, I simply ignore them. 

I can play the game too. You can't sell me what I don't see. You can put them there, but you can't force me to read them. TiVo still gets revenue from selling the ads, so it's all good.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It's always a bit of a game, especially when you're talking about TiVo: The main point of commercial television is to sell products and services. So FF is part of the game. Just keep in mind that if viewers-as-a-whole ever "win" the game, then we "lose" the game, since that means that our viewership hold little or no value, and so there is nothing to be gained by presenting (specifically) what we want to see. The more we skip commercials and avoid advertisements, inevitably, the less influence we have over what will be presented to us.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> It's always a bit of a game, especially when you're talking about TiVo: The main point of commercial television is to sell products and services.


To me a win would be my ability to get the content easily enough. Watch the entire show content without having to break for commercials all while paying as little as possible.

IF TiVo said I could have my DVR for no monthly bill as long as I watched x minutes of commercials besides the shows and interacted with them - then the length of X would be my only decision point for what I would think is a win.

If TiVo announced they were increasing ads on the interface but decreasing the monthly sub then I would be catiously optimistic as details of how the interface was changed are revealed.

as it stands now, as long as the only issue with ads are having to ignore them on the interface without having to change the way I use the DVR then I can deal with that as not that big a deal.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

RBlount said:


> Ok, now I am seeing an ad in a different place, with shows in a Now Playing folder. I have a folder for the CSI episodes that I have been recording. When I go in to this folder, I am seeing a gold star ad for "Miss America:Reality Check" below the list of episodes.
> 
> Now this is the first time I have seen an ad in the Now Playing list (much less in a show folder.) I checked all my other show folders, and none of them have an ad. Is this possibly a glitch or is Tivo started adding ads to the Now Playing list?


I have one in my American Gladiators folder for a preview* of the Sarah Conner Chronicles.

* Some preview.  I only get an option to create a Season Pass.
I'VE ALREADY DONE THAT!


----------



## Solver (Feb 17, 2005)

steve614 said:


> I have one in my American Gladiators folder for a preview* of the Sarah Conner Chronicles.
> 
> * Some preview.  I only get an option to create a Season Pass.
> I'VE ALREADY DONE THAT!


Previews only work if your TiVo recorded a special video stream broadcasted late at night that your TiVo will sometimes look for. No internet needed for this.

I got a preview and a behind the scene look. I created a season pass.


----------



## riddick21 (Dec 12, 2006)

Fixer said:


> Why not? I believe the vast majority of all business operate on the model I mentioned; build it and they will come. TiVo sells a hard product AND sells service with it. This service doesn't contain any true, user consumable content, so TiVo is not spending any money in that regard. If they can't profit from that, then the investors need to put their money into someone else and not waste their time with TiVo
> 
> ___


Why because you say so? Tivo can make money in any way they please as long as people are still willing to buy their product. Just because you say you don't like advertising doesn't mean its not a valid business model. In fact it is googles entire business model. Tivo doesn't need to listen to people threatening to leave until they start talking with their wallets. That being said I hope Tivo is aware that there are lines they shouldn't cross in terms of advertising but obviously they have not crossed them yet because they are still in business.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Well-said, and from where I'm sitting, TiVo hasn't come anywhere close to that line yet. I think, unless something fundamental changes in the minds of the typical American television viewer, we'll see a lot more invasive advertising provided by TiVo in the years to come.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

bicker said:


> Well-said, and from where I'm sitting, TiVo hasn't come anywhere close to that line yet. I think, unless something fundamental changes in the minds of the typical American television viewer, we'll see a lot more invasive advertising provided by TiVo in the years to come.


I don't believe that most TiVo users are "typical American television viewers"....


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

Fixer said:


> Why not? I believe the vast majority of all business operate on the model I mentioned; build it and they will come.


Ask ReplayTV. They tried and failed. And had a pretty decent UI, although I preferred the TiVo UI.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

riddick21 said:


> Why because you say so? Tivo can make money in any way they please as long as people are still willing to buy their product.


Of course TiVo can make money any way they please. That holds true for any business. Hell, plenty of companies use Asian child labor to make their products, but as long as you like what they make and they're making money, it's all cool, right? :down:



riddick21 said:


> Just because you say you don't like advertising doesn't mean its not a valid business model. In fact it is googles entire business model.


AGAIN, TiVo is compared to a company whose business model isn't even remotely close to their own. Only when they are compared to others within their industry, like Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, Pioneer, Cisco, etc., can a valid argument be made. _*shakes head*_



riddick21 said:


> Tivo doesn't need to listen to people threatening to leave until they start talking with their wallets. That being said I hope Tivo is aware that there are lines they shouldn't cross in terms of advertising but obviously they have not crossed them yet because they are still in business.





wierdo said:


> Ask ReplayTV. They tried and failed. And had a pretty decent UI, although I preferred the TiVo UI.


TiVo is still alive only because the entertainment and advertising industries have allowed it. I am sure there is a line on that side as well. As soon as it's crossed, TiVo will be sued into oblivion, just like ReplayTV. Oh, BTW, considering that TiVo has yet to make a profit since it's inception, people are already "talking with their wallets". 

___


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

Fixer said:


> AGAIN, TiVo is compared to a company whose business model isn't even remotely close to their own. Only when they are compared to others within their industry, like Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, Pioneer, etc., can a valid argument be made. _*shakes head*_


Microsoft and Motorola (at least the parts of them that compete with TiVo) both derive the majority of their income from the development deals with cable companies and _do not offer standalone service or product direct to consumers_. Not very comparable, if you ask me. Well, Microsoft sort of is, but the cost of entry to a MCE box is much, much higher than TiVo, astronomically so if you want CableCARD support. I was originally thinking more of their STB operation.

Microsoft's MCE business model is essentially ReplayTV, only worse. If that was their sole product, they'd have gone out of business in year one, as they would never have made it to MCE to begin with. I very well remember using Microsoft's hellish piece of WebTV branded (IIRC) software on Windows 98 when I got my first TV tuner card. The only thing it had going for it was guide data.

Basically, your list of companies isn't very comparable, either. Perhaps there isn't anyone quite like TiVo. Actually, scratch the perhaps.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RoyK said:


> I don't believe that most TiVo users are "typical American television viewers"....


That's actually been TiVo's biggest challenge, and TiVo's only hope for the future, as a hardware-and-software vendor, is to make that no longer true.

How many S3s were sold? How many HDs were sold?

Regardless, I think you're already substantially mistaken: I bet the average TiVo owner doesn't care one bit about the links to ads that we have now, and, again, the average TiVo owner won't abandon ship if ads get more invasive, as long as ads on TiVo remains among the least invasive of the similarly-priced and similarly-complex alternatives available.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fixer said:


> Of course TiVo can make money any way they please. That holds true for any business. Hell, plenty of companies use Asian child labor to make their products, but as long as you like what they make and they're making money, it's all cool, right? :down:


This is an outrageous and inappropriate comment, showing a complete lack of perspective and a disparaging disregard for the actual harm incurred by those whom you referred to.



Fixer said:


> AGAIN, TiVo is compared to a company whose business model isn't even remotely close to their own. Only when they are compared to others within their industry, like Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, Cisco, etc., can a valid argument be made.


Besides having a different sense of propriety, you seem to also be using a different language, since you seem to be asserting that TiVo, with its 400 employees, is in some way "close" to Apple (17,700 employees), Microsoft (79,000 employees), Motorola (66,000 employees) and Cisco (63,000 employees). They aren't and never will be "close" in any way, shape or form.

Regardless, *none* of the companies you suggested as comparisons offer a cable-compatible DVR for sale to the general public, so no comparison with any of them is relevant. Ask yourself why none of these multi-national behemoths aren't going up against TiVo directly. (Answer: It isn't profitable enough to sell DVRs to the general public.)

Indeed, the only comparisons possible are to defunct companies or discontinued products, which by their very nature give the "win" to TiVo, since it is the only one in those comparisons that is still in production.

As I said before, there may be no viable business model in this space. If that's the case, the best business model is the one that loses the least money. There is no other valid criteria.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

I am comparing TiVo to other media consumption devices with upgradeable software and available service, not just DVRs. It's a whole hell of lot more sound than using television programming, magazines, billboards, ISPs, web sites, etc. as the comparative business model. Those who use ad-based models as the sole comparison are only looking to justify TiVo's position on the matter and wish to turn a blind eye.



bicker said:


> This is an outrageous and inappropriate comment, showing a complete lack of perspective and a disparaging disregard for the actual harm incurred by those whom you referred to.


After looking over what I wrote, I agree that it is outrageous. However, I am leaving it as is for the sake of reference. I apologize to anyone who is offended.

___


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fixer said:


> I am comparing TiVo to other media consumption devices with upgradeable software and available service, not just DVRs.


Okay, let's talk about Motorola's DVRs then. Have you seen the advertising in the menus in iGuide? They are MUCH more invasive that the links to advertising in TiVo.

Here are some older screen-shots, but it isn't that much different now. I think, though, there is only one advertisement on the screen at a time now.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/...1e7d8bb5e7a5a1856d/channelguide.jpg/thumb.jpg
http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/...eb2ce1241b66d2f8eb660d9702/menu.jpg/thumb.jpg
http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/...76a5c05aab9b4964b3dad6/miniinfo.jpg/thumb.jpg

I'll try to find more recent screen-shots.

So advertising in DVRs is not only appropriate, but the standard practice.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Here are more recent screen-shots:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.pvrwire.com/media/2006/12/comcastbanners1.jpg
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.pvrwire.com/media/2007/01/comcast-ads.jpg


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

riddick21 said:


> That being said I hope Tivo is aware that there are lines they shouldn't cross in terms of advertising but obviously they have not crossed them yet because they are still in business.


TiVo has crossed my personal line because the line item ads in now playing lists force me to hit up arrow to move off them. My family however does not see it as any big deal and just kinda went, oh... upon seeing them and since it was some credit card ad just move it off and went on to watch the shows.

so the basis TiVo is using in all this is closer to what I posted a little earlier in this thread

"To me a win would be my ability to get the content easily enough. Watch the entire show content without having to break for commercials all while paying as little as possible."


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> Okay, let's talk about Motorola's DVRs then. Have you seen the advertising in the menus in iGuide? They are MUCH more invasive that the links to advertising in TiVo.
> 
> Here are some older screen-shots, but it isn't that much different now. I think, though, there is only one advertisement on the screen at a time now.
> 
> ...


I've read various articles that deal with this matter. They all have a common theme: this has nothing to do with Motorola and everything to do with Comcast. The iGuide is just one of several EPGs that is available for the Moto boxes and it just so happens to have an ad banner feature.

When I was on TW cable, my Moto box ran Passport software and didn't have ads. When I "upgraded" to HD DVR, it was a Sci-At box running SARA; no ads. I am now a D* customer with an HR20; again, no ads. So, I would say that your comment, _"So advertising in DVRs is not only appropriate, but the standard practice."_, is hogwash. :down:

___


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Fixer said:


> When I was on TW cable, my Moto box ran Passport software and didn't have ads. When I "upgraded" to HD DVR, it was a Sci-At box running SARA; no ads. I am now a D* customer with an HR20; again, no ads. So, I would say that your comment, _"So advertising in DVRs is not only appropriate, but the standard practice."_, is hogwash. :down:
> 
> ___


How long ago? I was in Sacramento over Christmas, adds on the Comcast box, that actually did get in the way of paging up/down the guide. Unlike TiVo's that never get in my way. Here in Houston, I was watching VOD on my CC box in my bedroom and the program had breaks for a video game comercial... multiple times.. yeesh..


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

Fixer said:


> When I was on TW cable, my Moto box ran Passport software and didn't have ads. When I "upgraded" to HD DVR, it was a Sci-At box running SARA; no ads. I am now a D* customer with an HR20; again, no ads. So, I would say that your comment, _"So advertising in DVRs is not only appropriate, but the standard practice."_, is hogwash. :down:


While my HD-DVR box running Passport doesn't have ads, the old DCT-2000 (non-DVR, even) I had back in 2000 had ads. It's really up to the individual cable company. Many use ads, many don't. I only care when they annoy me, which tends to mean really awful coloring or flashing.

If you hate ads, put your money where your mouth is. We all get it, you hate them. So get rid of TiVo already.

Personally, I do think the newspaper comparison is quite apt in this day and age. Most of them are 99% wire service stories with almost zero local content, yet they're filled to the brim with ads, sort of like TiVo, who is merely a conduit, as many papers are today, yet they charge for the 'service,' and fill it with ads. Hell, think of the now defunct Computer Shopper magazine. People paid to receive it, and it was nothing but a collection of ads! Quite a nice one, IMO.


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

wierdo said:


> If you hate ads, put your money where your mouth is. We all get it, you hate them. So get rid of TiVo already.


Are we supposed to be able to afford to piss away pre-paid service because we hate the ads?!?  Sadly enough, the surefire way to put our money where our mouth is would be to NOT sign up for service in the first place. If we knew of the ads and signed up anyway, then TiVo riddled with ads was clearly our choice. Now that we're (pre)paid customers, or otherwise customers who are stuck with TiVo for some reason or the other, you're just gonna have to listen to us piss and moan!!


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fixer said:


> So, I would say that your comment, _"So advertising in DVRs is not only appropriate, but the standard practice."_, is hogwash.


 I not surprised that you choose to ignore the evidence that defeats your perspective and consider only the evidence that supports your perspective. While I'm not surprised, I think THAT is hogwash.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

steve614 said:


> I have one in my American Gladiators folder for a preview* of the Sarah Conner Chronicles.
> 
> * Some preview.  I only get an option to create a Season Pass.
> I'VE ALREADY DONE THAT!


Ditto.

I have NEVER minded yellow-stars in my Now Playing list.

Putting them within my show folders. FINALLY, I've thought, they've gone too far. Really. I've always defended TiVo and any sort of ad-supported service (even ones that also charge a fee) like this... but this really has now "gone too far".

I can't explain it... but it just has.

TiVo... back the F off. Really.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

bicker said:


> I not surprised that you choose to ignore the evidence that defeats your perspective and consider only the evidence that supports your perspective. While I'm not surprised, I think THAT is hogwash.


OMG!! Are you kidding me? I can't help but get a good laugh out of this one!!  You show ONE example, Comcast with iGuide, and declared it "standard practice". I cite THREE examples from personal experience (sorry, no screenshots ), that doesn't match you criteria for "standard practice", yet you say I'M "ignoring the evidence"? LOL!!!

___


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

You must have forgotten that Comcast is the #1 cable television provider. And, please don't be insulted, but regarding the rest of the providers, I'll wait until *others *chime in. Comcast does tend to be a trend-setter in these types of things, though, so I don't completely disbelieve you. Yet, since they're a trend-setter, expect to see ads in cable system program guides that don't provide them now, soon.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I finally got one of the giant banner ads in Now Playing this morning. God, it's hideous.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

> Ditto.
> 
> I have NEVER minded yellow-stars in my Now Playing list.
> 
> ...


I've only seen one instance of this type of gold star; initially I thought it was a glitch.

As cwoody notes, something about this particular instance has crossed some imaginary line for me too. No biggy, really, I can ignore them as I do the others. It was just odd to see the gold star among the list of MY programs in a folder.

Maybe that's the itch, using my own illogical rationale:

1. The "Menus" portion of the TiVo interface belongs to TiVo, they can do what they want with that (within reason, of course ). Gold stars here have no impact on me.

2. "Now Playing Folders" part of the interface belongs to me; I created the wishlists to record these. TiVo should not be mucking in these folders.

I suppose if there was some contextual value-add to the gold star in a folder (say, something to do with the program or actors in a program), then maybe it might make sense for them to appear in a particular folder.


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

JaneiR36 said:


> Are we supposed to be able to afford to piss away pre-paid service because we hate the ads?!?  Sadly enough, the surefire way to put our money where our mouth is would be to NOT sign up for service in the first place. If we knew of the ads and signed up anyway, then TiVo riddled with ads was clearly our choice. Now that we're (pre)paid customers, or otherwise customers who are stuck with TiVo for some reason or the other, you're just gonna have to listen to us piss and moan!!


The most effective way to communicate your dislike would be to cancel when your pre-paid term is up and then post about why you did.

I bet few TiVo users will actually cancel.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

I saw banner ads last night too. It wasn't in top level of the NPL, it was in a group for a show. No real big deal to me. I can just ignore them.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

fallingwater said:


> The most effective way to communicate your dislike would be to cancel when your pre-paid term is up and then post about why you did.
> 
> I bet few TiVo users will actually cancel.


yep, as long as TiVo can make money on ads and keep subscribers it is just the logiocal thing to continue it and push it until subscribers start to fall away.

I had hoped TiVo saw that line as one where they did not make users do something different with the remote simply to avoid an ad. oops.

The banner in the now playing list as a visual thing does not bother me but the fact that for me I tend to hit "skip to tick" to go to the bottom of a list of shows and thus end up on the ad is bothersome.

Of course a significant chunk of time is spent by users in the now playing list and I imagine many users simply do ignore the yellow star on the main menu so I can concede that for TiVo to make revenue they need to put ads where our eyeballs are - but they need a new design
maybe put the banner ad on the first line and have the highlight on the second line which is the start of the list of shows.

That kind of design would generate an enormous amount of good perceptions among the subscriber base.


----------



## RoyK (Oct 22, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...
> That kind of design would generate an enormous amount of good perceptions among the subscriber base.


I think that is an "enormous" bit of wishful thinking.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

RoyK said:


> I think that is an "enormous" bit of wishful thinking.


ok fine. A *significant amount* of good perceptions 

and bear in mind it is the fact that TiVo changed the design to make sure we did not have to use the remote to avoid clicking on the ad. Eg that TiVo was willing to meet subscribers part way in all this.


----------



## Atomike (Jun 12, 2005)

Tivo is meeting us part-way?

Our part: paying for service.
Tivo's part: shoving ads all over the place to make even more money.

Apparently I disagree with your definition of compromise.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Atomike said:


> Tivo is meeting us part-way?
> 
> Our part: paying for service.
> Tivo's part: shoving ads all over the place to make even more money.
> ...


I think you may have missed that Zeo was making a suggestion about something TiVo _could_ do to change the system they're now using to something more consumer-friendly than advertiser-friendly. Re-read his last two posts, I'd certainly define that suggestion as a compromise.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Atomike said:


> Tivo is meeting us part-way?


I specifically did not say _half_way. It would only be part way.

and what Gonzotek said.


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

fallingwater said:


> The most effective way to communicate your dislike would be to cancel when your pre-paid term is up and then post about why you did.
> 
> I bet few TiVo users will actually cancel.


Actually, this is the most effective way to communicate that we hate the ads in the product. Most people will not dump a defective product in the landfill if using it is at least marginally better than not having it at all. But a) when a better product comes along with an easy transition, and b) if others ask if they should use it, it's really not difficult for companies to lose business. Also some people have come on here to state that they wouldn't recommend the product because of the ads, or that they have canceled. Seeing people post on here is your definition of effective, but like someone has mentioned, if you've canceled service, your relationship with TiVo would have ended and you most likely wouldn't be here posting about it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

bicker said:


> Here are more recent screen-shots:
> 
> http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.pvrwire.com/media/2006/12/comcastbanners1.jpg
> http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.pvrwire.com/media/2007/01/comcast-ads.jpg


Here's another cable company's in-guide advertising:

http://img.lineupui.silicondust.com/snapshots/snapshot_1169702.jpg


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Here's another cable company's in-guide advertising:
> 
> http://img.lineupui.silicondust.com/snapshots/snapshot_1169702.jpg


stop giving TiVo inc. ideas


----------



## Crrink (Sep 3, 2002)

Saw the ads in a show folder for the first time today.
VERY displeased.
I've never complained much about the yellow stars on the main screen, and I actually like that there are ads in the TiVo Showcase folder, but ads in my show folders is not o.k. with me.
I too use the skip to tick button to quickly move to the bottom/top of a folder list, which today put me on the lovely "Get NAILED every night" ad rather than the oldest episode of the show we wanted to watch. :down::down::down:


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Crrink said:


> Saw the ads in a show folder for the first time today.
> VERY displeased.
> I've never complained much about the yellow stars on the main screen, and I actually like that there are ads in the TiVo Showcase folder, but ads in my show folders is not o.k. with me.
> I too use the skip to tick button to quickly move to the bottom/top of a folder list, which today put me on the lovely "Get NAILED every night" ad rather than the oldest episode of the show we wanted to watch. :down::down::down:


Yup, get NAILED ever weeknight.


----------



## Cabal (Feb 22, 2007)

I'm not one to complain about ads I can ignore. I don't mind them on the main menu. I don't mind them while fast-forwarding. I don't mind them when deciding to keep or delete a show.

But it is *completely ridiculous* to be mixing yellow stars in with my yellow circle and yellow exclamation mark shows in my Now Playing list's folders. It is deceitful.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

I've had no problem with the ad insertions up to this point, but something about this seems a step too far. Thumbs down, TiVo .


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

I'm just waiting for the "women like it bigger" ad to appear in my daughter's or son's folder. Tivo, don't put any ads in my kids' folders. You're crossing the line.

People won't cancel because they can't. Tivo has most of its customers locked into a long service agreement with a hefty cancellation fee, which people bought because they liked the service AT THAT TIME. By adding more ads after the fact and changing the service, Tivo is on shaky ethical ground here. At a minimum, it makes users feel like they've been tricked. Which means they may not be users for much longer.


----------



## bmgoodman (Dec 20, 2000)

OK, I lived with the ads on the main menu, then I lived with them getting bigger and more noticeable. But I'm really bothered to see ads now showing up in folders. :down::down::down:

My Tivo doesn't really get me.(TM) This isn't TV my way. (TM) And sadly, I no longer run the show. (TM).

No, the sky isn't falling, but I do believe now that Tivo will keep pushing until we let them know we've had enough.

Tivo, I am now crying "uncle!"


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

_Repost..._

Here's an example.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

As an admitted fan-boy, it really is getting harder to reco TiVo. My reco is usually something like "Yes, I really love my TiVo but it is pretty expensive on a monthly basis and we're starting to see more and more advertising on it."


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fan-boy or not, do you really believe enough people will react to the ads in a manner that will adversely affect TiVo's business model? I don't. People love to _express _upset over things like this.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

bicker said:


> Fan-boy or not, do you really believe enough people will react to the ads in a manner that will adversely affect TiVo's business model? I don't. People love to _express _upset over things like this.


I will not cancel my service, so in that case you are correct. I also am a little less of a vocal fan-boy, so perhaps one or two might not join. You know how it is when people tell you about a great service or product and excitement builds that perhaps you might want it. Well, what if they caveat or otherwise lessen their excitement?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I think alternatives will make the difference, and just look at Comcast's iGuide, chock-full-o'-advertisements itself, not to mention a whole host of bugs and limitations that make TiVo look massively better by comparison. Once there is a real competitor to TiVo, same general set of features, same general price-range, without advertisements, then there's something to worry about.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

bicker said:


> Once there is a real competitor to TiVo, same general set of features, same general price-range, without advertisements, then there's something to worry about.


Sigh. A long time ago I wished for TiVo to rescue me from the crappy, ad infested cable company box. Now I wish for a new entrant to rescue me from the crappy, ad infested TiVo box.

We've really come a long way in the last 8 years. NOT!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Fan-boy or not, do you really believe enough people will react to the ads in a manner that will adversely affect TiVo's business model? I don't. People love to _express _upset over things like this.


I hear you. When it comes down to it, it's about the value of the functionality. Most people can complain loud, but if TiVo can keep them satisfied with the functionality, they will stay as customers. TiVo's problem is definitely not that they have too much advertisements.

I don't like these new ads and I think TiVo should stick to the other ads they have had before this, but I would never cancel over this. It still works exactly the same way as before.


----------



## jaredmwright (Sep 6, 2004)

I agree 100% with everyone else who is unhappy with the new *Folder-Advertisements* :down::down::down:. Three thumbs down. They are hard to discern from the yellow circles of the regular shows which makes you think you have another show until you actually notice it is a yellow star, or read the title of the advertisement. This is by far a horrible implementation of an advertising model.

TiVo should take note of the devoted TiVo users that participate on this forum. Some of us have never said anything negative of TiVo, but this will start to change the way that TiVo fans talk about the service. With the recent price increases and recent advertisements among other bugs and issues, TiVo is going in the wrong direction if they are trying to bring in new customers.

Until things improve, I will not promote TiVo to my friends and family based on the following:

1-Price increase for Multi-Service Discount. :down: ($6.95 was good, the new MSD pricing is barely a break at all and still costs more if you prepay for a year up front, which then rolls to the then current monthly price at the end of the year) :down:
2-Increase in advertising which interrupts my viewing habits :down:
3-Lack of consistent HD support for Menus (Swivelsearch, Guide, Unbox, etc...) :down: A unified experience is something our monthly fee should allow.
4-Lack of 3rd party HD content support for importing from PC to TiVo Series 3 or TiVoHD
5-Bugs such as black screen(requiring a reboot), stuttering video on PC->TiVo transfers, alternating Tuner issue when viewing live TV and only recording one show, etc...
6-Repeat TiVoCast problems with video and audio problems, duplicate shows, missing episodes.
7-Slow TiVoHD transfers :down:
8-Missing multi-stream M-Card support for Series 3 TiVo's (Currently M-Cards can only tune to one stream instead of two, requiring two M-Cards.) This will be more of an issue as cable companies increase costs over time and these recurring costs are passed onto customers like us)

I am sure there are more, but those are issues that I notice frequently and should be addressed. Let's hope things change for the better in the future, otherwise other offerings like the future Dish OTA receiver with no monthly fee, Media Centers and other solutions may be stealing away devote TiVo users.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Why does a company with 451 full time employees need 19 vice presidents?


Incidentally, I'm not sure if that is the case with TiVo, but many companies try to make up for an inability to raise salaries by engaging in title-inflation as a cost-control measure.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jaredmwright said:


> This is by far a horrible implementation of an advertising model.


I would be interested in reading your suggestions for a revenue-neutral counter-approach.



jaredmwright said:


> TiVo should take note of the devoted TiVo users that participate on this forum.


I suspect they do far more than most other companies. How much do the devoted TiVo users that participate on this forum take note of TiVo's financial situation? You're essentially saying to TiVo: "You should post even heavier losses each quarter." That's not a compelling argument. 

As I have said before, there may not be a viable business model for a subscriber-directed DVR in the United States.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

jaredmwright said:


> 1-Price increase for Multi-Service Discount. :down: ($6.95 was good, the new MSD pricing is barely a break at all and still costs more if you prepay for a year up front, which then rolls to the then current monthly price at the end of the year) :down:


TiVo is tyring to get to profitability. they have stated they want a 10$ avg. sub price. You can not have less ads and lower prices


> 2-Increase in advertising which interrupts my viewing habits :down:


there is now advertising where most people spend 90% of their time wehn looking at TiVo menus so yes that is more. the ads however do not interrupt my viewing habits, that is incorrectly stated by you. What they do is add another remote button press which makes the ads annoying in now playing but once I select a show all is good again


> 3-Lack of consistent HD support for Menus (Swivelsearch, Guide, Unbox, etc...) :down: A unified experience is something our monthly fee should allow.


annoying but hardly a showstopper. Also TiVo would still have to support SD menus for those that have hooked up to an SD. What TiVo has done is support just the common denominator to save costs. You can not have lower prices, less ads AND more features.


> 4-Lack of 3rd party HD content support for importing from PC to TiVo Series 3 or TiVoHD


downloading/streaming is just getting to market. TiVo is a leader in content but has to work with the 3rd parties who are ultimately responsible for making the HD content available. Also the next desktop will allow for HD content from the web and converted via desktop to run as HD on the TiVo.


> 5-Bugs such as black screen(requiring a reboot), stuttering video on PC->TiVo transfers, alternating Tuner issue when viewing live TV and only recording one show, etc...


TiVo had just put out a major overhaul of the entire code base to unify it between Series 2 and series 3 and get MRV/TTG working between them. the next version of the OS would logically have the bug fixes for items such as this that result from such a major overhaul. Would you be complaining about no MRV/TTG instead if the major overhaul had not happened?


> 6-Repeat TiVoCast problems with video and audio problems, duplicate shows, missing episodes.


See answer to #5


> 7-Slow TiVoHD transfers :down:


see answer to #5. Also HD content is fairly large and the higher resolution means more data per unit of screen time. Perhaps you should use the fatser HD transfer times on other DVRs?


> 8-Missing multi-stream M-Card support for Series 3 TiVo's (Currently M-Cards can only tune to one stream instead of two, requiring two M-Cards.)


This one is a puzzler. Some larger glitch must have gotten by TiVo on this one. It was the first time they designed for cable cards. Two M-cards in the S3 will work to bring dual tuner functionality though.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

Can't argue against the company needing to be profitable. But there's something to be said for not alienating their customers. Retaining customers is important. Likewise it's important to utilize them for increasing sales to new customers. Nothing is more expensive than driving away customers. You lose the existing revenue stream and have an actively negative force potentially driving off any new revenue streams from developing. Not a recipe for success.

Here's a thought, offer a discount to customers specifically attached to being subjected to advertising like this. See if that generates enough interest. It's entirely possible enough people will go for the idea. I'm hesitant to suggest the flip-side, offer a tier of service that involves paying more to opt-out. But then again, for a dollar more a month (account wide, not per unit) I'm not sure I'd be unwilling to pay it to get them to LEAVE THAT CRAP OFF MY MACHINE.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo is tyring to get to profitability. they have stated they want a 10$ avg. sub price. You can not have less ads and lower prices


Sure you can. Higher subscriber numbers without equal overhead. Bring more people into the fold without a likewise increase in operating costs. Economy of scale.

As for streaming and transfer times, I certainly sympathize with Tivo for how much hassle this is going to be. Their support costs for dealing with ISP problems and the like must be a real drain. There are so many outside factors that can negatively affect performance that it's amazing it even works at all.

It's been quite expensive to blaze these trails and I'm sure they'd like to recoup (or at least contain) these costs. I'm just not sure tormenting their existing customer base with this crap is going to work.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wkearney99 said:


> Sure you can. Higher subscriber numbers without equal overhead. Bring more people into the fold without a likewise increase in operating costs. Economy of scale.


yes, lower costs to end user would equate to more users - simple supply and demand chart for that. However you have the more complex problem of diminshing returns and unrecoverable oppurtunity costs in such an approach. It is always a risky gamble. Plus more subscribers would mean even more desireable revenue oppurtunities from advertising which it would be TiVo inc's fiduciary responsibility to take.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wkearney99 said:


> Can't argue against the company needing to be profitable. But there's something to be said for not alienating their customers.


Everyone's line for "alienation" is different. In the mass-market, it isn't safe to assume that your line is typical or average.



wkearney99 said:


> Retaining customers is important.


TiVo retains the vast majority of its customers. So all that you're really pointing out is that marginal amount of lost retention, and the value (to TiVo) of that marginal amount gets stacked up against the value (to TiVo) of the advertising -- the larger amount "wins".



wkearney99 said:


> Not a recipe for success.


There may not be any recipe for success. TiVo may just have to choose between different levels of lack-of-success.



wkearney99 said:


> Here's a thought


In order for your ideas to be worth considering, they need to be revenue neutral. TiVo is losing money, so no changes can be made if they result in lower revenues.


----------



## jaredmwright (Sep 6, 2004)

As a big TiVo supporter I agree that TiVo needs to make it to profitablity sooner than later if possible. 

I would be willing to participate in trials to make this happen that include advertising or other QA work. TiVo would do well to include release notes and software feature lists that many other companies other than TiVo provide to keep paying customers informed. I realize not everyone cares, but many do, especially when troubleshooting issues which has become much more frequent over the last year with the releases and re-releases of dodgy code.

They may need to look at getting creative and possibly doing more partnerships (Nero is a great start). I could imagine what a partnership with Google or someone in the valley could bring for a company like TiVo. 

I don't disagree with ads, but the implementation with them. Google provides completely free ad supported products that I enjoy very much as well as many other companies, TiVo could look into following a simliar type of model.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts, it is great to get different opinions on such a heavily debated subject, this is what I love about online forums, multiple opinions and no right or wrong answer. ZeoTivo and bicker, I appreciated your viewpoints and hope TiVo thrives and makes the right decisions.


----------



## Slider10 (Aug 5, 2003)

God, this thread is 9 pages and I just skipped to the end to see what everyone is saying. I will jump in as well.

I think ads on TiVo in general are good. We all want the company to make money and stay in business. I don't think any of us want them to go the way of ReplayTV. I have NEVER had a problem with the way TiVo did their ads and think they worked hard on striking a balance on placing them but not intruding. The 'Thumbs Up to Learn More' are fun and my 30-second skip fixes that (I still can't believe how many of you don't use this!). I also never minded the ads on the main menu. If TiVo wants to make them a little bigger, go for it!

I have a HUGE problem with the ads in the Now Playing list. When I am in a folder, I want my shows and nothing else. When the TV season is in full swing my TiVo is filled to the gills with shows and can be quite cluttered. To have more items shown to me that are just ads, is annoying. 

The Now Playing list is for shows ONLY and the ads need to go. I think TiVo is testing the waters with this new placement and we should make sure we get our points across to them that ads are okay but there is a limit.

That's my $0.2.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I think there might be some confusion about the nature of advertising. In general, people don't seek out this type of advertising. It is incidental to what people are generally doing. You read a magazine article, and one corner of the page is an advertisement. You watch a television program, and commercials interrupt the show every 10 minutes. You're walking down a corridor in an office building, and instead of art prints, there are ads posted every dozen feet. So in terms of placing of links to ads in TiVo, they are necessarily going to be placed where you, the user, are doing something else, so your viewing of them is incidental whatever you're doing normally.


----------



## mchips (Feb 21, 2003)

Slider10 said:


> The Now Playing list is for shows ONLY and the ads need to go. I think TiVo is testing the waters with this new placement and we should make sure we get our points across to them that ads are okay but there is a limit.
> 
> That's my $0.2.


I agree, we should let our opinions known, for and against. That's the great thing about a democratic society.

So, I'll give my $0.02 as well. I have no problem whatsoever with the ads in the NPL. As with anything and everything, some will have a problem with it, others won't... I don't. They don't bother me in the least... not in the slightest. If I were forced to click on them, then I'd have a problem with them. But as long as clicking on them is still my choice, I couldn't care less.

We all have our limits, and mine has not yet been met.

I once objected to the pop-ads when FF'ng through commercials, that is, until I actually saw them in practice. When I first heard about it, I thought they were going to be random pop-ups covering actual commercials, when I actually like to watch the commercials when they grab my attention and didn't want them covered by other ads. There are some here that will remember my vocal objections to them. As it turned out, the pop-ups are from the same advertiser, covering their own commercials, so as far as I see it, they have every right to cover their own commercial with another ad if they so choose. It's their commercial that they're covering up, and what a creative way to counter-act DVR FFng. Kudos to TiVo for giving them that option.

Anywho, that's my $0.02... I yet have no problems with how the ads are done on TiVo... so they get a :up: from me.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo has crossed my personal line because the line item ads in now playing lists force me to hit up arrow to move off them. My family however does not see it as any big deal and just kinda went, oh... upon seeing them and since it was some credit card ad just move it off and went on to watch the shows.


Yup. I went from knowing how to use my TiVo to quickly start the oldest show in the list (Select, page down, play) to getting rerouted to a commercial because down arrow takes me to these new ads.

:down::down::down:


----------



## fallingwater (Dec 29, 2007)

JaneiR36 said:


> Actually, this is the most effective way to communicate that we hate the ads in the product. Most people will not dump a defective product in the landfill if using it is at least marginally better than not having it at all. But a) when a better product comes along with an easy transition, and b) if others ask if they should use it, it's really not difficult for companies to lose business. Also some people have come on here to state that they wouldn't recommend the product because of the ads, or that they have canceled. Seeing people post on here is your definition of effective, but like someone has mentioned, if you've canceled service, your relationship with TiVo would have ended and you most likely wouldn't be here posting about it.


Coffee House threads make clear that *****ing about ads is currently TiVo's biggest criticism. But when counted the actual number of disgruntled Forum posters is tiny.

Challenges from competition will change TiVo's policies more than thousands of Forum posts. For now though it's often amusing to read these largely ego driven threads.

I often wonder whether TiVo users or possibly Forum posters are much more nitpicky than average. Maybe it's just people involved with digital technology?


----------



## pdragonfly (May 8, 2007)

The ads are pissing me off. First in the movies and people quietly accepted in and now on my Tivo. Nothing is sacred. 

Really pissed at the ads showing up in grouping too. Tried to shut them off and they just return.


----------



## ontheway (Dec 12, 2007)

I am new to Tivo and so far the ads don't bother me, but then again I haven't been used to using my Tivo a certain way either. I am curious how many who are bothered by the ads, have actually called Tivo to complain?

I know some Tivo people monitor these forums but I think hitting them here and on the phones would be more likely to eventually affect a change it if ever is to be made. Maybe anytime you call Tivo for support also complain about the ads.


----------



## TadRichard (Feb 3, 2008)

I believe the real problem for Tivo in relying more on advertising revenue is that it is a long-term losing proposition.

1) TiVo is opening the door for newer startups to capture market share by offering DVRs that do not (initially) seed as many ads, and/or in a less intrusive manner. Note that start-ups don't need to be profitable, they just need enough of a "hook" (differentiation from current products & services) to get venure capital. I recall that a big reason that I bought TiVo was to be able to avoid television ads by fast-forwarding throught them.

2) The "value" of the in-GUI ads (for advertisers) is proportional to the click-throughs, not the appearances. There are many people on this forum that are not offended by the ad listings as they say can ignore them. But I'm willing to bet that there are not many people on either side of the "offensiveness" debate that actually are clicking into the ads. As advertisers get a true measure of the actual reponse rates for those ads, the value (and price TiVo can demand) will drop significantly.

3) As the price of the ads drops, the only way for TiVo to maintain the same level of advertising revenue will be to increase the number of click-throughs; by increasing the number of ads and the intrusiveness of the ads.

4) See #1, and repeat.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

TadRichard said:


> I believe the real problem for Tivo in relying more on advertising revenue is that it is a long-term losing proposition.
> 
> 1) TiVo is opening the door for newer startups to capture market share by offering DVRs that do not (initially) seed as many ads, and/or in a less intrusive manner. Note that start-ups don't need to be profitable, they just need enough of a "hook" (differentiation from current products & services) to get venure capital. I recall that a big reason that I bought TiVo was to be able to avoid television ads by fast-forwarding throught them.


 Venture Capatilists will need a lot more than a no-ads difference to see it as a smart investment to fund a Standalone DVR startup. Now maybe Echostar could come up with something - but they would go ad based before long anyway. Very few services compete on the idea of we have no ads, it is the vlaue of the service that sells it. Ads typically work to keep the price of the service/item down and thus increase value vs. price.


> 2) The "value" of the in-GUI ads (for advertisers) is proportional to the click-throughs, not the appearances. There are many people on this forum that are not offended by the ad listings as they say can ignore them. But I'm willing to bet that there are not many people on either side of the "offensiveness" debate that actually are clicking into the ads. As advertisers get a true measure of the actual reponse rates for those ads, the value (and price TiVo can demand) will drop significantly.


 sure and if the advertisers thought they received no return on the ad cost then they woulod stop that particular ad campaign. It seems quite the opposite is happening on TiVo DVRS. Add in teh fact that advertisers can very accurately measure the click on and interaction with the ad on a TiVo DVR and yoiu have an advertisers dream. I bet TiVo can indeed charge more per eyeball than say a TV spot or newspaper print ad.


> 3) As the price of the ads drops, the only way for TiVo to maintain the same level of advertising revenue will be to increase the number of click-throughs; by increasing the number of ads and the intrusiveness of the ads.
> 
> 4) See #1, and repeat.


the price of ads is not dropping on TiVo most likely - but in order for all the aprties to make more money then sure they will look for more intrusive ways. Inj fact that has already happened. Now TiVo itself has a balancing act of when will more intrusive cost TiVo more money in the form of lost customers than it is worth. We saw the first example of that in the Cnet billboard over top the actula TiVocast content for Cnet. People responded by telling Cnet they would cancel the TiVocast on their TiVo and cnet repsonded by stopping the billboard display. TiVo was involved in the mechanics of that and of course will keep that example firmly in mind.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TadRichard said:


> TiVo is opening the door for newer startups


Which ones? Have they committed to advertising-free user experiences?


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

I rarely come to the Coffee House, but when I do it's for a good reason. These freakin' ads are driving me batty. They're UGLY and they spoil the simplicity of the Now Playing screen. No TiVo, I *DON'T* want to download the latest pilot of some new show from Amazon Unbox. No TiVo, I *DON'T* want the new Norton anti-virus. Didn't you get the hint when after five or six days of it being on there I haven't once looked at it????? And while we're at it, I'm getting kinda sick of you promoting blogs and websites in my TiVo's menu system. I already know about that stuff. If I wanted it, I'd already be doing it. I get the CNet one. That's all I want. I'm not a dolt. I know about the rest of that stuff, but I don't want it. Okay? Get it?

The worst part of all of this is I'm completely powerless to get this crap out of my $800 TiVo with extra cost lifetime service. TiVo has decided to shove this crap down my throat regardless of whether I want it or not. Just like fax spam, you should be paying *me* to spam me using my TiVo and my electricity and my time.

:down: :down: :down:


----------



## JaneiR36 (Oct 18, 2007)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo is tyring to get to profitability. they have stated they want a 10$ avg. sub price. You can not have less ads and lower prices


I guess this where I'm usually quite confused. Lower costs for everyone is frequently cited as a reason for TiVo to advertise, but if anything, we're seeing subscription costs go up? So then I'm left wondering which it is: Is TiVo this innocent company that finally breaks down and starts doing ads so they can finally become profitable, or are they using more ads because like everyone else, they can?

*sigh* All I wanted was a better DVD recorder that didn't involve the discs that tended to wear out after a while, not to mention I generally couldn't tell what was in them without playing them, NOT to enter into a relationship with some company.

The way I see it, this is lose / lose for me as a customer. I've been clicking on some ads that interest me, and even if I did like and buy the product, all of a sudden I'm now being subject to what I run away from when I skip commercials and once again being separated from my money (only in this case it's probably a little easier). Magazine / music subscriptions, etc. Again, not a reason to cancel my TiVo, but a small reason that might prevent me from wholeheartedly recommending it to someone else.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

JaneiR36 said:


> I guess this where I'm usually quite confused. Lower costs for everyone is frequently cited as a reason for TiVo to advertise


I think that's a red herring. Advertising provided on TiVo is a reflection of the extent to which there is money to be made providing it. A company doesn't think to itself, "Ah, my owners' retirement accounts are good enough as they are; I'll just ignore the next few lucrative revenue opportunities that present themselves." Profitable or losing money, a responsible business decision is a responsible business decision.



JaneiR36 said:


> *sigh* All I wanted was a better DVD recorder that didn't involve the discs that tended to wear out after a while, not to mention I generally couldn't tell what was in them without playing them, NOT to enter into a relationship with some company.


Ask yourself why no one is willing to give you that.


----------



## mchips (Feb 21, 2003)

JaneiR36 said:


> ...but if anything, we're seeing subscription costs go up?


We're not even seeing that.

5 years ago when I got my first TiVo, the subscription price was $12.95/mo... today, it's $12.95/mo...

The MSD recently increased from $6.95 to $9.95, but that took almost 5 years to happen, and 5 years ago when I got my first TiVo, the MSD didn't even exist, hence one could look at it as compared to 5 years ago, the fee was $12.95, and now one can get it for $9.95 with additional boxes.

_<edit> and yet existing boxes at the $6.95 rate did NOT go up, they remain at $6.95; the $9.95 rate only affects new subscriptions </edit>_

If people want to prepay for 3 years, they can get it for an average of $8.31 per month. So, if anything, we're actually seeing the subscription costs go down.

Also, a single tuner standard-def box cost me over $350 each 5 years ago... now, you can get a _dual_-tuner standard-def box for less than a 1/3 of that at $99.

_<edit> That's two tuners that cost me $700 5 years ago to get, as it required two boxes then, that one can now get for $99, 1/7 of the cost </edit>_

And, with a dual-tuner, we can now record two programs at the same time for that same $12.95 for month, whereas previously it took two boxes for a combined total of $25.90 per month until the MSD, then $19.90 after the MSD to get, that we can now get the equivalent of for only $12.95 per month.

So, no, technically costs are not going up, but rather down, even though inflation has continued to go up, _<edit> and all while TiVo is losing some monthly subscriptions as some people are replacing each pair of single-tuner boxes (with two monthly subscriptions each) for one dual-tuner box (with only one monthly subscription each). </edit>_


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

JaneiR36 said:


> I guess this where I'm usually quite confused. Lower costs for everyone is frequently cited as a reason for TiVo to advertise, but if anything, we're seeing subscription costs go up?


when I joined it was 299$ for lifetime or 12.95 a month for a sub. HMO cost 99$ per box and they were most likely going to charge for TiVoToGo as well.
the Series 2 40 hour single tuner cost 200$ after rebate.

a MSD is 9.95 month, though I only pay 6.96, - much better prepays now- that inlcude MSD and an 80 hour Dual Tuner can be had for 99$ with no shopping around or free if you shop. An HD capabale TiVo started out at 800$ but now the newest model can be had for 250$ or less. No charge at all for many new features anymore including HMO - which morphed into the much better HME app.

The value to me of my TiVo DVRs has gone up considerably :up:

PS - everyone ackowledges that a 299$ lifetime or 6.95 sub were no brainers as a great deal for the buyer. They were basically ways to drum up extra business that TiVo thus later curtailed as they could not loose money on those for ever while not being profitable.


----------



## mchips (Feb 21, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> ...HMO cost 99$ per box...


Oh yeah, I forgot about that... I paid for that, which is now included in the $12.95 or lower monthly fee.


----------



## clam729 (Nov 28, 2004)

The ads in my show groups are annoying. I have a different star ad in 4 of our groups - Smallville, Supernatural, Desperate Housewives and Brothers and Sisters.

If I turn grouping off, they disappear - once grouping is turned back on, they reappear.

The most annoying part of this is that the ad is not always at the bottom of the show listing. It's at the bottom most of the time, but I go into the group, back out, then back into it, the ad is displayed in a random order.


----------

