# Apple TV Rumor Mill on Fire/this the end of TiVo???



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

OCT 25-Bloomberg

"Apple&#8217;s introduction of the voice-command software Siri and Web-storage service iCloud also could be used for a future television, Munster said in a note to investors yesterday. Siri may help search for videos, while iCloud allows customers to store video, music, pictures and other content on the company&#8217;s servers instead of their own hard drives."

Looks like the Apple fork above says TiVo is done? 

Looks that way to me.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> OCT 25-Bloomberg
> 
> "Apples introduction of the voice-command software Siri and Web-storage service iCloud also could be used for a future television, Munster said in a note to investors yesterday. Siri may help search for videos, while iCloud allows customers to store video, music, pictures and other content on the companys servers instead of their own hard drives."
> 
> ...


Does it record broadcast/cable/sat content? If the answer is no, then TiVo still has a product to sell.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

gonzotek said:


> Does it record broadcast/cable/sat content? If the answer is no, then TiVo still has a product to sell.


Com on, This is Apple, why wouldn't it.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Does it give you Tribune guide data and season passes?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Apple wants to sell you shows and movies from the iTunes store, not help you record them for free.

And since they need a CableCard to record from cable, Apple will never do that. There is no possible way to make a product with a CableCard that is as hassle-free as an Apple product needs to be.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

I believe the same basic article has been posted on this forum for about the last 3 years. Face it, Apple has never succeeded at providing television content. And certainly haven't succeeded at providing media on your tv. What makes people think they will succeed now? Just because the iPhone is pretty great doesn't mean everything they do is a success.


----------



## HenryFarpolo (Dec 1, 2008)

Just what we need....Another "end of TIVO" thread.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Sorry, I don't know how to link to Blomberg.

"One of Apple&#8217;s goals for a new TV is to let users more seamlessly search for a show or movie, said one of the people. For example, instead of having to separately check to see if a movie or show is available through Netflix or a cable service, all the material could be integrated, this person said."

"or cable service" it will have to have a cable card, no?

Also, it confirms the Asian manufactures are producing the TV for 2013.

I think this may be it for TiVo. I hope I'm wrong because this would have the 20% Apple logo mark-up.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Joe3 said:


> Com on, This is Apple, why wouldn't it.


It doesn't seem apple has any interest in making a box that will record and store stuff locally.

Peopel have been wishing it for a while. But I don't see it happening. Even with Steve gone.


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

Joe3 said:


> Sorry, I don't know how to link to Blomberg.
> 
> "One of Apple's goals for a new TV is to let users more seamlessly search for a show or movie, said one of the people. For example, instead of having to separately check to see if a movie or show is available through Netflix or a cable service, all the material could be integrated, this person said."
> 
> ...


If it requires a cable-card, then I hope Apple is sending one of their geniuses to install every unit sold, because otherwise, it'll be DOA.

Also, the quote was about simply searching for cable content, which is not equivalent to recording it.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Not all Apple products have been a seamless setup. I remember when I bought my first iPod Touch. I opened it as soon as I left the store and then realized I had to connect it to iTunes before it provided any functionality.

Apple wants to get into the TV arena and that may mean they need to play nice with the cable companies. They did it with the music industry. They did it with the cell phone industry. They can do it with the cable companies if they really want to.

This is the perfect time to get involved with cable because cable subscriptions are shrinking for the first time in history. The cable companies actually have an incentive to want Apple.

As for the end of Tivo, if Apple did release a product that would do everything a Tivo could do, then Tivo would finally be forced to get off their asses and make their product into something great......or they will simply disappear.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

Joe3 said:


> "One of Apples goals for a new TV is to let users more seamlessly search for a show or movie, said one of the people. For example, instead of having to separately check to see if a movie or show is available through Netflix or a cable service, all the material could be integrated, this person said."


That defines Google TV... currently selling at 1/3 of its original price (Logitech) or various other deep discounts via Sony.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Arcady said:


> Apple wants to sell you shows and movies from the iTunes store, not help you record them for free.


Try thinking out of box the ala Apple. What do you need to "record" if everything you want to watch is in iCloud for playing on demand? (Getting VoD opens your eyes a little.)



Arcady said:


> And since they need a CableCard to record from cable, Apple will never do that. There is no possible way to make a product with a CableCard that is as hassle-free as an Apple product needs to be.


Now, UVerse is capable of streaming 4 channels, HD and/or SD, over a ~12mbs link. Imagine if the Apple TV could stream current content and locals through the cloud.

Now, how much would you pay?

[They could mix in OTA ala a tuner like Elgato, but even that could be a support nightmare with users needing antenna tweaks. ]


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

If I could get current premium channel content through vehicles other than Cable/Uverse/Sat I would pay big attention but so far those providers have big handcuffs.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

No ware has there been any indication that Apple is interested in building a DVR. They maybe interested in building a "Smart" TV but it likely will be similar to the services offered by the current Apple TV streaming box. Will they be willing to sell you content to store in the cloud shure why not that is where they are going with music. Do they have any interest in building a DVR to record and store content locally? I think not and if so it is a well kept secrete. 

At least with Google they did buy a DVR software company so there is some hope that the Google TV line could be expanded to include a DVR, but again nothing has been leaked or even talked about. 

My bottom line is it appears until cable cards are replaced with something that actually works and is simple to use no one is going to get into the DVR business.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Rumor has it that Apple wants to deliver Television content in an iTunes pay for use format. 

They would have little interest in cable cards or in letting you copy broadcast television - if they are going to get into that market they are going to try to redefine it not work with it.

As much as people have ask for a la cart programming, I wonder if people will really be willing to pay for it.


----------



## tomm1079 (May 10, 2005)

hey look another tivo is dead or dying thread 

(couldnt resist)


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

But the ICloud now takes all your songs not just the ones you buy on ITunes. The Bloomberg article today stated that your Hard-Drive would be the ICloud using Apple servers. 

Yes, not a local DVR, but a DVR in the ICloud. If this happens can Amazon be that far behind. They have the server capacity as well.

Dead or dying threads have been based on TiVo abandoning the consumer with half backed products. Death by slow suicide. 

This would be more like a mercy killing by a good (tech) neighbor from across the street.


----------



## tomm1079 (May 10, 2005)

Joe3 said:


> But the ICloud now takes all your songs not just the ones you buy on ITunes. The Bloomberg article today stated that your Hard-Drive would be the ICloud using Apple servers.
> 
> Yes, not a local DVR, but a DVR in the ICloud. If this happens can Amazon be that far behind. They have the server capacity as well.
> 
> ...


Cable companies wont let cloud DVR's get to popular. They will just lower the caps.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Arcady said:


> Apple wants to sell you shows and movies from the iTunes store, not help you record them for free.


"Rip. Mix. Burn."

Sound familiar?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

As I understand it cable networks are paid by cable companies a share of the subscription fee. I just read on another forum that AMC gets $.75 per month per subscriber. What is stopping the cable network from providing the channel via internet through an Apple device and charging you directly and cutting out the cable company?

How much would you pay for a monthly channel? I bet it's more than .75. I could live with 10-20 channels. Even if they $2 per channel, thats only $20-$40.

Cable companies have resisted a la carte offerings for years. There is certainly a market for this. I would imagine this could be VERY popular.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> As I understand it cable networks are paid by cable companies a share of the subscription fee. I just read on another forum that AMC gets $.75 per month per subscriber. What is stopping the cable network from providing the channel via internet through an Apple device and charging you directly and cutting out the cable company?


Because they get that fee per subscriber. They are well aware that they make more per subscriber, than they would in a ala carte method no matter what distribution method is chosen.

The networks DON'T want to cut out the middle man because that is how they make their money.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

bradleys said:


> As much as people have ask for a la cart programming, I wonder if people will really be willing to pay for it.


Not at $3 an episode, like a lot of the HD shows are today. Sell me a season for $20, maybe.


----------



## garys (Feb 2, 2002)

Arcady said:


> since they need a CableCard to record from cable, Apple will never do that. There is no possible way to make a product with a CableCard that is as hassle-free as an Apple product needs to be.


Exactly.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

This might be the worst thread on the internet. Might be.


----------



## takeshi (Jul 22, 2010)

netringer said:


> Try thinking out of box the ala Apple. What do you need to "record" if everything you want to watch is in iCloud for playing on demand? (Getting VoD opens your eyes a little.)


Getting VoD points out its limitations to me. What makes you think that Apple will be able to negotiate instant access to all broadcast content? You can "think out of the box" all you want but you're actually just daydreaming as every other prior identical thread to this one has.



aadam101 said:


> This is the perfect time to get involved with cable because cable subscriptions are shrinking for the first time in history. The cable companies actually have an incentive to want Apple.


How many have indicated that they actually want Apple?



aadam101 said:


> Not all Apple products have been a seamless setup. I remember when I bought my first iPod Touch. I opened it as soon as I left the store and then realized I had to connect it to iTunes before it provided any functionality.


Sure but that doesn't mean that is no longer their goal with their products.



Joe3 said:


> Sorry, I don't know how to link to Blomberg.


It's very easy. In the editor, click the link button:







then paste the link. Failing that you can just paste the URL as text in your message.



Grakthis said:


> This might be the worst thread on the internet. Might be.


Not by a long shot. It's down there but certainly not at the very bottom. The internet is vast. There's no way you've read every thread out there.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Joe3 said:


> Sorry, I don't know how to link to Blomberg.
> 
> "One of Apples goals for a new TV is to let users more seamlessly search for a show or movie, said one of the people. For example, instead of having to separately check to see if a movie or show is available through Netflix or a cable service, all the material could be integrated, this person said."
> 
> ...


I see no way an apple Television could replace my TiVo. I certainly have no desire to be locked in to using iTunes. And Apple certainly will not be able to store the 50TB+ of content I have for me to use.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

I think the worst part about this thread, is the occasional comment that essentially equates to "I know other companies have tried it, and I know Apple is woefully unequipped to enter this market where other players have been fighting with media companies for a decade now, and I know Apple has tried and failed here before... BUT IT'S APPLE OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY CAN DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Get real.

If it were possible to have a true streaming content solution to replace cable, Netflix would have thrown all of their dollars at it and we'd have it.

Content providers get all of their money from Cable. They have no incentive to cut that cord.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Arcady said:


> And since they need a CableCard to record from cable, Apple will never do that. There is no possible way to make a product with a CableCard that is as hassle-free as an Apple product needs to be.


Didn't the story go that Apple originally approached VZW with the iPhone, but VZW wouldn't make the concessions they wanted, so they went to ATT instead?

If Apple approaches Cable Companies with the iPhone model of a box, I'd think they could say something about how easy cablecard would have to be.

That said, Dish or DirecTV would be an easier sell on a national level.


----------



## jeff92k7 (Jan 18, 2006)

netringer said:


> Now, UVerse is capable of streaming 4 channels, HD and/or SD, over a ~12mbs link.


Not really. Uverse content comes in on a broadband connection with much higher rates than that. In fact, I think the slowest provsioning package they offer is a 19Mb down/2Mb up package. The highest (when I had them) was a 32/5 package. My line speed would support up to 60Mb down, but as the 32/5 package was the highest they offered, that's what I was set up with. Of that 32Mb down, up to 24 would be allocated for TV content. Each HD stream takes about 5.5-6Mb of bandwidth, so 4 HD streams at 6Mb each would total 24Mbps of the total 32. The remaining 8Mbps would be used for my internet, which in my case, was rated at up to 12Mbps, though they offer internet speeds of up to 24Mbps.

Here's where it gets a little confusing. The TV content takes priority on the bandwidth, so if you are using 24Mbps for tv, then you will only get 8Mbps left over for internet, regardless of what speed you are paying for. If you only watch 1 or 2 channels (tv streams), then bandwidth is freed for internet usage. If you also have phone service, then the small amount of bandwidth it uses will actually take priority over all other services. So, the priority order of badnwidth usage is phone, then TV, then internet; but all have to share the same 32Mbps mximum bandwidth.

So...all that to say: tv content is not using your internet bandwidth, per se. It is isolated in it's own streams, though the streams do take priority over internet bandwidth on the total line bandwidth. If you stream Netflix, pandora or any other internet content, that comes out of your internet bandwidth alottment.

This is part of the reason I don't have them anymore. They also would throttle Netflix streaming, even though they would swear up and down that they don't do any throttling. However, I repeatedly saw it and monitored it. Once they instituted bandwidth caps on the internet bandwidth usage (not applied to uverse tv content), I had enough. They want to restrict people from using any other video content provider but their own. This, to me, is the definition of being anti-competitive and why I dropped them.

So in summary, if you have a 12Mbps internet alottment (based on your post), then that is internet only, not their TV content. Their TV content uses other bandwidth.

ETA: Additionally, their on-demand content is not compressed as much as the regular TV content. Thier on-demand content is usually around 8Mbps (vs 6 for broadcast HD - which shouldn't even be enough to be called HD). The on-demand content uses the same, non capped portion of the bandwidth that the normal TV services do...which also leads to the anti-competitive views. Lastly, remembering the remote layout and menu layout of thier DVR, it is clear that they want people to use their on-demand stuff as much as, if not more than, the normal DVR. This way, they make money on the TV package, make more money on the on-demand content, and charge you overage fees if you exceed your internet bandwidth cap from using other content providers. Grrr....just stay away from uverse!!

Jeff


----------



## jeff92k7 (Jan 18, 2006)

I personally like the idea of Apple getting into the TV market. Any competition for customer dollars is going to benefit the customer, by giving more options, decreasing costs among providers, and possibly delivering new methods of watching content. I agree that Apple products are generally overpriced and I have yet to actually purchase any content from iTunes, but if Apple does nothing more than scare other TV providers into being more competitive, then I see it as a good thing.

I am whole-heartedly against monopolized markets so anything that gives the customer another choice is a good thing. Besides, Apple tends to do things more from a customer perspective...what will be easy for the customer, what will the customers want, etc. Whereas, most tv providers are all about making themselves more money...what can we charge the customer for today, what can we change to get more money from the customer, etc.

This is why I love TiVo. As imperfect as they may be, they are still far and away better than any other DVR system out there and are as close to being that one-box media hub as I can find right now. They got here by working from a customer perspective and making products that customers wanted and were easy to use. If Apple comes into this market, or changes the way we "do tv", great. If TiVo wants to compete, then they will need to innovate again - which is what made them popular to begin with. If TiVo does not, and Apple kills them off, then so be it. At least we'll have progress in the market and may even have a different, easier way to consume TV content.

Jeff


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

As long as AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner OWN the network bandwidth, cloud based VOD will never be financially feasable. Streaming just uses too much bandwidth. Streaming everything would use WAY too much bandwidth.


----------



## rage777 (Aug 19, 2006)

I don't trust any of my data to be "in the cloud". I would rather have my data in my personal possesion for me to protect, not some hacker to get at. Apple isn't the best company to be protecting anything.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I think people should actually take the time to read some of the speculation articles, here are links to 3 of them, I am sure there are many more:

Bloomberg
Washington Post with Bloomberg
Sydney Morning Herald
The bottom line is Apple is likely going to build a *SMART TV* no mention of a DVR anywhere.

Apple will be competing with the likes of Samsung, Sony, & Panasonic in the Smart TV business *NOT* TiVo in the smart DVR business.

If you want to make the case that streaming via smart TVs or stand alone streaming devices is going to eliminate the need for a DVRs go for it. I don't believe it will happen anytime soon.

Thanks,


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

rage777 said:


> I don't trust any of my data to be "in the cloud". I would rather have my data in my personal possesion for me to protect, not some hacker to get at. Apple isn't the best company to be protecting anything.


Unless you go to much greater lengths than most individual users do to protect your data, the cloud is probably safer.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Arcady said:


> ....... since they need a CableCard to record from cable, Apple will never do that. There is no possible way to make a product with a CableCard that is as hassle-free as an Apple product needs to be.


Yes.... smart Apple .... good Apple! I would modify your statement as follows:

There is no possible way to make a product with a CableCard *or Tuning Adapter* that is as hassle-free as *any* product needs to be.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

I have Uverse and Netflix and I've experienced no throttling of my Netflix... I get full picture quality that looks great on a 55'' LED. I also don't stream more than 5 hours a week.

YMMV.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> I think people should actually take the time to read some of the speculation articles, here are links to 3 of them, I am sure there are many more:
> 
> Bloomberg
> Washington Post with Bloomberg
> ...


Smart TVs are the worst idea.

TVs should run for decades. Computers and media boxes have lifespans measured in a few years before they are obsolete or dead.

I have "apps" on my Vizio and they are awful, cause random reboots, are slow and I already know they will be out of date in 3 years. But I don't mind, because they aren't core to the TV. I just disable them. I bought a TV, not a media box... the apps were just a throwaway feature that I didn't pay any extra for compared to the market price.

TV manufacturers have already started announcing they have no interest in pursuing the "smart TV" market, because it's DOA.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Grakthis said:


> TV manufacturers have already started announcing they have no interest in pursuing the "smart TV" market, because it's DOA.


Huh? I think you have it backwards. Many of them have basically announced they are moving to their own platform. Smart tvs aren't going away.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> Smart TVs are the worst idea.
> 
> TVs should run for decades. Computers and media boxes have lifespans measured in a few years before they are obsolete or dead.
> 
> ...


From my point of view my TV could just be a monitor with 1 HDMI port. I run all my devices into an Onkyo receiver and don't even use my TVs speaker. This thread started with the premise that having Apple enter the Smart TV business was somehow going to put TiVo out of the DVR business. I was just pointing that out.

I actually believe it will be a good thing if Apple does start building Smart TVs, it could help that market evolve into something and as others have said more competition is good.

I just don't understand the logic of why anyone thinks a Smart TV or even a stand alone streaming device replaces a DVR. Maybe someday when we all have rock solid GB Internet connection with no band width caps, but not anytime soon.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

rage777 said:


> I don't trust any of my data to be "in the cloud". I would rather have my data in my personal possesion for me to protect, not some hacker to get at. Apple isn't the best company to be protecting anything.


You don't want hackers to steal episodes of Jersey Shore from you?

I understand the risks behind cloud computing but risks also exist with local storage.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

If it weren't for TiVo, and TiVoShanan, I wouldn't have badoop, badoop, badoop as my ringtone for TXT messages.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Cable company's sell you packages of channels because they negotiate discounts on popular offerings by adding less popular selections.

If and when an a la cart system overtakes the current funding mechanisms, you are going to see a significant reduction in both channel options and new content development.

A show would need to be a "sure bet" before a production company would be willing to invest in the development costs. 

It would be like Radio - A bunch of political and sports programming Blech...


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Grakthis said:


> I have Uverse and Netflix and I've experienced no throttling of my Netflix... I get full picture quality that looks great on a 55'' LED. I also don't stream more than 5 hours a week.
> 
> YMMV.


Netflix will either cease to exist or double their rates in 2012. They are being priced out of the market by the movie companies.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Unless you go to much greater lengths than most individual users do to protect your data, the cloud is probably safer.


Maybe safer but the storage capacity will be very small. With my servers and NAS devices I have over 100TB of storage available at home for me to use. Would the icloud even offer me 1% of that storage space or even .1%(100GB)?


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Really, we are all going to be able to record what we want and keep it in a cloud? I can certainly see the internet is going to provide more of the TV content we watch which will make having DVR storage less crucial. I only recently started streaming some of the TV I watch and it works well enough but I see nothing that makes me want to give up a DVR and local storage for programming I want to watch at my convenience. I might stream/download 30GB a month but with Blu-ray, OTA and DVD, I am probably accessing 600GB a month. Is there going to be bandwidth available for everybody to move from a majority local content to internet streaming/downloading? I only yesterday switched to a faster internet service but my thought process is still, I need to limit my usage, there just isn't capacity for all of us to be streaming or downloading so much data.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Pessimists! 

The bandwidth and storage capacity will be there. Wait for it..... Wait for it....

Just look at the technology leaps in the last decade or two. You will have to pay for it of course .... but how much are you spending to maintain 100 TB of storage at home now?


----------



## Elevation (Jun 29, 2004)

So if Apple makes a tv, are they going to sue all the manufactures that make tvs with black bezels?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Pessimists!
> 
> The bandwidth and storage capacity will be there. Wait for it..... Wait for it....
> 
> Just look at the technology leaps in the last decade or two. You will have to pay for it of course .... but how much are you spending to maintain 100 TB of storage at home now?


To Maintain? Only a little of my time and around $10 a month in electricity.(I don't have my storage running 24/7)


----------



## rage777 (Aug 19, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Unless you go to much greater lengths than most individual users do to protect your data, the cloud is probably safer.


Since my computer isn't on 24/7 and my storage is offline, I do believe my data would be safer. Cloud computing has to be on 24/7 which means hackers can work on it constantly to find the holes. That doesn't mean they will find one, but I would still take my chances with my data in my possesion. Not to mention if my internet connection goes down, or the cloud servers go down, I still have my data with me. I have my important data backed up onto a DVD and stored in my safe, I don't think the cloud people would do that for me.


----------



## rage777 (Aug 19, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> You don't want hackers to steal episodes of Jersey Shore from you?
> 
> I understand the risks behind cloud computing but risks also exist with local storage.


IF Apple was storing TV data on a cloud computer, I highly doubt they are only storing that data. It's not just Apple, lots of companies will store other data that they don't need to store along with your data. Your preferences of shows, account information, IP address, etc. Being a private person, I don't have a cell phone, Facebook (or any other social media) account, I shred all my documents, I have a locked mailbox, etc. In other words, I don't like anybody else knowing too much about me or my personal habits. That includes what TV programs I watch.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> To Maintain? Only a little of my time and around $10 a month in electricity.(I don't have my storage running 24/7)


Ha Ha, nice sidestep there! As if electricity cost was all that was involved!


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

rage777 said:


> IF Apple was storing TV data on a cloud computer, I highly doubt they are only storing that data. It's not just Apple, lots of companies will store other data that they don't need to store along with your data. Your preferences of shows, account information, IP address, etc. Being a private person, I don't have a cell phone, Facebook (or any other social media) account, I shred all my documents, I have a locked mailbox, etc. In other words, I don't like anybody else knowing too much about me or my personal habits. That includes what TV programs I watch.


Did you go to Blockbuster late at night just before closing when there were no customers in the store so nobody would see what you were renting? Do you bring a privacy screen with you so you can choose a Redbox movie? 
Do you ask for paper bags at the grocery store so people in the parking lot can't see what you are buying?


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

rage777 said:


> IF Apple was storing TV data on a cloud computer, I highly doubt they are only storing that data. It's not just Apple, lots of companies will store other data that they don't need to store along with your data. Your preferences of shows, account information, IP address, etc. Being a private person, I don't have a cell phone, Facebook (or any other social media) account, I shred all my documents, I have a locked mailbox, etc. In other words, I don't like anybody else knowing too much about me or my personal habits. That includes what TV programs I watch.


Do you use a Tivo? Then guess what? Tivo knows what TV programs you watch.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

I don't like giving up a DVR either.

But I wouldn't mind if I did not have to go through the hassle of losing some shows and having to crack open TiVo every time I need to replace a bad hard drive.

Even though I not a criminal.

I wouldn't mind not feeling like a criminal every time I do it because the entertainment hacks and their lawyers that never had a creative idea in their life can't make money for "nothing".


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

jtreid said:


> Do you use a Tivo? Then guess what? Tivo knows what TV programs you watch.


Only if they are violating their privacy policy.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> Only if they are violating their privacy policy.


Huh? The Tivo is networked and constantly connected to the internet. Tivo doesn't have to break any law for someone to steal your episode of Jersey Shore.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> Only if they are violating their privacy policy.


I didn't say they were necessarily giving the information to anyone, but they know and they can do statistics on how you watch things. For instance, the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was the most rewound/rewatched incident according to Tivo. They know what commercials are skipped, watched, rewound. They know what channels are being watched and shows being Tivo'd. They know Season Pass statistics. All that data can be very valuable. They just don't tell the name of the person, but they can tell demographics of the people. Don't fool yourself. Even if you opt'd out, they still gather the data.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

jtreid said:


> I didn't say they were necessarily giving the information to anyone, but they know and they can do statistics on how you watch things. For instance, the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was the most rewound/rewatched incident according to Tivo. They know what commercials are skipped, watched, rewound. They know what channels are being watched and shows being Tivo'd. They know Season Pass statistics. All that data can be very valuable. They just don't tell the name of the person, but they can tell demographics of the people. Don't fool yourself. Even if you opt'd out, they still gather the data.


Actually, unless you have "opted in", they are not supposed to even gather that information.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> Actually, unless you have "opted in", they are not supposed to even gather that information.


Riiiiight......


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

jtreid said:


> Riiiiight......


Nice couple of noids you have there. I doubt very seriously that TiVo would leave themselves open to serious legal action by violating their own privacy agreement. They make it attractive to opt in by only supporting the online SP manager if you do so.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Arcady said:


> Netflix will either cease to exist or double their rates in 2012. They are being priced out of the market by the movie companies.


Want to put money on that?


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

rainwater said:


> Huh? I think you have it backwards. Many of them have basically announced they are moving to their own platform. Smart tvs aren't going away.


No, literally, a handful of TV manufacturers announced there was no future in Smart TVs.

They didn't stop making the ones they already have, but they aren't pursuing new innovation in them.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

Hardly a "noid" as you call it. If I sit in a mall and watch how many redheads go by and tally the color of their shoes and then publish my findings, I have not violated anyone's privacy. If Tivo tallies how many subscribers get a SP for a particular show and sell that to the broadcaster, they have not violated any privacy either.

Read this directly from the Tivo Privacy Policy and tell me that I am paranoid.

*Summary of the TiVo Privacy Policy*

*TiVo knows how important personal privacy is to you, so we have designed our system and established strict policies to help protect the privacy of your Personally Identifiable Viewing Information. In summary, we want you to know that:

The TiVo DVR collects certain types of information from its users, including Anonymous Viewing Information, Diagnostic Information, Commerce Information, and Service Information (each as defined below).

Unless you specifically give prior consent, TiVo does not collect or access any Personally Identifiable Viewing Information (as defined below) from your TiVo DVR except as necessary to provide service to Your TiVo DVR. Without your consent, TiVo does not keep track of what shows you  as an individual or household  have watched, recorded, or rated with "Thumbs Up" or "Thumbs Down."
TiVo does collect Anonymous Viewing Information; that is, information about viewing choices made while using your TiVo DVR, but that does not identify you as an individual or household. In other words, there is no personally identifiable information associated with your Anonymous Viewing Information that could identify the Anonymous Viewing Information as coming from you or your household. You can elect to block TiVo from collecting Anonymous Viewing Information.

TiVo also collects Diagnostic Information from a small number of randomly sampled TiVo DVRs for quality control purposes. If you subscribe to the TiVo Plus Service and don't want your Anonymous Viewing Information and Diagnostic Information used in any way, simply tell us by writing to us or calling us at 1-877-367-8486.

If you affirmatively elect to engage in a commercial transaction such as responding to an advertisement or promotion, TiVo will collect and disclose your Commerce Information (as defined below) to the commerce partner fulfilling the transaction.

If you affirmatively elect to use the Online Scheduling feature or download content such as video podcasts to your TiVo DVR using a TiVo content delivery service ("CDS"), TiVo will collect the Personally Identifiable Viewing Information associated with fulfillment of your individual request(s). Use of the Online Scheduling feature or content delivery service does not change your privacy preferences with respect to viewing choices made in the privacy of your household. Use of other advanced features, however, may require you to change your privacy preferences.

TiVo intends to make available new services in the future. These services will be governed by the privacy policies of the respective service providers.
Note to Customers with more than one TiVo DVR: Generally, TiVo will cause all of all the TiVo DVRs on your account to have the same "opt" status. See Sec. 2.7 of the Privacy Policy for further details. *


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

jtreid said:


> If you subscribe to the TiVo Plus Service and don't want your Anonymous Viewing Information and Diagnostic Information used in any way,


Tivo Plus Service?


----------



## gonzotek (Sep 24, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> Tivo Plus Service?


TiVo 'Basic' was free level of service some dvd-recorder models had in the S2 era. Weaknees has a chart here about half-way down the page showing the differences between plus and basic:
http://www.weaknees.com/burner-faq.php


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

gonzotek said:


> TiVo 'Basic' was free level of service some dvd-recorder models had in the S2 era. Weaknees has a chart here about half-way down the page showing the differences between plus and basic:
> http://www.weaknees.com/burner-faq.php


Oh. I remember Tivo Basic. I just don't ever remember anything being referred to as "plus".


----------



## ldhurley (Jun 20, 2007)

Joe3 said:


> Com on, This is Apple, why wouldn't it.


You mean just like the camera they included in I Pad!!


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

If you think they actually keep track of every FF, RW, skip, etc., for every user or even all the time for any users, then you are indeed paranoid. As far as the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, even TiVo says it was from 20,000 randomly selected users and even if they still do it, is most likely only used during selected events. It's way too much data to acquire and keep for little gain.

"I'm not paranoid, but I _*know*_ everyone _*thinks*_ I am."


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> is most likely only used during selected events.


What difference does it make?? That's just as "bad". If that is true, Tivo isn't sharing which events it's capturing the data so as far as the user is concerned every recording is subject to this.


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

The trick to bringing smart TV or an amazing internet streaming tv service to the masses isn't pulling it off, it's overcoming the impossible mountain of licensing and media companies who will fight tooth and nail to stop it.

The future is inevitable, but it's going to take a while to get there and it's going to be messy.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> What difference does it make?? That's just as "bad". If that is true, Tivo isn't sharing which events it's capturing the data so as far as the user is concerned every recording is subject to this.


So call the listed number and opt out. And before you say it, I think there should be an opt out option on the web as they implied there would be.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> So call the listed number and opt out. And before you say it, I think there should be an opt out option on the web as they implied there would be.


Personally, I don't care. I would rather they give me a discount to opt in. I think it's great data to have and they should do something with it. Nielsen is such an outdated beast. Tivo can provide much more accurate and detailed data.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> If you think they actually keep track of every FF, RW, skip, etc., for every user or even all the time for any users, then you are indeed paranoid. As far as the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, even TiVo says it was from 20,000 randomly selected users and even if they still do it, is most likely only used during selected events. It's way too much data to acquire and keep for little gain.
> 
> "I'm not paranoid, but I _*know*_ everyone _*thinks*_ I am."


You keep right on drinking that cool-aid. It's just right.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> If you think they actually keep track of every FF, RW, skip, etc., for every user or even all the time for any users, then you are indeed paranoid.


Or, like me, you've seen the actual logs from an actual TiVo box.

It's not even that much data. If you think about it, you can go from several minutes to hours not using the remote, even while actively watching.


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

So are you opted in or out? If out, what do you see in those logs?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Neither, I'm opted neutral (the default state), where the data is collected anonymously. I doubt that opting out stops it from logging, anyway (only from passing on the log).

What you see is a timestamp, with an indication of what button was pressed. It's been years since I saw it, so I don't remember enough to give you more details.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

What's the problem with opting in? I did that the first chance I got. Even if they associated my name with the info I don't think it's a big deal. It doesn't matter to me if they know what I watch, skip etc.. If they could tailer things specifically toward what my tastes are I would prefer it any way.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

I'm opted-in. I want my tastes to effect advertising dollars and show retentions. At least for the shows I like.  Chuck is on its fifth season, what more can I ask for? So maybe my clicks are meaningless in the scheme of things, but maybe it counts for something.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

I'm opted-in too. I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

lpwcomp said:


> Actually, unless you have "opted in", they are not supposed to even gather that information.


Incorrect. They gather that data unless you opt-out. Unless you opt-in they do not associate the information with your specific account.


----------

