# TiVo: Who Will The Real Buyer Be?



## tivoart (Dec 31, 2001)

Nice Forbes story today on Tivo:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenrosenbaum/2016/03/28/tivo-who-will-the-real-buyer-be/#632d3e9167cd


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

tivoart said:


> Nice Forbes story today on Tivo:
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenrosenbaum/2016/03/28/tivo-who-will-the-real-buyer-be/#632d3e9167cd


Impossible for me to get to site. Disabled adblocker (in Chrome), still said adblocker was there. Annoying.


----------



## Marc (Jun 26, 1999)

Try this link. I took off the magic numbers at the end of the URL and that let me in. (I don't have any ad blocker installed, yet the web site was insisting that I did.)


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

My son and I have been having this discussion for the past 6 months or so. Unless it can record streams, there really is no way forward for TiVo. In our multi-TiVo house, well over half our viewing is streaming now, and that isn't going to shrink. Add in the fact that the Hulu app is broken on Roamio (and has been since like Aug/Sept last year) and they haven't done anything about it, and it's not a pretty picture for the "everything" box that can't do close to everything in 2016 media.

So the fact that they're up for sale isn't a surprise. I just wish they'd go to someplace like Apple that can force the ability to record streams.

But yeah, unless something awesome happens, it's pretty clear that Roamio may be our last TiVo.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

curiousgeorge said:


> My son and I have been having this discussion for the past 6 months or so. Unless it can record streams, there really is no way forward for TiVo. In our multi-TiVo house, well over half our viewing is streaming now, and that isn't going to shrink. Add in the fact that the Hulu app is broken on Roamio (and has been since like Aug/Sept last year) and they haven't done anything about it, and it's not a pretty picture for the "everything" box that can't do close to everything in 2016 media.
> 
> So the fact that they're up for sale isn't a surprise. I just wish they'd go to someplace like Apple that can force the ability to record streams.
> 
> But yeah, unless something awesome happens, it's pretty clear that Roamio may be our last TiVo.


I hear you about streaming frustrations with TiVo. That said, it looks like TiVo today rolled out a new Hulu app to Roamios! I haven't been able to check mine yet but others are reporting the update elsewhere on this site.


----------



## squiredogs (Aug 14, 2006)

I hope Apple swoops in and makes a Tivo-AppleTV. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. I've had better luck with streaming from the ATV. I've only used my (admittedly old) S3 for Amazon video for years now.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

squiredogs said:


> I hope Apple swoops in and makes a Tivo-AppleTV. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. I've had better luck with streaming from the ATV. I've only used my (admittedly old) S3 for Amazon video for years now.


As much as I loathe Apple and refuse to buy any of their products, Apple buying TiVo would probably be better than Rovi. At least Apple is a hardware-oriented company vs. Rovi which seems dead set against ever being involved in hardware. I just don't see it happening. Apple (and Google, Microsoft, etc) could have bought TiVo at pretty much any time over the years and have chosen not to. I don't see anything that has changed that would have changed their minds.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I don't get the patent angle if Tivo's patents expire in 2 years. 


I look at Rovi's business on the surface (I haven't read up enough on them to know more than that) and maybe there are synergies there. If Tivo is using some other guide service and Tivo's 5 milliion customers can be switched to a Rovi source then Rovi gains 5 million more "subs." Tivo has been growing their MSO business the last few years and MSOs are Rovi's customers as well. Acquiring Tivo would give them a more full featured package. 

Rovi also gets Tivo's analytics. Rovi seems to be in that sort of business as well and this would give them more data on consumer viewing habits to be sold off to networks.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

That is a pretty interesting analysis.

Not all TiVos parents are expiring in two years, just the major time shift parent.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

trip1eX said:


> I don't get the patent angle if Tivo's patents expire in 2 years.


TiVo Licensing Related Technology Revenues

Fiscal Year Ending January 31, 
2017 $173,129,000 
2018 $174,411,000	
2019 $88,629,000	
2020  $1,855,000 
2021 $1,855,000 
2022 - 2024 $4,483,000

Total $444,362,000



bradleys said:


> That is a pretty interesting analysis.
> 
> Not all TiVos parents are expiring in two years, just the major time shift parent.


And you can see 2018 Expiration dries up the revenue from patents (though Samsung suit just started and not included, though they would be past infringement damages, if successful).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tarheelblue32 said:


> As much as I loathe Apple and refuse to buy any of their products, Apple buying TiVo would probably be better than Rovi. At least Apple is a hardware-oriented company vs. Rovi which seems dead set against ever being involved in hardware. I just don't see it happening. Apple (and Google, Microsoft, etc) could have bought TiVo at pretty much any time over the years and have chosen not to. I don't see anything that has changed that would have changed their minds.


TiVo is to Apple

as

BluRay is to Apple


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=tivo

More geeky stuff.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

JoeKustra said:


> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=tivo
> 
> More geeky stuff.


I am not sure what I find more comical - $100M+ a year in R&D or $46M in Marketing.

Neither are worth 1/10th of what they are spending.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I am not sure what I find more comical - $100M a year in R&D or $46M in Marketing. Neither are worth 1/10th of what they are spending.


They do marketing? What the heck do they spend their money on?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

curiousgeorge said:


> My son and I have been having this discussion for the past 6 months or so. Unless it can record streams, there really is no way forward for TiVo. In our multi-TiVo house, well over half our viewing is streaming now, and that isn't going to shrink. Add in the fact that the Hulu app is broken on Roamio (and has been since like Aug/Sept last year) and they haven't done anything about it, and it's not a pretty picture for the "everything" box that can't do close to everything in 2016 media.
> 
> So the fact that they're up for sale isn't a surprise. I just wish they'd go to someplace like Apple that can force the ability to record streams.
> 
> But yeah, unless something awesome happens, it's pretty clear that Roamio may be our last TiVo.


No one will ever be able to record streams. The streaming services wont allow it. In fact the trend is the other way, converting DVRs to cloud DVRs where even the things you can record are streamed.

I still contend that TiVos best path forward is to release their own streaming service similar to Playstation Vue. DVR hardware is eventually going to go away. Probably not any time really soon, but long term and they need something to replace it.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

I just sold my TiVo stock. I've had it a year or two and lost about 20% or so. It's up about 25% in the last few days, so I cut my losses. With my luck though, Apple will offer twice what Rovi did tomorrow.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> They do marketing? What the heck do they spend their money on?


Exactly my point.

I can only guess they pay to be in Best Buy Flyers/Newspaper inserts (if Best Buy even does that any longer!) and Fry's Ads.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

bradleys said:


> That is a pretty interesting analysis.
> 
> Not all TiVos parents are expiring in two years, just the major time shift parent.


What other great patents do they have?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tivoart said:


> Nice Forbes story today on Tivo:
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenrosenbaum/2016/03/28/tivo-who-will-the-real-buyer-be/#632d3e9167cd


Actually pretty ignorant article.

More likely to RoVi buying Data/Patents - and trying to sell off Hardware paying them royalties.

However, Comcast into X1 and has no need to purchase TiVo.

AT&T moving towards DirecTV platform and not needing TiVo, and DirecTV, BTW, is responsible for 10% of TiVo revenue with Contract expires in 2018.

Google - or the others like them? No. MSO's will NOT buy Equipment from Google. And that is where the value in Hardware lies.

Apple. Forget it. Apple sees TiVo as BluRay - they did/will do neither as they see Cloud future.

Roku. Doubtful. Would they even have the ability?

So the list of potential spinoffs for Hardware is VERY LIMITED, which is why I say the article is pretty ignorant.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

trip1eX said:


> What other great patents do they have?


Plenty of patents...."great"....hmmmm

Post #10 shows how "great" they are.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

curiousgeorge said:


> My son and I have been having this discussion for the past 6 months or so. Unless it can record streams, there really is no way forward for TiVo. In our multi-TiVo house, well over half our viewing is streaming now, and that isn't going to shrink. Add in the fact that the Hulu app is broken on Roamio (and has been since like Aug/Sept last year) and they haven't done anything about it, and it's not a pretty picture for the "everything" box that can't do close to everything in 2016 media.
> 
> So the fact that they're up for sale isn't a surprise. I just wish they'd go to someplace like Apple that can force the ability to record streams.
> 
> But yeah, unless something awesome happens, it's pretty clear that Roamio may be our last TiVo.


Curious, do you include watching content via Plex from your home server in streaming totals?

Lately I've been watching a lot of stuff via Plex, but most of it was content that started out on a TiVo, but was transferred to my PC.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

TonyD79 said:


> They do marketing? What the heck do they spend their money on?


I've heard satellite radio spots for TiVo in the recent past (Christmas-time) on either MSNBC or CNBC.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> They do marketing? What the heck do they spend their money on?


We offer a product lifetime subscription option to the TiVo service that commits us to provide the TiVo service for as long as the DVR is in service.

We receive product lifetime subscription fees for the TiVo service in advance and amortize these fees as subscription revenue *over 66 months* for product lifetime subscriptions *which is our current estimate of the service life of the DVR*.

*If these product lifetime subscriptions use the DVR for longer than anticipated, we will incur costs such as telecommunications and customer support costs without a corresponding subscription revenue stream and therefore will be required to fund ongoing costs of service from other sources, such as advertising revenue*.

Additionally, if these product lifetime subscriptions use the DVR for longer than the period in which we recognize revenue, our average revenue per subscription ("ARPU") for our TiVo-Owned subscriptions will be negatively impacted as we continue to count these customers as subscriptions without corresponding subscription revenue thus lowering our average revenues across our TiVo-Owned subscription base.

*As of January 31, 2016, we had approximately 153,000 product lifetime subscriptions that had exceeded the 66 month period we use to recognize product lifetime subscription revenues and had made contact with the TiVo service within the prior six-month period. *

We will continue to monitor the useful life of a TiVo-enabled DVR and the impact of higher churn, increased competition, and compatibility of our existing TiVo units with high-definition programming. Future results will allow us to determine if our useful life is shorter or longer than currently estimated, in which case we may revise the estimated life and we would recognize revenues from this source over a shorter or longer period.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

curiousgeorge said:


> My son and I have been having this discussion for the past 6 months or so. Unless it can record streams, there really is no way forward for TiVo. In our multi-TiVo house, well over half our viewing is streaming now, and that isn't going to shrink. Add in the fact that the Hulu app is broken on Roamio (and has been since like Aug/Sept last year) and they haven't done anything about it, and it's not a pretty picture for the "everything" box that can't do close to everything in 2016 media.
> 
> So the fact that they're up for sale isn't a surprise. I just wish they'd go to someplace like Apple that can force the ability to record streams.
> 
> But yeah, unless something awesome happens, it's pretty clear that Roamio may be our last TiVo.


This makes no sense. Why would you want to record a stream? The whole purpose of streaming is to remove the need for the content to be recorded, since it's available to be streamed at any given time.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> We offer a product lifetime subscription option to the TiVo service that commits us to provide the TiVo service for as long as the DVR is in service.
> 
> We receive product lifetime subscription fees for the TiVo service in advance and amortize these fees as subscription revenue *over 66 months* for product lifetime subscriptions *which is our current estimate of the service life of the DVR*.
> 
> ...


Seems like maybe they need to re-evaluate the 66-month calculation, if there are that many PLS subscriptions older than 66 months but still active. This probably helps explain why they were offering the $99 loyalty PLS deal for the past several months. They figured they had many customers using old hardware with PLS that were costing them money and weren't likely to bring in any new revenue. So they decided that if they can wring an extra $100 out of these subscribers and at the same time get their older hardware stuck in a closet somewhere rather than calling into the service and being a drain on the books, then that helps shore up their numbers for an upcoming sale.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

DevdogAZ said:


> Seems like maybe they need to re-evaluate the 66-month calculation, if there are that many PLS subscriptions older than 66 months but still active. This probably helps explain why they were offering the $99 loyalty PLS deal for the past several months. They figured they had many customers using old hardware with PLS that were costing them money and weren't likely to bring in any new revenue. So they decided that if they can wring an extra $100 out of these subscribers and at the same time get their older hardware stuck in a closet somewhere rather than calling into the service and being a drain on the books, then that helps shore up their numbers for an upcoming sale.


That $100 is amortized over the same 66 months starting at the time of purchase - or $1.50 a month.

Also remember the $99 on the new Roamio Deals.

I also wonder how many people spotted this at the bottom of their invoices over the past number of months. Interesting no one has posted it:

Activation Terms
------------
Your use of TiVo devices and service is subject to the terms and conditions of the TiVo User Agreement (available at
www.tivo.com/legal/terms) and the TiVo Privacy Policy (available at www.tivo.com/legal/privacy). Activation orders are
subject to credit card and pricing review. TiVo offers a 30-day money-back guarantee on solely your purchase from tivo.com and/or
your initial activation of TiVo service; see the 30-day Money-Back Guarantee section of the TiVo User Agreement for details.

The TiVo BOLT All-In service plan on your box consists of a one (1)-time, up-front payment of $99.00, plus any applicable taxes.
All-In TiVo service subscriptions last for the lifetime of your TiVo box (not your lifetime), and may not be transferred to another
TiVo box.

If you have any additional questions concerning your order, please either visit www.tivo.com/manage and click on "Order History"
or call TiVo Customer Support at 877-367-8486 from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Pacific Time ( PT), on weekdays or from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m., PT, on weekends. Please do not respond to this email; we are not able to accept electronic replies to this
email address.

Sincerely,

The TiVo Team


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> That $100 is amortized over the same 66 months starting at the time of purchase - or $1.50 a month.
> 
> Also remember the $99 on the new Roamio Deals.


Right. But that's a new $99 and a new 66 months, which looks better on the books than an 8 year-old Series 3 or TiVo HD still calling in daily and getting customer support without contributing anything to the bottom line. I'm sure TiVo calculated that for every new Roamio or Bolt they sold to an existing customer under this loyalty deal, some number of older lifetimed units would be taken out of service, and that was probably a net positive for them in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

DevdogAZ said:


> Right. But that's a new $99 and a new 66 months, which looks better on the books than an 8 year-old Series 3 or TiVo HD still calling in daily and getting customer support without contributing anything to the bottom line. I'm sure TiVo calculated that for every new Roamio or Bolt they sold to an existing customer under this loyalty deal, some number of older lifetimed units would be taken out of service, and that was probably a net positive for them in the grand scheme of things.


An old tivo doesnt call in and get customer support without PLS or a monthly fee.

An virtually every PLS unit that has been upgraded to a Roamio or Bolt has either 1) been retained 2) shown up on Craigslist or eBay or 3)Given to Charity, Family Member or friend.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> This makes no sense. Why would you want to record a stream? The whole purpose of streaming is to remove the need for the content to be recorded, since it's available to be streamed at any given time.


Because the playback mechanics of a recording is a thousand times better than a stream. My wife finally agreed to get rid of her cable box that she used for VOD because it was hard to fast forward and much of the time commercials could not be skipped. Now that all of us are getting used to skip mode, it would be quite a shock to have to stream with commercials.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> An old tivo doesnt call in and get customer support without PLS or a monthly fee.
> 
> An virtually every PLS unit that has been upgraded to a Roamio or Bolt has either 1) been retained 2) shown up on Craigslist or eBay or 3)Given to Charity, Family Member or friend.


We're talking about this in the context of TiVo's disclosure that there are over 150,000 lifetimed boxes still calling in daily after their 66-month amortization period is up. What I'm saying is that TiVo probably determined that they could get some of those old lifetimed boxes to be disconnected if they could convince users to buy new hardware. So it's a win-win-win for TiVo: New revenue from hardware sales, new subscription money to amortize, and fewer old lifetimed boxes calling in.

Even if every new $99 lifetime sale only resulted in the permanent disconnection of 0.25 old lifetimed boxes (1 box decommissioned for ever four new lifetime subscriptions sold), I'd think TiVo would consider that a win. And I'll bet the ratio is higher than that, as many people wouldn't even consider that their 8-10 year old Series 3 would have any value at all.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

DevdogAZ said:


> We're talking about this in the context of TiVo's disclosure that there are over 150,000 lifetimed boxes still calling in daily after their 66-month amortization period is up. What I'm saying is that TiVo probably determined that they could get some of those old lifetimed boxes to be disconnected if they could convince users to buy new hardware. So it's a win-win-win for TiVo: New revenue from hardware sales, new subscription money to amortize, and fewer old lifetimed boxes calling in.
> 
> Even if every new $99 lifetime sale only resulted in the permanent disconnection of 0.25 old lifetimed boxes (1 box decommissioned for ever four new lifetime subscriptions sold), I'd think TiVo would consider that a win. And I'll bet the ratio is higher than that, as many people wouldn't even consider that their 8-10 year old Series 3 would have any value at all.


Might want to see how many show up weekly on Craigslist asking $100.

And btw, you might want to check additions to TiVo in the last Quarter (Nov, Dec and Jan). Those specials are not blowing the doors down.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Exactly my point. I can only guess they pay to be in Best Buy Flyers/Newspaper inserts (if Best Buy even does that any longer!) and Fry's Ads.


I haven't seen a Best Buy flyer in my paper in months.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> This makes no sense. Why would you want to record a stream? The whole purpose of streaming is to remove the need for the content to be recorded, since it's available to be streamed at any given time.


For better control. For multiple views without having to stream multiple times.

Directv on demand is streamed but also is recorded locally. Trick play is 10 times better on local copies. And you don't have to run into potential caps or bandwidth issues if you want to watch again.

Amazon allows downloads on some devices for these same purposes.

I have a question. If you buy a movie to own, wouldn't you want a local copy under your control rather than rely on streaming?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> I have a question. If you buy a movie to own, wouldn't you want a local copy under your control rather than rely on streaming?


Of course. But the difference is that you don't typically own the stuff that you're streaming, so you have no right to expect that same level of control.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Of course. But the difference is that you don't typically own the stuff that you're streaming, so you have no right to expect that same level of control.


We don't own what we are recording from cable or OTA either. Wanting to record/copy/download what ever word you like content instead of having to stream it makes complete sense to me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> We don't own what we are recording from cable or OTA either. Wanting to record/copy/download what ever word you like content instead of having to stream it makes complete sense to me.


But the content providers who distribute their content OTA or via cable know that DVRs exist and that such things can be recorded, and thus they plan for that. Many content providers have moved to exclusively distributing their content via streaming to specifically avoid the possibility that their content can be easily recorded and archived.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> But the content providers who distribute their content OTA or via cable know that DVRs exist and that such things can be recorded, and thus they plan for that. Many content providers have moved to exclusively distributing their content via streaming to specifically avoid the possibility that their content can be easily recorded and archived.


Not that hard to stop that in other ways. Amazon manages pretty well.

You can require a check in to see if the subscription/rental is still alive. Directv does it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

TonyD79 said:


> I haven't seen a Best Buy flyer in my paper in months.


Thinking about this for several hours, remember RETAIL is not their focus.

They might be advertising and marketing 1) Their Data Services and 2) MSO Equipment that we would never see.

And then there is the case of robbing Advertising to Pay for the 153,000 Series 1, 2 and 3 (perhaps a few early Premieres) purchased prior to Aug 2010 with PLS.

Also of note, that is about 1/6 of the Total Retail TiVos active if one thinks about it.

EDIT: Here is a REMARKABLE bit of data....went back to 2010 10Q to see how many active TiVo Retail units there were at end of July 2010 (to get an idea of what that 153k looked like 66 months ago).

There were 1,366,000 Retail TiVos at that time - 33% more than today.

There were 280,000 Fully Amortized TiVos (as opposed to 153,000 today) on July 31, 2010....almost twice as many as today.

And even more amazing...there were 1,658,000 Retail Tivos in the Quarter ending October 31, 2008 - 66% more TiVos than today - Prior to the Premieres even being launched!

If we view the 3rd Quarter of 2012 of the launch of Roamios, there were 1,027,000 Retail TiVos at that time - also more than today - and 221,000 fully Amortized TiVos (down from the earlier numbers - but 50% more than the 153,000 today).

Quite frankly, with that kind of decline, I am surprised a Bolt was even launched!


----------



## jakerome (Nov 29, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually pretty ignorant article.
> 
> More likely to RoVi buying Data/Patents - and trying to sell off Hardware paying them royalties.
> 
> ...


Exactly. It's a laundry list of companies that are eating TiVo's lunch. A wish list really. The main accomplishment of the article is to further demonstrate that Forbes will let just about anyone publish under their formerly esteemed banner.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Quite frankly, with that kind of decline, I am surprised a Bolt was even launched!


In retrospect, it looks like the Bolt was a hail mary, and could possibly be the last retail TiVo.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Given Amazon's presence both in the streaming content and hardware markets (with rumored desires to expand into a full-blown streaming MSO), I think they make a more reasonable acquirer of TiVo than some of the other tech titans mentioned. I'd say it could be a good fit for Apple and their next-gen Apple TV, except that nothing about TiVo (cable or OTA recordings, traditional TV grid listings) seems to fit the Apple. I would imagine Cupertino sees TiVo as last decade's TV tech and they want to introduce next decade's.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> We're talking about this in the context of TiVo's disclosure that there are over 150,000 lifetimed boxes still calling in daily after their 66-month amortization period is up. What I'm saying is that TiVo probably determined that they could get some of those old lifetimed boxes to be disconnected if they could convince users to buy new hardware. So it's a win-win-win for TiVo: New revenue from hardware sales, new subscription money to amortize, and fewer old lifetimed boxes calling in.
> 
> Even if every new $99 lifetime sale only resulted in the permanent disconnection of 0.25 old lifetimed boxes (1 box decommissioned for ever four new lifetime subscriptions sold), I'd think TiVo would consider that a win. And I'll bet the ratio is higher than that, as many people wouldn't even consider that their 8-10 year old Series 3 would have any value at all.


I may be way off but most electronic hardware, when upgraded, people toss the old stuff, that, in general, is not true with Lifetime TiVos, most are sold or given away and still work and call into TiVo, only the Series 2 and older units are really outdated as they can't get HD, but with the ease of replacement of the hard drive, any Series 3 or newer TiVo can last 20 years or more, unless cable cards go away, and no limit for OTA until the next broadcast standards is put on the air. TiVo should have never let us move Lifetime TiVos into another account for free.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

lessd said:


> I may be way off but most electronic hardware, when upgraded, people toss the old stuff, that, in general, is not true with Lifetime TiVos, most are sold or given away and still work and call into TiVo, only the Series 2 and older units are really outdated as they can't get HD, but with the ease of replacement of the hard drive, any Series 3 or newer TiVo can last 20 years or more, unless cable cards go away, and no limit for OTA until the next broadcast standards is put on the air. TiVo should have never let us move Lifetime TiVos into another account for free.


I think all of us here on TCF are outliers because we understand TiVos and we know their value. But I'll bet that there are thousands of lifetimed TiVos sitting in closets or landfills because people upgraded to something else and had no idea their lifetimed TiVo was worth anything. And especially with the news that the Series 3 would become obsolete on many cable systems, I'll bet lots of people upgraded and then junked their old boxes and never even learned that TiVo changed course and released software to fix that problem.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I haven't seen a Best Buy flyer in my paper in months.


We still get them every Sunday and that's with the nearest Best Buy being 30 miles away from our small town.

Scott


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think all of us here on TCF are outliers because we understand TiVos and we know their value. But I'll bet that there are thousands of lifetimed TiVos sitting in closets or landfills because people upgraded to something else and had no idea their lifetimed TiVo was worth anything. And especially with the news that the Series 3 would become obsolete on many cable systems, I'll bet lots of people upgraded and then junked their old boxes and never even learned that TiVo changed course and released software to fix that problem.


Some of us are to lazy to get around to selling them. I am sitting in front of my TV and looking at 6 TiVos with lifetime, 4 are unplugged but I do plug them in and let them call home every few months. At this point I honestly only need my Bolt, the Roamio is in stand by and I have left a bunch of one passes on it only because I put a 3TB drive in it last fall and it has more room than my 1TB Bolt.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

HerronScott said:


> We still get them every Sunday and that's with the nearest Best Buy being 30 miles away from our small town. Scott


Must be local then. I've had nothing in the Baltimore sun since at least Christmas. I keep looking for it to spend my $50 gift card for buying my Bolt.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think all of us here on TCF are outliers because we understand TiVos and we know their value. But I'll bet that there are thousands of lifetimed TiVos sitting in closets or landfills because people upgraded to something else and had no idea their lifetimed TiVo was worth anything. And especially with the news that the Series 3 would become obsolete on many cable systems, I'll bet lots of people upgraded and then junked their old boxes and never even learned that TiVo changed course and released software to fix that problem.


Do you think all the Lifetime TiVos on E-Bay come from mostly from TCF people ?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

lessd said:


> Do you think all the Lifetime TiVos on E-Bay come from mostly from TCF people ?


No, that's not what I said. My point is simply that all the lifetime TiVos on eBay likely only represent a fraction of the lifetime TiVos that were replaced with new lifetime TiVos. Whether that fraction is 1/8 or 7/8, I obviously have no idea. But there is certainly some percentage of lifetimed Series 3s that will never be plugged in again after the owner replaces it with a new lifetime Roamio or Bolt.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I have a question. If you buy a movie to own, wouldn't you want a local copy under your control rather than rely on streaming?


I own dozens of movies on Vudu which I don't have a physical copies of. <shrug>


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> I own dozens of movies on Vudu which I don't have a physical copies of. <shrug>


Then you don't really "own" them, you just have a license to view them. When you own a physical copy, you actually do own and control that single copy of media.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I hear you about streaming frustrations with TiVo. That said, it looks like TiVo today rolled out a new Hulu app to Roamios! I haven't been able to check mine yet but others are reporting the update elsewhere on this site.


Haha! I know! I saw that literally hours after this post. No updates and a broken Hulu app for like 7-8 months, and it gets fixed the day I mention it as an example of TiVo's suckiness with streaming!

It HAS solved the black screen flashing problem, so I guess Hulu FINALLY works on TiVo again.

(They're still DoA in a streaming world unless they can record streams, though).


----------



## NJ Webel (Dec 8, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Then you don't really "own" them, you just have a license to view them. When you own a physical copy, you actually do own and control that single copy of media.


Just because it pertains to a license rather than a physical copy doesn't make the ownership any less real, or less legally binding.

From the UV website:


> The right to an UltraViolet movie is perpetual.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> No one will ever be able to record streams. The streaming services wont allow it. In fact the trend is the other way, converting DVRs to cloud DVRs where even the things you can record are streamed.


Never say never. There are advantages to recorded streams, even for the providers - offloading demand to times when less people are trying to stream (middle of the night/early morning) so servers are less stressed when everyone else wants to view the content.

For the users, the benefits are obvious - content is available whether or not your internet is up or the servers with the content are stroking out and serving up sub-par video.

With the right pitch and a strong vision, it could happen. That's why I think Apple has the best chance with the TiVo brand in a streaming world. Plus, it could make Apple TV suck a lot less.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

waynomo said:


> Curious, do you include watching content via Plex from your home server in streaming totals?
> 
> Lately I've been watching a lot of stuff via Plex, but most of it was content that started out on a TiVo, but was transferred to my PC.


No, we use things like PBO, etc to watch content from the home media server. It's mostly DVDs and TV shows we grab from overseas.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> This makes no sense. Why would you want to record a stream? The whole purpose of streaming is to remove the need for the content to be recorded, since it's available to be streamed at any given time.


Only, it isn't. We've had a number of situations with onepass where a stream becomes "unavailable" for no clear reason, only to be back a day or two later. We eventually just stopped using Onepass for streams - it sucks.

Recording a stream locally doesn't eat into monthly bandwidth allocation for multiple views for those viewers stuck with crappy capped internet.

Also, recorded streams wouldn't be subject to crappy video quality when servers are overloaded or unavailability due to internet outages. Charter in California has had two occasions where internet was out for DAYS in a large part of the state because someone cut a fiber line. It happens.

Lots of upside for providers and consumers, very little downside.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> But the content providers who distribute their content OTA or via cable know that DVRs exist and that such things can be recorded, and thus they plan for that. Many content providers have moved to exclusively distributing their content via streaming to specifically avoid the possibility that their content can be easily recorded and archived.


Only, that's a completely ineffective plan, as usual. It's trivial to capture any stream on a computer and archive it, so using that excuse to not provide stream recording to a more controlled environment like a DVR is retarded.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

curiousgeorge said:


> Never say never. There are advantages to recorded streams, even for the providers - offloading demand to times when less people are trying to stream (middle of the night/early morning) so servers are less stressed when everyone else wants to view the content.
> 
> For the users, the benefits are obvious - content is available whether or not your internet is up or the servers with the content are stroking out and serving up sub-par video.
> 
> With the right pitch and a strong vision, it could happen. That's why I think Apple has the best chance with the TiVo brand in a streaming world. Plus, it could make Apple TV suck a lot less.


I completely disagree. Server and network capacity are only getting higher. Eventually speeds and capacity will be high enough that serving a video from the cloud is no slower then serving it from a local hard drive. Any system like you describe is only a stop gap to deal with current capacity issues and will only be diminished more as time goes on.

Content providers want to retain control over their content. The best way for them to do that is to not allow physical copies of the content to be stored on any sort of accessible media. They're pushing for more streaming, not less. I don't think even Apple has the clout to reverse that.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I completely disagree. Server and network capacity are only getting higher. Eventually speeds and capacity will be high enough that serving a video from the cloud is no slower then serving it from a local hard drive. Any system like you describe is only a stop gap to deal with current capacity issues and will only be diminished more as time goes on.


And what about bandwidth caps? Local recording sidesteps that problem, and I don't think the ISPs are giving up on trying to get everyone subject to them eventually.

And outages? They will happen.

Cloud has advantages, but it also has disadvantages that can be mitigated by local recording.



Dan203 said:


> Content providers want to retain control over their content. The best way for them to do that is to not allow physical copies of the content to be stored on any sort of accessible media. They're pushing for more streaming, not less. I don't think even Apple has the clout to reverse that.


That's an illusion for the content providers. The second they turn on a new show's stream, they've lost some control. ANYTHING they stream can be captured and archived, right now, and it already happens every day. Recording to a much more controlled environment like a DVR is actually MORE secure than the computer streaming they already do because it's more of a pain to get it off the DVR if you're so inclined.


----------



## siratfus (Oct 3, 2008)

Have no clue what all this means. So can someone just answer this... What's the service life expectancy of current lifetime tivo/roamio boxes? Approximately when do you think owners will need to take out the cable cards and return them, bury the roamio and minis in backyard with custom engraved tombstones, and go back in the house to order the cable company's rental boxes?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

curiousgeorge said:


> Never say never. There are advantages to recorded streams, even for the providers - offloading demand to times when less people are trying to stream (middle of the night/early morning) so servers are less stressed when everyone else wants to view the content.
> 
> For the users, the benefits are obvious - content is available whether or not your internet is up or the servers with the content are stroking out and serving up sub-par video.
> 
> With the right pitch and a strong vision, it could happen. That's why I think Apple has the best chance with the TiVo brand in a streaming world. *Plus, it could make Apple TV suck a lot less.*


Have you used the new Apple TV (4th gen.)? If not, I suggest you give it a try. The new UI that's universal across all streaming apps has made streaming almost preferable to watching recorded content from my TiVo.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

siratfus said:


> Have no clue what all this means. So can someone just answer this... What's the service life expectancy of current lifetime tivo/roamio boxes? Approximately when do you think owners will need to take out the cable cards and return them, bury the roamio and minis in backyard with custom engraved tombstones, and go back in the house to order the cable company's rental boxes?


I would be shocked if there wasn't at least 4-5 more years left, even if the merger/sale happens.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

curiousgeorge said:


> And what about bandwidth caps? Local recording sidesteps that problem, and I don't think the ISPs are giving up on trying to get everyone subject to them eventually.
> 
> And outages? They will happen.
> 
> Cloud has advantages, but it also has disadvantages that can be mitigated by local recording.


Those issues really only matter to the end user, not the provider.

Caps could be a potential issue for the providers, but so far they haven't really caught on and the longer they wait the harder it's going to be to put that genie back in the bottle. They can also be mitigated a little by converting to H.265 and developing better adaptive bitrate technology.

Outages effect recordings too. If your cable goes out while your DVR is recording you miss the show. If your internet goes out while you're watching a stream you're simply inconvenienced, but you can continue the show once it returns.

DirecTV and Dish use a system similar to what you describe. Basically they have a bit of their bandwidth dedicated to VOD. Not enough that everyone can watch VOD at the same time, but when you request a VOD you're put into a queue and within a few hours your show is sent via that bit of bandwidth to your DVR and stored locally. I'm betting that if you asked most DSS users would prefer to have real VOD then this hybrid system where they have to wait several hours for the show/movie they requested to "record" first.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> DirecTV and Dish use a system similar to what you describe. Basically they have a bit of their bandwidth dedicated to VOD. Not enough that everyone can watch VOD at the same time, but when you request a VOD you're put into a queue and within a few hours your show is sent via that bit of bandwidth to your DVR and stored locally. I'm betting that if you asked most DSS users would prefer to have real VOD then this hybrid system where they have to wait several hours for the show/movie they requested to "record" first.


You're talking about an OR scenario. I'm talking about an AND scenario, where the user chooses live or recorded streaming based on their needs (let me grab a couple seasons of daredevil and house of cards to my local DVR and I can stream whatever else as-needed, for example). And every user with a brain would take more choice and convenience over less.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NJ Webel said:


> Just because it pertains to a license rather than a physical copy doesn't make the ownership any less real, or less legally binding.
> 
> From the UV website:


Until UV goes belly up. You only own the right to watch via UV and its partners. You don't own a physical copy of the movie.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> This makes no sense. Why would you want to record a stream? The whole purpose of streaming is to remove the need for the content to be recorded, since it's available to be streamed at any given time.


I record streaming services like Hulu and others to skip commercials and manage my data cap, I can record when I have data available to watch at my convenience. I can also watch without an internet connection.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

curiousgeorge said:


> You're talking about an OR scenario. I'm talking about an AND scenario, where the user chooses live or recorded streaming based on their needs (let me grab a couple seasons of daredevil and house of cards to my local DVR and I can stream whatever else as-needed, for example). And every user with a brain would take more choice and convenience over less.


And I'm saying the content providers wont allow that scenario. They're pushing toward more streaming, not less. Your solution might be ideal for users, but content providers don't like it. Unless caps become a real problem I just don't see them going in that direction and no device maker, not even Apple, can force them to do that.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

curiousgeorge said:


> Never say never. There are advantages to recorded streams, even for the providers - offloading demand to times when less people are trying to stream (middle of the night/early morning) so servers are less stressed when everyone else wants to view the content.


Yeah maybe. I could see off-peak bandwidth being put to use in some shape or form in the future by streaming companies

PHone companies used to discount off-peak phone calls to make use of bandwidth not in use and free them up from building out as much bandwidth for peak hours.

Power companies operate in the same way in that they encourage consumers to use power off-peak hours with cheaper electricity rates.

SEems like a matter of time before internet providers offer incentives for people/companies to use bandwidth during off-peak hours.

I could see a streaming service having an algorithm that downloads "not-streamed-yet but highly-likely-to-be-streamed" content during off-peak hours to your box based on your viewing patterns to save the expense of peak bandwidth.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Until UV goes belly up. You only own the right to watch via UV and its partners. You don't own a physical copy of the movie.


And your house could burn down and destroy all your discs. Both have unlikely scenarios that result in total loss.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> Yeah maybe. I could see off-peak bandwidth being put to use in some shape or form in the future by streaming companies
> 
> PHone companies used to discount off-peak phone calls to make use of bandwidth not in use and free them up from building out as much bandwidth for peak hours.
> 
> ...


That's different then allowing users to pick individual shows/movies to download to their device manually. Something like what you describe could actually happen. But users being able to select streaming content for download, and keep it locally indefinitely is not going to happen.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Until UV goes belly up. You only own the right to watch via UV and its partners. You don't own a physical copy of the movie.


Nothing lasts for ever, even physical copies. But when you look at the companies that make up UV, if it were to go down, we are talking about the end of streaming video as we know it. That said I would be much more concerned about buying a non-UV title from an individual video rental/sales service.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> As much as I loathe Apple and refuse to buy any of their products, Apple buying TiVo would probably be better than Rovi. At least Apple is a hardware-oriented company vs. Rovi which seems dead set against ever being involved in hardware. I just don't see it happening. Apple (and Google, Microsoft, etc) could have bought TiVo at pretty much any time over the years and have chosen not to. I don't see anything that has changed that would have changed their minds.


I just finished de-Appleing myself. I would even consider the loathsome FiOS DVR before getting back into bed with Apple.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> Nothing lasts for ever, even physical copies. But when you look at the companies that make up UV, if it were to go down, we are talking about the end of streaming video as we know it. That said I would be much more concerned about buying a non-UV title from an individual video rental/sales service.


Vudu is owned by Wal-Mart. Chances of them going down is next to nill as well. Although I guess Vudu could be sold and eventually run into the ground by the new owner. But the vast majority of the movies I own are UV or Disney Movies Anywhere, so they would survive a collapse of Vudu.


----------



## Chuck_IV (Jan 1, 2002)

I do like the last statement in that article about other companies may not want to see Rovi with even more patents at its disposal.

I hope that thought draws out a few more bidders that will have more of an interest in the hardware side than Rovi will.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> That's different then allowing users to pick individual shows/movies to download to their device manually. Something like what you describe could actually happen. But users being able to select streaming content for download, and keep it locally indefinitely is not going to happen.


Nowhere did I say people could keep the recordings indefinitely. I think most people would be fine with a 60 or 90 day expiration date on the recorded stream, after which it would disappear and could be re-downloaded if they wanted. There is a compromise point here for local stream storage where the benefit to the providers server load and bandwidth is enough and the consumer benefits as well. It will just take the right company to make it happen.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Chuck_IV said:


> I do like the last statement in that article about other companies may not want to see Rovi with even more patents at its disposal.
> 
> I hope that thought draws out a few more bidders that will have more of an interest in the hardware side than Rovi will.


I think the hardware side of the DVR business is dying. Why would someone purchase a niche DVR brand for a dying product segment?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> That's different then allowing users to pick individual shows/movies to download to their device manually. Something like what you describe could actually happen. But users being able to select streaming content for download, and keep it locally indefinitely is not going to happen.


Depends, I can download my Vudu library to my computer and keep it for as long as my computer lasts, at one point that was the only way I could watch a Vudu movie. Amazon allows downloads to some of their devices and kaleidescape does the same thing to their devices.

Downloads will become even more important for UHD content, their are plenty of people like me that do not have access to fast enough Internet to ever stream UHD content, heck I can not even stream 1080p from Amazon.

Given how easy it is for nearly anyone to rip a blu-ray saying they have security issues about video downloads is a joke. My downloaded Vudu movies are significantly more secure than the blu-rays of the same movies.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If they give consumers control over downloading then there is no guarantee they wont just download during peak hours. 

I could see an automated, predictive based, download system like trip1eX described being used but not a DVR that allows users to "record" streams.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> If they give consumers control over downloading then there is no guarantee they wont just download during peak hours. .


Sure there is. Make recorded streaming unavailable during peak hours. This is not rocket science. Even with that limitation, consumers would dig it, and offloading the bandwidth to off peak hours would clearly benefit providers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

curiousgeorge said:


> Sure there is. Make recorded streaming unavailable during peak hours. This is not rocket science. Even with that limitation, consumers would dig it, and offloading the bandwidth to off peak hours would clearly benefit providers.


So your solution is that consumers couldn't stream their VOD shows during peak hours? How is that beneficial to the customer?

Since the recording takes place on the consumer's end, it shouldn't matter to the provider whether the stream is being recorded or not. And consumers won't put up with a system that only allows streams in the middle of the night.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

curiousgeorge said:


> Sure there is. Make recorded streaming unavailable during peak hours. This is not rocket science. Even with that limitation, consumers would dig it, and offloading the bandwidth to off peak hours would clearly benefit providers.


I'm not sure how many consumers would "dig it". I bet the vast majority don't even care. Unless caps really become a thing, and there is some sort of exclusion for off peak usage, then I just don't see this happening. And even if that happens I still don't see the content providers agreeing to this.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> If they give consumers control over downloading then there is no guarantee they wont just download during peak hours.
> 
> I could see an automated, predictive based, download system like trip1eX described being used but not a DVR that allows users to "record" streams.


I would have no issue with a that. I agree we will never see anything that allows recording streams, that makes nearly no sense for the providers. Another case where downloads would benefit streaming services is kids stuff, they tend to watch the same thing over and over. Downloading kids stuff could save a streaming provider lots of bandwidth.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

siratfus said:


> Have no clue what all this means. So can someone just answer this... What's the service life expectancy of current lifetime tivo/roamio boxes? Approximately when do you think owners will need to take out the cable cards and return them, bury the roamio and minis in backyard with custom engraved tombstones, and go back in the house to order the cable company's rental boxes?


TiVo states the life of a unit is 66 months (5.5 Years).

Unless the IRS has changed their depreciation (and I have not checked lately), but generally all Computers and Home Entertainment devices are depreciated over 7 years.

So in terms of working, that is the best timeframe estimates. 5.5 - 7 years.

Now, if you are to ask about Technology that could render them obsolete (such as ATSC 3.0 OTA), that is a different matter.


----------



## curiousgeorge (Nov 28, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> So your solution is that consumers couldn't stream their VOD shows during peak hours? How is that beneficial to the customer?
> 
> Since the recording takes place on the consumer's end, it shouldn't matter to the provider whether the stream is being recorded or not. And consumers won't put up with a system that only allows streams in the middle of the night.


No, they can stream all they want live, but recorded/time shifted streams would only record in the off hours. That would move "unattended" streaming out of peak hours so that it benefits the provider. And, like TiVo, once people use it, I doubt many would opt for live streaming, anyway, just like most TiVo users rarely watch live TV unless it's a sporting event or something. This really is not that hard a concept to grasp.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Unless the IRS has changed their depreciation (and I have not checked lately), but generally all Computers and Home Entertainment devices are depreciated over 7 years.


TiVo is not depreciating. They don't own the equipment.

Also the IRS allows different depreciation schedules if you have facts/numbers to back it up.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

curiousgeorge said:


> No, they can stream all they want live, but recorded/time shifted streams would only record in the off hours. That would move "unattended" streaming out of peak hours so that it benefits the provider. And, like TiVo, once people use it, I doubt many would opt for live streaming, anyway, just like most TiVo users rarely watch live TV unless it's a sporting event or something. This really is not that hard a concept to grasp.


I think you're over estimating that. I don't think most people care if it's streaming live or from a download. Only people with caps or bandwidth issues would really care. Other then that people just watch what they want to watch and they don't care where it comes from.

I personally have 30Mbps connection with no cap and no real issue with primetime bandwidth. I watch streaming interchangeably with local recordings. There is zero difference to me. In fact some shows actually have better quality when watching them via Hulu (ad free) then when I watch my local recording because the cable company compresses the sh*t out of them and makes them look like crap.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Those issues really only matter to the end user, not the provider. Caps could be a potential issue for the providers, but so far they haven't really caught on and the longer they wait the harder it's going to be to put that genie back in the bottle. They can also be mitigated a little by converting to H.265 and developing better adaptive bitrate technology. Outages effect recordings too. If your cable goes out while your DVR is recording you miss the show. If your internet goes out while you're watching a stream you're simply inconvenienced, but you can continue the show once it returns. DirecTV and Dish use a system similar to what you describe. Basically they have a bit of their bandwidth dedicated to VOD. Not enough that everyone can watch VOD at the same time, but when you request a VOD you're put into a queue and within a few hours your show is sent via that bit of bandwidth to your DVR and stored locally. I'm betting that if you asked most DSS users would prefer to have real VOD then this hybrid system where they have to wait several hours for the show/movie they requested to "record" first.


Uh. Not quite. The method you are describing for directv is used for boxes not connected via broadband and only for PPV. If it is, the steam is immediate and can be watched immediately. Directv has a large inventory of on demand. All of it is stored locally on your drive as it is streamed down. If speeds are slow, the quality is taken down a notch and you are given the choice to download full quality which means you may not be able to watch live but most of the time the downloads even at full quality are watchable from the start for most users.


----------



## HobokenSkier (Oct 14, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> No one will ever be able to record streams. The streaming services wont allow it. In fact the trend is the other way, converting DVRs to cloud DVRs where even the things you can record are streamed.
> 
> I still contend that TiVos best path forward is to release their own streaming service similar to Playstation Vue. DVR hardware is eventually going to go away. Probably not any time really soon, but long term and they need something to replace it.


Kalidescape would be a good buyer


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

curiousgeorge said:


> No, they can stream all they want live, but recorded/time shifted streams would only record in the off hours. That would move "unattended" streaming out of peak hours so that it benefits the provider. And, like TiVo, once people use it, I doubt many would opt for live streaming, anyway, just like most TiVo users rarely watch live TV unless it's a sporting event or something. This really is not that hard a concept to grasp.


So you're expecting that people would go into their device and have to decide what they want to watch tomorrow night and then let it download/record overnight?

But if they want to watch it right now, they can stream it on demand but just not record it?  Once the program is streaming and taking up the bandwidth, the provider may as well let it be recorded at the same time (assuming they're allowing recordings in this hypothetical).


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

curiousgeorge said:


> No, they can stream all they want live, but recorded/time shifted streams would only record in the off hours. That would move "unattended" streaming out of peak hours so that it benefits the provider. And, like TiVo, once people use it, I doubt many would opt for live streaming, anyway, just like most TiVo users rarely watch live TV unless it's a sporting event or something. This really is not that hard a concept to grasp.


If the provider wanted to really save/maximize bandwidth they could build a secure bit torrent network for the downloads. The extra cost for the consumer (above normal purchase/rental costs) to have access to higher quality (high bit rate 1080p or UHD) shows/movies would be providing bandwidth, the benefit to the provider would be the ability to offer a higher quality service with out the full bandwidth requirements a normal streaming or download service providing high quality 1080p/UHD would have to have.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

curiousgeorge said:


> I would be shocked if there wasn't at least 4-5 more years left, even if the merger/sale happens.


I would be shocked if very much has changed after five years. I think it's funny how crazy people are getting. When I was asking about TiVos a year ago, everyone was sure they would be around forever.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> If the provider wanted to really save/maximize bandwidth they could build a secure bit torrent network for the downloads. The extra cost for the consumer (above normal purchase/rental costs) to have access to higher quality (high bit rate 1080p or UHD) shows/movies would be providing bandwidth, the benefit to the provider would be the ability to offer a higher quality service with out the full bandwidth requirements a normal streaming or download service providing high quality 1080p/UHD would have to have.


Kind of like what Microsoft did to deliver updates. I wonder how that affected the amount of data downloaded from them?


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

wizwor said:


> I would be shocked if very much has changed after five years. I think it's funny how crazy people are getting. When I was asking about TiVos a year ago, everyone was sure they would be around forever.


Right now it would be tough to prove everyone wrong with out a time machine.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

waynomo said:


> Right now it would be tough to prove everyone wrong with out a time machine.


I don't think many would argue that this mania is very current. If you need evidence of how confident people were a year ago, these forums should serve as a time machine. Looking forward is another matter. No one can say for sure where TiVo will be in five years, but fire the development team and get rid of curated commercial skip, and what is left is a cash cow. If there is not enough money in it for TiVo shareholders, then Rovi or Gracenote ought to be able to milk that cow until tech changes demand new hardware.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I completely disagree. Server and network capacity are only getting higher. Eventually speeds and capacity will be high enough that serving a video from the cloud is no slower then serving it from a local hard drive. Any system like you describe is only a stop gap to deal with current capacity issues and will only be diminished more as time goes on.
> 
> Content providers want to retain control over their content. The best way for them to do that is to not allow physical copies of the content to be stored on any sort of accessible media. They're pushing for more streaming, not less. I don't think even Apple has the clout to reverse that.


Comcast already has cloud storage for their X1 DVRs in many areas. It does work well but it's certainly not as quick as having it local.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> So you're expecting that people would go into their device and have to decide what they want to watch tomorrow night and then let it download/record overnight?
> 
> But if they want to watch it right now, they can stream it on demand but just not record it?  Once the program is streaming and taking up the bandwidth, the provider may as well let it be recorded at the same time (assuming they're allowing recordings in this hypothetical).


The second Boxee Box a few years ago also had cloud storage for recordings. I tested it with dozens of hours of recordings. In general it worked well too. So it can easily be done. The issue I guess would be the storage costs.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

waynomo said:


> TiVo is not depreciating. They don't own the equipment.
> 
> Also the IRS allows different depreciation schedules if you have facts/numbers to back it up.


TiVo is not depreciating?

I guess you have invented perpetual power as well!

Suggest you read the question I answered before you make a foolish comment.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> TiVo is not depreciating?
> 
> I guess you have invented perpetual power as well!
> 
> Suggest you read the question I answered before you make a foolish comment.


What TiVo states as the lifetime of a TiVo unit has nothing to do with depreciation for TiVo, Inc. or the IRS regulation that you cite.

Sure a company that owns a TiVo would need to depreciate a TiVo they owned, but that is separate from what you are taking about.

You mentioned depreciation which has nothing to do with the question you answered.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

```
[CODE]
```
[/CODE]


wizwor said:


> I don't think many would argue that this mania is very current. If you need evidence of how confident people were a year ago, these forums should serve as a time machine. Looking forward is another matter. No one can say for sure where TiVo will be in five years, but fire the development team and get rid of curated commercial skip, and what is left is a cash cow. If there is not enough money in it for TiVo shareholders, then Rovi or Gracenote ought to be able to milk that cow until tech changes demand new hardware.


Actually TCF users are biased, no surprise there. Even Ira admitted that.

The real evidence is the Annual TiVo 10K

Total Cumulative Retail Subs


```
1/31/2002	246,000		Y to Y	Total
1/31/2003	396,000		37.9%	37.9%
1/31/2004	656,000		39.6%	62.5%
1/31/2005	1,141,000	42.5%	78.4%
1/31/2006	1,491,000	23.5%	83.5%
1/31/2007	1,726,000	13.6%	85.7%
1/31/2008	1,745,000	1.1%	85.9%
			         Y to Y	Since Peak
1/31/2009	1,654,000	-5.5%	-5.2%
1/31/2010	1,465,000	-12.9%	-16.0%
1/31/2011	1,266,000	-15.7%	-27.4%
1/31/2012	1,109,000	-14.2%	-36.4%
1/31/2013	1,029,999	-7.7%	-41.0%
1/31/2014	966,000		-6.6%	-44.6%
1/31/2015	943,000		-2.4%	-46.0%
1/31/2016	949,000		0.6%	-45.6%
```


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> <![if !supportTabStrip]>
> 
> <script language="JavaScript">
> <!--
> ...


????? What the heck is that?

EDIT: Nevermind


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> ????? What the heck is that?
> 
> EDIT: Nevermind


A Board that does not allow editing in HTML.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

DevdogAZ said:


> This makes no sense. Why would you want to record a stream? The whole purpose of streaming is to remove the need for the content to be recorded, since it's available to be streamed at any given time.


The whole purpose of streaming is so that consumers never have a local copy of the content, or at least not for long periods. Keep in mind the latest Sony TV service does save some content, for practical purposes like a recording as we know it today or a "copy" of the content for our access, but ONLY for less than a month. Content owners LOVE streaming because they always keep their content in the vaults and never at anyone's home--UNLESS the consumer wants to pay the high price for a Blu-ray or other as hard media.


----------



## Chuck_IV (Jan 1, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think the hardware side of the DVR business is dying. Why would someone purchase a niche DVR brand for a dying product segment?


That won't be their sole reason for buying but something to possibly continue, especially with the new rules being put in place for 3rd party vendors and no more cable cards. With Rovi, they won't even consider it and it would be dead pretty fast. Someone else may have a more favorable view and continue things to at least see how the new rules pan out.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Even if every new $99 lifetime sale only resulted in the permanent disconnection of 0.25 old lifetimed boxes (1 box decommissioned for ever four new lifetime subscriptions sold), I'd think TiVo would consider that a win. And I'll bet the ratio is higher than that, as many people wouldn't even consider that their 8-10 year old Series 3 would have any value at all.


Can I call in now and get my Bolt on a lifetime plan for 99 dollars? Is this a sale that is going on now?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

7thton said:


> Can I call in now and get my Bolt on a lifetime plan for 99 dollars? Is this a sale that is going on now?


No. This was a sale on new Roamio purchases to existing customers, first with ten years history with TiVo, then they reduced it to five, then even less. I think it started in October and was supposed to end 10/31 but it kept getting extended and people kept reporting that they got the deal. The deal was either a new Roamio Basic for $199 plus $199 for PLS, or a new Roamio Plus for $399 plus PLS for $99, or a new Roamio Pro for $499 plus PLS for $99. This sale depleted TiVo's stock of Roamio Basic and Roamio Plus, and now the only Roamio model they offer for sale is the Pro.

Apparently the sale is still ongoing, but the price has been increased. Someone just reported yesterday that they got a Roamio Pro for $599 plus $99 for PLS.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

wizwor said:


> I would be shocked if very much has changed after five years. I think it's funny how crazy people are getting. When I was asking about TiVos a year ago, everyone was sure they would be around forever.


You must be thinking of a different everyone. Everyone here has been sure that Tivo would be out of business in six months since before the beginning of time.

I've always seen a path forward for TiVo but now they're running out of road. The fact that the FCC has failed to create viable retail market for cable navigation is the chief culprit in their now likely demise. Second is their own failure to carve a place in the streaming market ahead of devices like Roku.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

DevdogAZ said:


> No. This was a sale on new Roamio purchases to existing customers, *first with ten years history with TiVo, then they reduced it to five, then even less*. I think it started in October and was supposed to end 10/31 but it kept getting extended and people kept reporting that they got the deal. The deal was either a new Roamio Basic for $199 plus $199 for PLS, or a new Roamio Plus for $399 plus PLS for $99, or a new Roamio Pro for $499 plus PLS for $99. This sale depleted TiVo's stock of Roamio Basic and Roamio Plus, and now the only Roamio model they offer for sale is the Pro.
> 
> Apparently the sale is still ongoing, but the price has been increased. *Someone just reported yesterday that they got a Roamio Pro for $599 plus $99 for PLS.*


Yeah that was me. My first TiVo was activated on 11/21/2013, so I have less than 3 years as a TiVo customer and they said I qualified for the deal. Maybe when they raised the price by $100 they dropped the requirement that you have so many years of service before you qualify.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

waynomo said:


> What TiVo states as the lifetime of a TiVo unit has nothing to do with depreciation for TiVo, Inc. or the IRS regulation that you cite.
> 
> Sure a company that owns a TiVo would need to depreciate a TiVo they owned, but that is separate from what you are taking about.
> 
> You mentioned depreciation which has nothing to do with the question you answered.


Clueless

Re read the original question that I answered.

Has NOTHING to do with TiVo Inc except in your mind.


----------



## disturbedfred (Oct 2, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> They do marketing? What the heck do they spend their money on?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

disturbedfred said:


>


One commercial that no one ever sees. And they blew their budget on big names. Still not good marketing.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ```
> [CODE]
> ```
> [/CODE]
> ...


Looks like retail subs started to decline shortly after the release of the S3 units. A small reason may be the reduced number of units each subscriber "needs" due to the increase in the number of tuners from one to six. This kind of confirms what we already knew. People going to HD found it easier to get their DVR from their cable company.

Does anyone remember the early days of echostar and DTV? Self install. Somewhat higher prices for hardware. Local channels via antenna with all sort of "fancy splitters and amps" to make it all work. When did satellite take off? When installation was included. When the out of pocket costs for equipment was reduced and the monthly charge increased to cover rental. When you had the option of including service. How do most people still get their cell phone? From a company store, with a low out of pocket initial cost and with service in company stores.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

nrc said:


> You must be thinking of a different everyone. Everyone here has been sure that Tivo would be out of business in six months since before the beginning of time.
> 
> I've always seen a path forward for TiVo but now they're running out of road. The fact that the FCC has failed to create viable retail market for cable navigation is the chief culprit in their now likely demise. Second is their own failure to carve a place in the streaming market ahead of devices like Roku.


Not on these forums and not on the AVS forums. When I have raised the concern, the response has always been as you stated, "People have been predicting the demise of TiVo for ten years. TiVo isn't going anywhere."

I've never presumed as much, but five years is not a long time and I expect TiVo -- and ATSC 1.0 -- to be around in five years. My investment in TiVo is $299.99x3 + $139.34 + $119.40 or $1,158.71 or $231.74/yr or $3.86/set/month (three Roamio/OTAs w/Lifetime and two Minis). As far as I am concerned, the math still stands up.

If you look at $49.99 + $14.99/month for the DVRs vs $399.99 for Lifetime, the break even point is $900 - $150 or $750/$15 or 50 months just over four years. I would still get the bundle.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> TiVo states the life of a unit is 66 months (5.5 Years).
> 
> Unless the IRS has changed their depreciation (and I have not checked lately), but generally all Computers and Home Entertainment devices are depreciated over 7 years.
> 
> ...


What does depreciation have to do with anything? Are individuals capitalizing the cost of their Tivos? Am I missing out on a deduction somewhere?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ncted said:


> What does depreciation have to do with anything? Are individuals capitalizing the cost of their Tivos? Am I missing out on a deduction somewhere?


Nobody has any idea why he keeps citing that info, as it's been pointed out to him multiple times that it has nothing to do with the question that was asked.


----------



## disturbedfred (Oct 2, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> One commercial that no one ever sees. And they blew their budget on big names. Still not good marketing.


Still one of my all time favorites.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> TiVo is to Apple
> 
> as
> 
> BluRay is to Apple


Bingo. If someone really thinks Apple has ANY interest in anything TiVo is doing I would make a wager and give you amazing odds on that not happening.

TiVo has been a dead man walking now for a long time but it's getting worse now that their income stream from IP is drying up.

It's a shame too, their most recent stuff is actually pretty good, but it's too little too late. Hopefully whoever buys the carcass won't pull the plug on software updates and service for at least a few years.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> And your house could burn down and destroy all your discs. Both have unlikely scenarios that result in total loss.


Look at how many companies were doing media distribution 20 years ago that still do it today.

I would say that the odds that you will be able to watch streaming only movies that you have "bought" 20 years down the road is actually pretty low compared to the chances that a disc you bought gets degraded or destroyed.

You also might be able to watch the stuff you "own" online but will have to continually jump through hoops to do so, buying new boxes with better security, or if content owners change hands you have to buy new boxes or even pay new charges for new service structures. Remember, you might "own" the movie but they control how it gets distributed and as we saw not too long ago with Apple, there can be a row between providers and all of a sudden that movie you "own" can't be watched until they get the rights sorted out... so good luck with all of that.

I'll keep my very large library of discs thanks. I own those and will always be able to find a used DVD/BD player to watch them with. I can also rip them to MKV and watch them locally even if my internet connection is down.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jmpage2 said:


> Look at how many companies were doing media distribution 20 years ago that still do it today.
> 
> I would say that the odds that you will be able to watch streaming only movies that you have "bought" 20 years down the road is actually pretty low compared to the chances that a disc you bought gets degraded or destroyed.
> 
> ...


You might want to go ask people who spent lots of money building VHS Tape, Beta Tape, or Laser disk libraries how that worked out. You might also go take a look at the 80+ companies involved with UV.

The simple reality is that when you start taking about long term (like 20 years) we have no idea what will happen. If the market puts disk sales out of business disk players will also stop being made which is just as likely has the UV failing (I don't consider either very likely). About the only thing we know is that there will be change.

I wouldn't worry about it one way or the other, buy what you want, enjoy it, and live life. As that will also end someday too and at that point I am fairly sure we will not be concerned with our video collections.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> You might want to go ask people who spent lots of money building VHS Tape, Beta Tape, or Laser disk libraries how that worked out. You might also go take a look at the 80+ companies involved with UV.
> 
> The simple reality is that when you start taking about long term (like 20 years) we have no idea what will happen. If the market puts disk sales out of business disk players will also stop being made which is just as likely has the UV failing (I don't consider either very likely). About the only thing we know is that there will be change.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about it one way or the other, buy what you want, enjoy it, and live life. As that will also end someday too and at that point I am fairly sure we will not be concerned with our video collections.


Plenty of people still have VHS players, and even LD players for that matter. Go check eBay, you can still buy working versions of both 15+ years after those formats more or less ceased.

I don't like "owning" things that I don't have a physical copy of that is independent of the wishes of the "copyright holder".

As you say, to each their own. Once physical media is dead, they will continue to find ways to soak people though. One way would be that the content you "own" has commercials inserted when you watch them on any compatible device. Don't like the commercials? Easy, just pay for a premium pass and the commercials go away.

I can think of about 100 ways that they can screw with you guys once physical media is dead and I won't have to worry about any of it because all of my stuff is sitting on a NAS in my basement and gets backed up periodically to offsite hard drives.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jmpage2 said:


> As you say, to each their own. Once physical media is dead, they will continue to find ways to soak people though. One way would be that the content you "own" has commercials inserted when you watch them on any compatible device. Don't like the commercials? Easy, just pay for a premium pass and the commercials go away
> 
> I can think of about 100 ways that they can screw with you guys once physical media is dead and I won't have to worry about any of it because all of my stuff is sitting on a NAS in my basement and gets backed up periodically to offsite hard drives.


I tend to agree that if consumers allow physical media to die, it will not be good thing.

You sound like you spend allot of time and money on your collection. I am pretty cheap, that last 15 UV titles I purchased (meaning the UV didn't come with a Blu-ray disk) averaged a little over $3 each and I don't spend much more on Blu-rays (maybe $5 or $6 average per movie and at least half of those came with a UV copy). I do benefit from my brother (we share a UV account) who buys first run Blu-rays which most all come with a UV copy.

Of course any action type movie I really want to see I go to the movie theater and see it which when I go costs $1-2 at one theater that plays movies that have left normal theaters or $5-$6 if I go to my normal theater. Add in that Red box seems to like to give me Blu-ray rents for $0.50 regularly and I don't find much need to rush to buy movies (digital or blu-ray) until they are very discounted.

Right now I have about 230 digital movies in my Vudu account all are either UV or Disney movies, not sure how many of those are movies I also have on Blu-ray - maybe 50? If I don't include the cost of buying Blu-rays I haven't personally spent very much on these (I am the only one sharing my UV account that has bought any digital movies) maybe $150 and a good chuck of that was paid for via Vudu credits. There are 3 families sharing the account if, the whole thing crashes and burns at some point I think we got our moneys worth.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I tend to buy the disk with a UV title and then sell it at a resale shop. Frankly, content is so available now for a reasonable fee, my days of hoarding content is pretty much over.

That is the value proposition of streaming services... Immediate availability with a well managed library - whether it is personally owned or rented.

My BD player is going the way of my vcr, collecting dust, can't find the remote, not sure if it even works anymore.

As for recording streams and the loss of trick play. I don't use Hulu or watch much streaming tv, that is what I have a TiVo for. I would hate moving to a streaming service with forced commercials.

But I have moved to streaming for movies pretty much exclusively. The reduced trick play is far less of an issue for movies than television shows with forced commercials.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

bradleys said:


> I tend to buy the disk with a UV title and then sell it at a resale shop. Frankly, content is so available now for a reasonable fee, my days of hoarding content is pretty much over.
> 
> That is the value proposition of streaming services... Immediate availability with a well managed library - whether it is personally owned or rented.
> 
> ...


Streaming can't hold a candle to BD quality for audio or video. I have about $10K invested in my AV setup and for me the higher performance trumps any convenience advantage gained by purchasing online only versions. For quick and easy rentals, sure, I could see spending a few bucks to rent online, but usually the prices are actually higher to rent the movie in HD than to just rent it from Redbox or wait for Netflix to pick it up as a BD.

Certainly studios see online only as the way forward. For all of you guys I sincerely hope that there isn't some eventual internet meltdown that lasts for weeks or months.... based on the amount of TV some of you watch I think your heads would explode.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

I think they feel somehow their shows are better and more important and more impacting when they are streamed off the internet. 

Upright monkeys with too much technology, I swear


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

foghorn2 said:


> I think they feel somehow their shows are better and more important and more impacting when they are streamed off the internet.
> 
> Upright monkeys with too much technology, I swear


Does anyone really look at this as an either or?

I watch video at the movie theater and from Blu-ray disks and from OTA recorded by my TiVos and from the Internet via streaming or downloads.

They all work and they all have +s & -s.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

jmpage2 said:


> some eventual internet meltdown that lasts for weeks or months....


If big companies (eg TWC/Charter) keep on merging, it's going to happen and the economic impact will be big, twice as big than if the companies didn't merge. Didn't they learn anything from "Too big to fail" and all the database breakins ?


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

jmpage2 said:


> Streaming can't hold a candle to BD quality for audio or video. I have about $10K invested in my AV setup and for me the higher performance trumps any convenience advantage gained by purchasing online only versions. For quick and easy rentals, sure, I could see spending a few bucks to rent online, but usually the prices are actually higher to rent the movie in HD than to just rent it from Redbox or wait for Netflix to pick it up as a BD.
> 
> Certainly studios see online only as the way forward. For all of you guys I sincerely hope that there isn't some eventual internet meltdown that lasts for weeks or months.... based on the amount of TV some of you watch I think your heads would explode.


It is really all about convenience for most consumers... You are an anomaly as a consumer... Most people and most setups you can't tell the difference in quality.

Btw - the PQ is pretty damn good on Vudu.

If the Internet crashes for an extended period of time, the loss of streaming services are going to be a minor inconvenience compared to all the other impacts.

Physical media is dying and the average consumer is just fine with that. It won't be more than 5 / 10 years and you will be hard pressed to purchase a movie on physical media.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

bradleys said:


> It is really all about convenience for most consumers... You are an anomaly as a consumer... Most people and most setups you can't tell the difference in quality.
> 
> Btw - the PQ is pretty damn good on Vudu.
> 
> ...


If the Internet crashes for an extended period of time, my company is toast.

Well, on the other hand, if the Internet crashes for an extended period of time, my company might actually start selling newspapers again, where we can report on the continued absence of Internet connectivity.

Isn't irony great?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

jmpage2 said:


> Streaming can't hold a candle to BD quality for audio or video. I have about $10K invested in my AV setup and for me the higher performance trumps any convenience advantage gained by purchasing online only versions. For quick and easy rentals, sure, I could see spending a few bucks to rent online, but usually the prices are actually higher to rent the movie in HD than to just rent it from Redbox or wait for Netflix to pick it up as a BD.
> 
> Certainly studios see online only as the way forward. For all of you guys I sincerely hope that there isn't some eventual internet meltdown that lasts for weeks or months.... based on the amount of TV some of you watch I think your heads would explode.


I have a 70" TV and a 7.1 surround sound system and I honestly don't notice a difference between BD and Vudu HDX. They look and sound equally as good to me. And with Vudu I just pick a movie off a list, no need to boot up the BD player and unbox/insert a disc. If there is any quality difference the convenience certainly outweighs it for me.


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I have a 70" TV and a 7.1 surround sound system and I honestly don't notice a difference between BD and Vudu HDX. They look and sound equally as good to me. And with Vudu I just pick a movie off a list, no need to boot up the BD player and unbox/insert a disc. If there is any quality difference the convenience certainly outweighs it for me.


Fair enough. I have pretty high end speakers (PSB reference mains & center, Infinity bipolar rears), 300 watt 15" subwoofer, all being switched/driven by a pretty high end Denon AVR.

For me the audio from the low bit-rate 5.1 DD that I'm lucky to get from most streaming services is pathetic compared to HD audio tracks. I've also noticed that audio artifacts during streaming are a lot more annoying than video artifacts... a little blockiness in the picture during fast motion is not nearly as irritating as tinny sound coming from the surround speakers.

Anyways, my understanding is that Vudu HDX now offers better audio too, although I don't know if it is as good as True-HD or DTS-MA.

And you are right, for *most* consumers even DVD is good enough (for years most of the people I knew with 50" or smaller TVs insisted that DVD was HD quality)... hopefully there are enough other people out there like me to keep higher quality physical media around for a while yet.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Does anyone really look at this as an either or? I watch video at the movie theater and from Blu-ray disks and from OTA recorded by my TiVos and from the Internet via streaming or downloads. They all work and they all have +s & -s.


Exactly. I watch from all sources. But when I want highest quality (like big spectacle), I go blu Ray.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

jmpage2 said:


> Fair enough. I have pretty high end speakers (PSB reference mains & center, Infinity bipolar rears), 300 watt 15" subwoofer, all being switched/driven by a pretty high end Denon AVR.
> 
> For me the audio from the low bit-rate 5.1 DD that I'm lucky to get from most streaming services is pathetic compared to HD audio tracks. I've also noticed that audio artifacts during streaming are a lot more annoying than video artifacts... a little blockiness in the picture during fast motion is not nearly as irritating as tinny sound coming from the surround speakers.
> 
> ...


I have rented movies from several online sources. I actually find iTunes on my AppleTV to provide the best sound experience for recent films, if not always the best video experience. I still prefer watching movies on BD, but it is no where near as convenient as renting a movie from an online source.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Physical rental services won't go away until streaming services offer lower prices.

AFAIK, the only streaming service currently cheaper than Redbox is VidAngel (SD)


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

jmpage2 said:


> And you are right, for *most* consumers even DVD is good enough (for years most of the people I knew with 50" or smaller TVs insisted that DVD was HD quality)... hopefully there are enough other people out there like me to keep higher quality physical media around for a while yet.


I don't have a UHD tv yet (keep waiting on specs/quality to improve while prices drop) but I seem to recall reading that the UHD HDR streams from Netflix, Amazon, etc. look as good in quality as Blu-ray Disc thanks to HEVC compression (and a fat Internet pipe). Probably still not at the same level in audio though. I would bet the UHD streams from Vudu may be even better.

Of course, none of those streams will look as good as the new Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc. Until 100+ Mbps home internet is the norm (which will eventually happen), physical discs will have the edge on quality. But the higher you go up the quality/bitrate chain, the fewer people there are who can appreciate the incremental difference. I don't see UHD BD ever attracting more than a niche following of high-end media enthusiasts/collectors. Will be interesting to see if all the major studios still support it in five years.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I don't have a UHD tv yet (keep waiting on specs/quality to improve while prices drop) but I seem to recall reading that the UHD HDR streams from Netflix, Amazon, etc. look as good in quality as Blu-ray Disc thanks to HEVC compression (and a fat Internet pipe). Probably still not at the same level in audio though. I would bet the UHD streams from Vudu may be even better.
> 
> Of course, none of those streams will look as good as the new Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc. Until 100+ Mbps home internet is the norm (which will eventually happen), physical discs will have the edge on quality. But the higher you go up the quality/bitrate chain, the fewer people there are who can appreciate the incremental difference. I don't see UHD BD ever attracting more than a niche following of high-end media enthusiasts/collectors. Will be interesting to see if all the major studios still support it in five years.


Yes remember SVHS !


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

bradleys said:


> It is really all about convenience for most consumers... You are an anomaly as a consumer... Most people and most setups you can't tell the difference in quality.
> 
> Btw - the PQ is pretty damn good on Vudu.
> 
> ...





Dan203 said:


> I have a 70" TV and a 7.1 surround sound system and I honestly don't notice a difference between BD and Vudu HDX. They look and sound equally as good to me. And with Vudu I just pick a movie off a list, no need to boot up the BD player and unbox/insert a disc. If there is any quality difference the convenience certainly outweighs it for me.


Really? I use both and can typically see a difference from my 47" set as well as my 82" 1080P sets and my 65" UHD Tv. And I can typically hear the difference between a BD/UHD BD and Vudu/Amazon/Netflix streaming on my Sony Speaker bar or 9.1 setup. But even though I can see and hear a difference i still use streaming as well as Discs, and local playback from ISOs/MKVs. There is a place for all of it.

Depending on the content and my mood or time available I might watch it from a TiVo recording, from a streaming service like Vudu/Amazon/Netflix/UltraFlix/Sony UltraHD, watch it from an actual UHD BD or BD, or watch the ISO/MKV from my unRAID servers. I use them all regularly.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dan203 said:


> I have a 70" TV and a 7.1 surround sound system and I honestly don't notice a difference between BD and Vudu HDX. They look and sound equally as good to me. And with Vudu I just pick a movie off a list, no need to boot up the BD player and unbox/insert a disc. If there is any quality difference the convenience certainly outweighs it for me.


Which TV do you have?


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

ncbill said:


> Physical rental services won't go away until streaming services offer lower prices.
> 
> AFAIK, the only streaming service currently cheaper than Redbox is VidAngel (SD)


 Cheap fast internet may never be a reality for everyone. 20 years for now you could still see a version of red box around.


----------

