# TiVo open to exiting retail hardware business in wake of Rovi deal



## rick123 (Dec 9, 2004)

http://seekingalpha.com/news/318724...f=51&utoken=f99134804ac6486daee9473a73c316ef#

Wonder what the community thinks about this issue?

I have been with TiVo since 2004 and honestly can't imagine not having the TiVo technology as part of my every day video experience. It would be a GIANT FAIL if I had to go back and ask Comcast for several of their boxes...FAIL!

Are we gonna eventually get shut out of the TiVO equation?

Hoping not...


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

Not good when the CEO states "Being in the hardware business isn't something that necessarily excites us," said TiVo"

When they say hardware sales are only X, they don't state that without the hardware you don't get the service fees which are much higher income. So stop selling hardware Tivo and watch those service fees drop.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

You can read more about this, and some interesting follow-up discussion, on Dave Zatz's blog here:
http://zatznotfunny.com/2016-06/future-tivos-retail-business/

At this point, the only area I feel pretty sure that we'll see TiVo (as we currently think of TiVo) actively participating in a couple years from now is in cable-company-supplied set-top-boxes, where TiVo/Rovi will partner with box makers and small-to-midsize cable companies to license various aspects of their DVR service/user interface/patent portfolio for use on the boxes that cable customers rent.

I think there's some chance that, beyond the current Roamio OTA, we'll still see one or more TiVo-powered products in the retail arena that cater to streaming video and/or OTA TV, although frankly I wonder how successful TiVo can be there given all the existing competitors (Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Android TV, Apple TV, Tablo, XBox, Silicon Dust, ChannelMaster, etc.)

I think the most questionable product line for TiVo going forward is retail DVRs for cable TV subscribers. That business has been dying for years for a variety of reasons and the landscape is even more stacked against it now that the FCC's CableCARD mandate has expired with no clear successor standard looking likely any time soon. Meanwhile, cable TV is evolving away from QAM to IP-based delivery, further fracturing that playing field as different cable companies transition on different timelines. It's possible we'll see TiVo (or another consumer electronics company that licenses TiVo software) build retail DVRs designed specifically to work with individual cable co's (e.g. Comcast, Charter) using electronic security (without a CableCARD) -- TiVo has talked about doing such for awhile now. But frankly, if TiVo has been bleeding retail cable subs for years now, why should that change going forward?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> You can read more about this, and some interesting follow-up discussion, on Dave Zatz's blog here:
> http://zatznotfunny.com/2016-06/future-tivos-retail-business/
> 
> At this point, the only area I feel pretty sure that we'll see TiVo (as we currently think of TiVo) actively participating in a couple years from now is in cable-company-supplied set-top-boxes, where TiVo/Rovi will partner with box makers and small-to-midsize cable companies to license various aspects of their DVR service/user interface/patent portfolio for use on the boxes that cable customers rent.
> ...


So I guess " But dont look for us to exit the consumer space." (quote from Rovi CFO in article you linked to) to you means they are planning on exiting the consumer space? Who manufactures the hardware is irrelevant, my first TiVo was made my Humax worked just the same as my second TiVo that was made by TiVo. I see no issue if TiVo doesn't make what ever comes after the Bolt.

Your posts make it pretty clear you really don't care much about linear broadcasts, which by default means you also do not really need a DVR. Regardless of what you would like to believe households not viewing TV via linear broadcasts are a small minority. The vast majority of house holds (something north of 100 million) still consume significant amounts of TV via linear broadcasts and anyone consuming TV via linear broadcasts is a potential DVR costumer.

The FCC has not abandoned requiring an open STB standard which would open up satellite customers to TiVo and cover any cable company that converted to IP delivery. Plus the requirement to support and provide cable cards is not ending and will not end until a replacement is approved.

In any event my primary TiVos (base Roamio & Bolt) work just fine as OTA DVRs. There is very little I can come up with that TiVo could do to improve the DVR functions and I expect both units will serve me well for years.

For the light streaming I do (Pandora, Amazon, Vudu, & YouTube) my Bolt actually works as good or better than my older Roku 2XS (model 3100X). If someone wants to consume most or all of there TV via streaming services I agree their are better solutions and there is no reason to buy a TiVo for that. But for those of us who just use streaming as a light add on TiVo works just fine.

In the end if there will be a large enough niche market for stand alone TiVo DVRs will likely be determined by what the FCC ends up doing. If TiVo releases something along the lines of what we would call a Bolt Plus or Pro this year they will have no need to change DVR hardware for several years, giving everything time to shake out.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Who are these several direct-to-retail box makers of which he speaks, and do they make anything respectable that resembles a DVR? Or is he just crossing his fingers that they'll start to make one?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Your posts make it pretty clear you really don't care much about linear broadcasts, which by default means you also do not really need a DVR. Regardless of what you would like to believe households not viewing TV via linear broadcasts are a small minority. The vast majority of house holds (something north of 100 million) still consume significant amounts of TV via linear broadcasts and anyone consuming TV via linear broadcasts is a potential DVR costumer.


That's true and the overwhelming vast majority of those people appear to be quite content using the DVRs provided to them by their cable, satellite or telco company. If you have any thoughts as to how the newly merged TiVo/Rovi will be able to turn that around with a retail cable-compatible DVR (and any evidence that they have much interest in trying), I'm all ears.



atmuscarella said:


> The FCC has not abandoned requiring an open STB standard which would open up satellite customers to TiVo and cover any cable company that converted to IP delivery. Plus the requirement to support and provide cable cards is not ending and will not end until a replacement is approved.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the FCC mandate for CableCARD expired last December. I know the FCC is pushing for a successor non-hardware-based security standard ("Unlock the Box") but the fate and timeline of that push is questionable. Meanwhile, Comcast is working with Roku, Samsung and possibly others to allow their subscribers to use popular retail devices to access the full suite of their Xfinity TV services, obviously in an attempt to head Unlock the Box off at the pass.

IF Unlock the Box happens and is implemented in a year or two, maybe then we'll see one or more CE brands (Humax, as you mentioned, or Roku or Samsung or whoever) enter the retail DVR market with TiVo-powered products that can work with whatever pay TV provider you use. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Forming partnerships would be preferable to the alternative (a complete end to retail) but wouldn't a partnership model be somewhat questionable? 

TiVo adds new features and bug fixes on a regular basis. Every 3 to 4 months they roll those out to pretty much every Premiere/Roamio/Bolt DVR with a network connection. What happens when 1 or more vendors are in the mix? Does it move to a system similar to Android devices in the smartphone market where Google releases updates to hardware vendors and each vendor eventually gets around to qualifying the build for their devices and actually pushes the update out to end users?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the FCC mandate for CableCARD expired last December.


The only thing that changed was that cable companies are no longer required to use CableCards in their boxes, but they still have to support retail CableCard devices just like they always have.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> You can read more about this, and some interesting follow-up discussion, on Dave Zatz's blog here: http://zatznotfunny.com/2016-06/future-tivos-retail-business/ At this point, the only area I feel pretty sure that we'll see TiVo (as we currently think of TiVo) actively participating in a couple years from now is in cable-company-supplied set-top-boxes, where TiVo/Rovi will partner with box makers and small-to-midsize cable companies to license various aspects of their DVR service/user interface/patent portfolio for use on the boxes that cable customers rent. I think there's some chance that, beyond the current Roamio OTA, we'll still see one or more TiVo-powered products in the retail arena that cater to streaming video and/or OTA TV, although frankly I wonder how successful TiVo can be there given all the existing competitors (Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Android TV, Apple TV, Tablo, XBox, Silicon Dust, ChannelMaster, etc.) I think the most questionable product line for TiVo going forward is retail DVRs for cable TV subscribers. That business has been dying for years for a variety of reasons and the landscape is even more stacked against it now that the FCC's CableCARD mandate has expired with no clear successor standard looking likely any time soon. Meanwhile, cable TV is evolving away from QAM to IP-based delivery, further fracturing that playing field as different cable companies transition on different timelines. It's possible we'll see TiVo (or another consumer electronics company that licenses TiVo software) build retail DVRs designed specifically to work with individual cable co's (e.g. Comcast, Charter) using electronic security (without a CableCARD) -- TiVo has talked about doing such for awhile now. But frankly, if TiVo has been bleeding retail cable subs for years now, why should that change going forward?


.....enter, the Evolution Digital eBox! 

http://m.evolutiondigital.com/acton/attachment/3194/f-00c5/1/-/-/-/-/eBOX_TiVoPowered_SS_160503.pdf

*yes, I'm going to shove my future tivo theories down your throat until you regurgitate it back up like a momma bird feeding her chicks!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The only thing that changed was that cable companies are no longer required to use CableCards in their boxes, but they still have to support retail CableCard devices just like they always have.


Ah, thanks for the clarification. At any rate, CableCARD seems to be a dying technology and one that has proven to be a hassle for consumers. If TiVo hasn't been able to turn the tide on the decreasing subscriber numbers among their retail CableCARD users, I really don't see a third party hardware company wanting to partner with TiVo to roll out a new retail CableCARD DVR. No, IF we ever see another cable-compatible retail TiVo box roll out post-2016, it won't have a CableCARD in it but will instead have some sort of downloadable security solution. Maybe we'll see a new Bolt Pro with CableCARD roll out in a few months although at this point I'd be mildly surprised if we do given all indications we've gotten this year. TiVo may just stick with the current Roamio Pro as their high-end retail offering for cable subscribers.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The only thing that changed was that cable companies are no longer required to use CableCards in their boxes, but they still have to support retail CableCard devices just like they always have.


Maybe. TiVo seemed to think that order was inadvertently vacated and I'm don't know if anything was put back into place. If so, cablecos haven't tested the water, since they've got bigger fish to fry with net neutrality and trying to stop "Unlock the Box". Will be interesting to see what happens if/when FiOS converts from QAM to IP...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> .....enter, the Evolution Digital eBox!
> 
> http://m.evolutiondigital.com/acton/attachment/3194/f-00c5/1/-/-/-/-/eBOX_TiVoPowered_SS_160503.pdf


...which does not require a CableCARD since it's designed for MSOs to deploy to their own customers after the CableCARD mandate expired last December. The eBox is a great representation of where I see TiVo focusing its efforts in the future. But I still don't see there being a retail version of this box as it would require whoever manufactures it to partner with willing MSOs (e.g. Comcast, Charter, Cox) so that it could work with those specific pay TV services. Comcast wants to you consume their TV service via their own X1 interface (whether on their own STBs or via their Xfinity app for Roku, etc.). They don't want you to consume it with TiVo's interface.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> That's true and the overwhelming vast majority of those people appear to be quite content using the DVRs provided to them by their cable, satellite or telco company. If you have any thoughts as to how the newly merged TiVo/Rovi will be able to turn that around with a retail cable-compatible DVR (and any evidence that they have much interest in trying), I'm all ears.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the FCC mandate for CableCARD expired last December. I know the FCC is pushing for a successor non-hardware-based security standard ("Unlock the Box") but the fate and timeline of that push is questionable. Meanwhile, Comcast is working with Roku, Samsung and possibly others to allow their subscribers to use popular retail devices to access the full suite of their Xfinity TV services, obviously in an attempt to head Unlock the Box off at the pass.
> 
> IF Unlock the Box happens and is implemented in a year or two, maybe then we'll see one or more CE brands (Humax, as you mentioned, or Roku or Samsung or whoever) enter the retail DVR market with TiVo-powered products that can work with whatever pay TV provider you use. But I'm not holding my breath.


My personal belief is that TiVo DVRs will remain more of a niche than main stream product even if the FCC opens up the STB market. But right now around 35 million households sub to a traditional Pay TV provider that you can not use a stand alone TiVo with and cable cards/tuning adapters are more of a hassle than most people want to deal with. With ether a software only or gateway type solution TiVo gets a much larger potential client pool and the process should become easier. I could see TiVo having a modular system, buy a tuner-less DVR which would work with IP systems, then add network attached tuners for what ever other type provider you wanted to use (QAM, ATSC, Dish DBS, & AT&T DBS).

While I don't think TiVo would end up selling millions of DVRs with a new open system I do think they could sell more than they are now and enough to keep them interested in the stand alone market.

I do agree with you that TiVo needs to get more apps, my personal hope is that Pay TV services like Sling TV & Sony's Vue would get regulated by the FCC like any other pay TV provider and be forced to allow any STB maker to connect to their service and be allowed to use the STB makers UI (which means we would be allowed to record the streams like current QAM streams). I don't really expect that to happen but it should, anyone selling access to linear broadcasts should get treated the same regardless of how they deliver them.


----------



## tampa8 (Jan 26, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> my personal hope is that Pay TV services like Sling TV & Sony's Vue would get regulated by the FCC like any other pay TV provider and be forced to allow any STB maker to connect to their service and be allowed to use the STB makers UI (which means we would be allowed to record the streams like current QAM streams). I don't really expect that to happen but it should, anyone selling access to linear broadcasts should get treated the same regardless of how they deliver them.


To allow an STB maker to compete with what? The only reason cable cards are mandated is to make competition for the Cable company charging for their own boxes. There is no equipment supplied or manufactured by the providers required for online. I can watch Sling anywhere with any computer, cell phone, tablet etc... Ditto CBS.

But almost bigger than that, the ONLY reason, and I mean ONLY reason some of the cable channels are allowing their services to be online in much different and less cost packages is directly because there is no recording involved. What you are proposing is to turn online services into exactly what so many are trying to change and get away from. This is a prime example of why things cost what they do, Government intervention. It's a reason, granted not the only reason costs are what they are for Cable and many other things. Then people want more Government intervention and wonder why costs escalate.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> ...which does not require a CableCARD since it's designed for MSOs to deploy to their own customers after the CableCARD mandate expired last December. The eBox is a great representation of where I see TiVo focusing its efforts in the future. But I still don't see there being a retail version of this box as it would require whoever manufactures it to partner with willing MSOs (e.g. Comcast, Charter, Cox) so that it could work with those specific pay TV services. Comcast wants to you consume their TV service via their own X1 interface (whether on their own STBs or via their Xfinity app for Roku, etc.). They don't want you to consume it with TiVo's interface.


It certainly does NOT require them to partner with MSOs to make it work. It offers QAM, IPTV, OTT (Vue, SlingTV, DirecTV Now, VidGo, etc.), streaming apps, can be a whole home DVR client a la' a Mini, has built in security like a DTA (only thing that concerns what you're saying), TiVoGuard (?, whatever that is!), etc.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> It certainly does NOT require them to partner with MSOs to make it work. It offers QAM, IPTV, OTT (Vue, SlingTV, DirecTV Now, VidGo, etc.), streaming apps, can be a whole home DVR client a la' a Mini, has built in security like a DTA (only thing that concerns what you're saying), TiVoGuard (?, whatever that is!), etc.


If the eBox is to be used to access an MSO's services (that is, to communicate with that MSO's servers for live video, cloud DVR, on-demand content, authenticated apps), then, yes, OF COURSE it requires a partnership with the MSO. The eBox is not CableCARD-based. Therefore an MSO is not required to support it. It is designed to be a customized solution for individual MSOs that choose to deploy it.

Might we see a new TiVo-powered *retail* device in the future that's kinda-sorta similar but accesses only OTT streaming video (and/or OTA TV and/or acts as a TiVo Mini extender)? Sure, we might. But it's not going to be this same eBox and it won't be produced by Evolution Digital.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> To allow an STB maker to compete with what? The only reason cable cards are mandated is to make competition for the Cable company charging for their own boxes. There is no equipment supplied or manufactured by the providers required for online. I can watch Sling anywhere with any computer, cell phone, tablet etc... Ditto CBS.
> 
> But almost bigger than that, the ONLY reason, and I mean ONLY reason some of the cable channels are allowing their services to be online in much different and less cost packages is directly because there is no recording involved. What you are proposing is to turn online services into exactly what so many are trying to change and get away from. This is a prime example of why things cost what they do, Government intervention. It's a reason, granted not the only reason costs are what they are for Cable and many other things. Then people want more Government intervention and wonder why costs escalate.


The "our service is available via apps" is the lame excuse cable companies are using to try and avoid opening up their systems. If the FCC doesn't buy it for them (which I hope they don't), then the FCC should not buy it for any other service. Pay Linear broadcast TV is Pay Linear broadcast TV the delivery tech used is irrelevant I should be able to get any available service reselling linear broadcast stations on any third party STB or viewing device via a universal process.

Regarding Government intervention, it is the only reason service like Netflix, Sling TV, or Sony's service can exist, otherwise the cable companies would have blocked their service or changed them an arm and leg to transmit over their networks.

The whole thing only works because of Government intervention so I have no problem wanting that intervention to benefit me and telling services and content providers that they can not block consumers from recording content from linear broadcasts they have paid for or receive over public air waves does just that. Not to mention that is how it has been now for what, something like 40 plus years.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Ah, thanks for the clarification. At any rate, CableCARD seems to be a dying technology and one that has proven to be a hassle for consumers. If TiVo hasn't been able to turn the tide on the decreasing subscriber numbers among their retail CableCARD users, I really don't see a third party hardware company wanting to partner with TiVo to roll out a new retail CableCARD DVR. No, IF we ever see another cable-compatible retail TiVo box roll out post-2016, it won't have a CableCARD in it but will instead have some sort of downloadable security solution. Maybe we'll see a new Bolt Pro with CableCARD roll out in a few months although at this point I'd be mildly surprised if we do given all indications we've gotten this year. TiVo may just stick with the current Roamio Pro as their high-end retail offering for cable subscribers.


The CableCARD mandate is still in place, and will be for the forseeable future, and for at least a couple of years after a new standard is developed. The biggest issue here is that CableCARD has to be replaced, as it only applies to linear QAM systems, which will eventually disappear completely in favor of IP-based systems.



atmuscarella said:


> My personal belief is that TiVo DVRs will remain more of a niche than main stream product even if the FCC opens up the STB market. But right now around 35 million households sub to a traditional Pay TV provider that you can not use a stand alone TiVo with and cable cards/tuning adapters are more of a hassle than most people want to deal with. With ether a software only or gateway type solution TiVo gets a much larger potential client pool and the process should become easier. I could see TiVo having a modular system, buy a tuner-less DVR which would work with IP systems, then add network attached tuners for what ever other type provider you wanted to use (QAM, ATSC, Dish DBS, & AT&T DBS).
> 
> While I don't think TiVo would end up selling millions of DVRs with a new open system I do think they could sell more than they are now and enough to keep them interested in the stand alone market.


The market would get a LOT bigger for a couple of reasons. Still not truly mass-market, but instead of 1% of the market or whatever they have now, they might have 3-4%.

1. Most of the tech enthusiasts are on DirecTV. TiVo is only able to target a minority sub-set of the tech enthusiasts out there right now, since they can't get onto DirecTV (the THR22 doesn't count for anything).

2. Provider portability. Areas that have FIOS or a cable overbuilder have two QAM-based options, while areas with FIOS and a cable overbuilder have three QAM-based options, but the majority of the country has only one QAM-based option. Allowing portability between IPTV, DBS, and CATV systems would create a very compelling advantage over an MSO-provided DVR in that you can keep your DVR, recordings, and OnePasses when moving from one MSO to another.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Here is the actual comment made about the retail side of TiVo's business. This is from a Q & A session from TiVo's current SEC filings.
Also they mention that they are moving over to Rovi for guide data.
http://investor.tivo.com/phoenix.zh...9MCZTUURFU0M9U0VDVElPTl9FTlRJUkUmc3Vic2lkPTU3



> *Question:*
> Robert Warren Stone
> 
> Cowen and Company, LLC, Research Division
> ...


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

TiVo has said for years they have no interest in being a hardware company. They want to be a software and services company. This article simply continues on that message.

So far they haven't been able to monetize the software and services aspect without also providing the hardware...


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

mrizzo80 said:


> Does it move to a system similar to Android devices in the smartphone market where Google releases updates to hardware vendors and each vendor eventually gets around to qualifying the build for their devices and actually pushes the update out to end users?


I hope not, slow or nonexistent updates is the norm in the Android world.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

I would expect updates to continue much as they do now. Direct from Tivo. Tivo did not start out as a hardware supplier. Phillips and Sony built and sold the boxes. Tivo provided guide data and updates to those boxes much like they do now (except it was dial up modems built in back then).

I have long expected Tivo to get out of the hardware business. They have said for years they want to. They would need to get the Sony, Samsung, Visio or other mainstream hardware vendor to take over that side. Trouble is, they have had difficulty convincing any of them there is profit in doing so.

In making small steps in that direction, I think the Bolt is largely an outsourced design and manufacture, but sold by Tivo distribution channels.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> I hope not, slow or nonexistent updates is the norm in the Android world.


Yeah, but that's generally because hardware manufacturers take stock Android and then alter it in various ways to differentiate their product, so an Android phone from Samsung looks and behaves a little differently than one from HTC or Sony or LG. When Google rolls out an update to stock Android, the hardware provider must integrate all of their customizations into that new version of Android and they take anywhere from a few months to nearly a year to do it.

Which is one of the big reasons to buy a Nexus phone directly from Google. Although my Nexus 5X was made by LG, the software on it is completely controlled by Google. It's just stock Android plus Google apps (and whatever other apps I've installed). So when Google issues updates to Android, my phone gets them immediately.

In a case where TiVo in the future might partner with retail consumer electronics manufacturers to produce TiVo-powered products, it's hard to say which of those two Android scenarios their situation would be like (or maybe neither).


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

jcthorne said:


> They would need to get the Sony, Samsung, Visio or other mainstream hardware vendor to take over that side. Trouble is, they have had difficulty convincing any of them there is profit in doing so.
> 
> In making small steps in that direction, I think the Bolt is largely an outsourced design and manufacture, but sold by Tivo distribution channels.


The problem is they have had difficulty convincing consumers of the value in purchasing a third party DVR vs renting one from their cable provider.

You want to look back at what tivo could have done differently. Why not ship the unit with whatever cable card is required by your system, and let tivo take care of pairing the card when you activate service. Or have the card shipped separately.

edited to add Tivo tried selling tivo with no money down, paying through a higher monthly fee. It didn't see to work. I suspect Bolt was the last real attempt. Bolt is a unit designed for the non-tivo owners. It's appearance resembles Apple products. A negative to many members of TCF but should have been a positive. I'm not sure what else tivo could have tried.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lew said:


> The problem is they have had difficulty convincing consumers of the value in purchasing a third party DVR vs renting one from their cable provider.
> You want to look back at what tivo could have done differently. Why not ship the unit with whatever cable card is required by your system, and let tivo take care of pairing the card when you activate service. Or have the card shipped separately.
> .


Shipping a TiVo with a paired installed cable card could have never been done except by the MSO itself, it not like you could set up a TiVo in say CA with a pared cable card for Comcast Hartford CT, as the cable card needs to be on your MSO account first.


----------



## wgameplaya (May 5, 2016)

rick123 said:


> http://seekingalpha.com/news/318724...f=51&utoken=f99134804ac6486daee9473a73c316ef#
> 
> Wonder what the community thinks about this issue?
> 
> ...


yeah that's a pretty bad sign (for us at least as consumers).

Business wise- It's fairly understandable- hardware is a horrible business. Even before the merger Tivo sorta had a half hearted pace of innovation on these boxes. they have not changed much in decades.

They should either go 100% into innovation so they can get some share against the likes of roku, apple and others or just get out of the hardware business completely. Based on his comments, sounds like it's the latter.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

rick123 said:


> http://seekingalpha.com/news/318724...f=51&utoken=f99134804ac6486daee9473a73c316ef#
> 
> Wonder what the community thinks about this issue?
> 
> ...


All that would mean is someone else would produce the hardware. And TiVo would produce the software. My first DirecTV TiVos in the early 2000's were this way. I would have no problem with this as long as the box continues to be powered by the TiVo software.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> All that would mean is someone else would produce the hardware. And TiVo would produce the software. My first DirecTV TiVos in the early 2000's were this way. I would have no problem with this as long as the box continues to be powered by the TiVo software.


It would be ironic if TiVo installed their OS on a Funai built box designed by EchoStar supported by Rovi.


----------



## wgameplaya (May 5, 2016)

aaronwt said:


> All that would mean is someone else would produce the hardware. And TiVo would produce the software. My first DirecTV TiVos in the early 2000's were this way. I would have no problem with this as long as the box continues to be powered by the TiVo software.


Someone else already does produce the hardware- the point would be Tivo/Rvi wouldn't make their own hardware. i.e no updated bolts or minis etc.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

wgameplaya said:


> They should either go 100% into innovation so they can get some share against the likes of roku, apple and others or just get out of the hardware business completely.


The problem is I can't see how a company that can't complete simple software projects like "finish HD UI" can innovate anything. Lack of followthrough and half-finished product is the kind of incompetence that makes you bankrupt.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

randian said:


> The problem is I can't see how a company that can't complete simple software projects like "finish HD UI" can innovate anything. Lack of followthrough and half-finished product is the kind of incompetence that makes you bankrupt.


Maybe, by the time 4K broadcasts are common the HDUI will be done? Of course then they will need a UHD UI.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I think the future of TiVo/Rovi in the retail space will boil down to "milk that patent portfolio and license the brand". Maybe it's less likely that we'll see a third party company manufacture a box that's devoted to running all TiVo-designed software -- that would essentially be the same thing we have from TiVo now, it's just that there would also be an additional company brand on the box, e.g. LG, Sharp, RCA, Funai, whatever. 

Instead of that, maybe we see someone add some set of TiVo features/functionality/UI design to a product that does other stuff too. Imagine a Roku box that has an extra option on the main Roku home screen menu labeled "TiVo: Live & Recorded TV". And when launched, it presents something that resembles the UI and main features we're used to seeing on our TiVos, although most of the underlying software code would have been rewritten by Roku to work well on their boxes. Of course, no streaming apps would reside inside the TiVo UI, as those are all out on the main Roku home screen. Roku's universal search feature would search across streaming content from apps as well as live and recorded TV within the TiVo feature.

Or maybe you see a network tuner manufacturer like SiliconDust license the TiVo brand to put out a "TiVo Network DVR" product with included downloads of an accompanying TiVo app for controlling the tuners for major platforms like Apple TV, Roku, etc. Maybe the TiVo app looks like what we're used to on our TiVos or maybe it doesn't so much. But it will rely on features that TiVo developed and patented over the years and its sales would (presumably) benefit from the TiVo brand name. It would be up to the tuner company, not TiVo, to determine the data provider for the guide and how much of an ongoing service fee, if any, to charge.

Or maybe a TV manufacturer, either in the US or abroad, builds basic TiVo functionality into their set so that the onboard OTA tuner can pause and rewind live TV plus record one show at a time, all with lifetime free 7-day guide data. It would be a differentiating sales point for the TV. Maybe more advanced DVR features could be offered as an upsell for an ongoing subscription fee.

Again, I'm not predicting any of the above WILL happen, I'm just saying that those are possible ways that TiVo could monetize their intellectual property in the retail space without creating and selling their own hardware.


----------



## RayChuang88 (Sep 5, 2002)

I wouldn't be surprised if Rovi/TiVo gets someone like Samsung to start building DVR's based on TiVo technology. Imagine a Samsung-branded TiVo DVR box that stores recordings on a high-capacity SSD instead of a hard drive.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

RayChuang88 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Rovi/TiVo gets someone like Samsung to start building DVR's based on TiVo technology. Imagine a Samsung-branded TiVo DVR box that stores recordings on a high-capacity SSD instead of a hard drive.


Eh, maybe. What I'm having difficulty figuring out is how Samsung or anybody else will be able to be that much more successful than TiVo in selling TiVo DVRs and service simply by slapping their own brand name on the box beside the TiVo logo. That said, there is some market for retail OTA DVRs at the right pricepoint and so we'll probably continue to see some kind of TiVo-powered retail product in that space for the foreseeable future. (If nothing else, maybe just let a hardware maker, e.g. Samsung, take the guts of the existing Roamio OTA, put it in a new case with their name on it, and they handle all the marketing and customer service while TiVo supplies the guide data and collects licensing fees.)

I do wonder to what extent, if any, we'll see additional improvements to TiVo's DVR software and service, both for the existing retail devices we now own as well as whatever joint-venture retail devices we may see going forward. We may look back at SkipMode as the last significant innovation we ever saw from TiVo.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

Aren't some of the UK TiVos (current) made by Samsung? Without some sort of technology shift I don't see anyone building branded TiVos. I was always under the impression that TiVos move away from that model wasn't exactly of thier own choosing. If Sony, Samsung, or someone else was itching to build TiVos I doubt TiVo would have turned them away.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

RayChuang88 said:


> Imagine a Samsung-branded TiVo DVR box that stores recordings on a high-capacity SSD instead of a hard drive.


SSDs are a terrible idea for DVRs. I can't imagine Samsung building it in any case.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

randian said:


> SSDs are a terrible idea for DVRs. I can't imagine Samsung building it in any case.


I agree. Only way I could see it is if they incorporate them into TVs, but then a built in mini and separate hub makes more sense.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

One other note I'd add about the CFO's recent comments that kicked off this thread is that it sounds like TiVo definitely plans on pulling back from being fully in charge of any future TiVo-powered retail products (which lines up with what many folks have been saying would happen since the Rovi merger rumor leaked) but that they remain open to/hopeful about the possibility of partnering with outside CE companies to produce future retail products. But how aggressively TiVo may pursue such partnerships and whether there will be any takers for such deals in certainly up in the air. Frankly, it's hard to know how much weight consumers (or stock traders) should put in the CFO's comments about TiVo's future participation in the retail market.

Given that whatever retail products TiVo was planning to release this year were already in the works before the Rovi merger was announced (and given that the merger won't close until 3Q), we may still see one or two purely TiVo-branded retail products this year: a Bolt Pro and/or some kind of non-traditional-DVR box, both of which have been alluded to by TiVo brass over the past several months. That said, TiVo doesn't seem to be shy about scuttling plans for new products at the last minute, as we saw last year with the Bolt Aereo Edition product which never came to light.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> One other note I'd add about the CFO's recent comments that kicked off this thread is that it sounds like TiVo definitely plans on pulling back from being fully in charge of any future TiVo-powered retail products (which lines up with what many folks have been saying would happen since the Rovi merger rumor leaked) but that they remain open to/hopeful about the possibility of partnering with outside CE companies to produce future retail products.


Actually, TiVo has basically been hinting at getting out of the hardware production game for several years. They even let go of many of their hardware engineers last year. So the Rovi acquisition is just bringing more light to this situation and possibly putting it on the fast track. But this is not a new idea for TiVo.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Tivo is suing Samsung so that pretty much shuts that option down.

They've wanted to get out of hardware since they entered it, but CE Co's have all seen the same thing Tivo's seen... a small and shrinking market with expensive hardware sold at a loss, with fingers crossed it's made back in fees that repel most of its potential userbase.

They can make a go of it in retail as a Smart TV UI provider and things like that, but who's really going to take another bite at retail DVRs with even half of Tivo's effort? It's hard to imagine. I HOPE they'll stick with it until then.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Somebody has to make the hardware for MSOs, and that box wouldn't be hard to adapt for retail. The only real news here is that TiVo is distancing themselves from the actual hardware design and production. I'd guess somebody like Pace or some other manufacturer will come out with TiVo retail boxes. A lot of these companies can design and iterate on the hardware far faster than TiVo can, and for far less money.


----------



## i.hardon (Aug 31, 2013)

SullyND said:


> *Aren't some of the UK TiVos (current) made by Samsung? * Without some sort of technology shift I don't see anyone building branded TiVos. I was always under the impression that TiVos move away from that model wasn't exactly of thier own choosing. If Sony, Samsung, or someone else was itching to build TiVos I doubt TiVo would have turned them away.


Virgin Media's TiVos are made by Cisco and Samsung, IIRC, but you won't really see their branding on the front of the box. VM and TiVo logos only.

When TiVo was openly available in the UK (and not on an exclusive basis with one cable company), the boxes were made and branded by Thomson


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

i.hardon said:


> Virgin Media's TiVos are made by Cisco, IIRC


Some, not all.

http://virgintivo.blogspot.com/2011/09/samsung-to-manufacture-future-boxes-for.html?m=1


----------



## i.hardon (Aug 31, 2013)

SullyND said:


> Some, not all.
> 
> http://virgintivo.blogspot.com/2011/09/samsung-to-manufacture-future-boxes-for.html?m=1


Yeah, I edited my post quickly after I initially posted.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Somebody has to make the hardware for MSOs, and that box wouldn't be hard to adapt for retail. The only real news here is that TiVo is distancing themselves from the actual hardware design and production. I'd guess somebody like Pace or some other manufacturer will come out with TiVo retail boxes. A lot of these companies can design and iterate on the hardware far faster than TiVo can, and for far less money.


But which of them want to get into the retail business? I'm thinking more along the lines of Best Buy going with their Insignia housebrand if TiVo were to do some sort of Roku-esque product with a partner.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Tivo is suing Samsung so that pretty much shuts that option down.


Not to mention Samsung has their own OS, their own smart television platform, with home automation hooks, etc. Really nothing in it for them.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

rainwater said:


> even let go of many of their hardware engineers last year.


They probably let go of the hardware design folks and outsourced Bolt - that's pretty standard, quite a few companies have other's design their boxes, including Roku and Slingbox.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

The Magnavox OTA DVRs announced for later this year, though no different than they were when announced with the Rovi name on the program guide, will likely instead have the TiVo brand name on the program guide for marketing purposes (the Rovi entity will no longer exist).


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Somebody has to make the hardware for MSOs, and that box wouldn't be hard to adapt for retail. The only real news here is that TiVo is distancing themselves from the actual hardware design and production. I'd guess somebody like Pace or some other manufacturer will come out with TiVo retail boxes. A lot of these companies can design and iterate on the hardware far faster than TiVo can, and for far less money.


I suspect they already did that with the Bolt. They're going to take it one step further now.

There is no retail hardware business for DVRs. Nobody will come out with a box unless an MSO pays them to do it. The CE mfr will in turn look for an already-developed low-cost software to run it, and that's Tivo.

Remember that the number of tuners, hard drive size, and processing speed will now most likely be chosen by the hardware mfr. and the MSO. Tivo will make recommendations, but it's just supplying the software.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Somebody has to make the hardware for MSOs, and that box wouldn't be hard to adapt for retail. The only real news here is that TiVo is distancing themselves from the actual hardware design and production. I'd guess somebody like Pace or some other manufacturer will come out with TiVo retail boxes. A lot of these companies can design and iterate on the hardware far faster than TiVo can, and for far less money.


Exactly. I am still trying to figure out how the comments were taken as they want to shut down the retail business. They want to shut down hardware manufacturing, which isn't new at all.

Everyone is ignoring the comments that the retail pipeline leads to innovation. The cable company model puts a buffer between TiVo and the customer and the product would get stale very fast.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I think this new eBox from Evolution Digital is interesting and possibly a sign of where TiVo is heading, certainly in regards to MSO boxes but perhaps in regards to retail products as well. The eBox, which has one QAM tuner and no hard drive, uses software and data services from TiVo and Rovi and can sport either a TiVo UI or a FanTV UI. (FanTV, formerly Fanhattan, is a brand owned by Rovi.)

It would seem like TiVo had no input on the hardware design of the eBox and, from what I can gather, *they didn't contribute all of the software stack in the box either*. Evolution Digital already had their own Android-based software platform for STBs to allow for on-demand content, etc. from MSOs. Evolution Digital mentions how the eBox will tie together QAM and IP cable TV with on-demand, cloud DVR, and a range of streaming apps, both authenticated and OTT. Based on all the little app logos they show in their marketing materials (if that's an accurate depiction of the eBox platform), it looks like the eBox can support a lot more streaming apps than the few that are currently on the TiVo platform. I presume this is because it can run Android-based apps. I wonder if all those apps will be supported by the TiVo OnePass system? Does the eBox even have OnePass? To what extent does the TiVo edition of the eBox function like, say, a Bolt? Are the differences between the TiVo edition and the FanTV edition of the eBox simply cosmetic differences in the UI?

I write all this to point out that the future of TiVo may look a lot more like Rovi than like the TiVo we've known up to this point. TiVo may become more about a brand and UI that various boxes incorporate in different ways to help users discover and access the content they want when and where they want, from a range of sources, than what it is now, a particular brand of DVR that looks and works a certain way. And it may be that, a few years from now (if the TiVo brand still exists), it isn't in the sense that there are "TiVo boxes" and "TiVo service" but simply that a box or service somehow has TiVo baked in ("powered by TiVo," "TiVo included," etc.). There would be some recognizable similarities between those boxes but they wouldn't all work the same way or have the same feature set. They could all use different hardware/operating systems/software stacks with certain TiVo UI elements and features (which make use of Rovi data) tacked on top.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

The e-box sounds like an mso's delight. No accessing content without going through their software stack, no doubt no commercial skipping or fast forward as a result, and without a hard drive complete mso control of when you watch because they control expiration.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Everyone is ignoring the comments that the retail pipeline leads to innovation. The cable company model puts a buffer between TiVo and the customer and the product would get stale very fast.


You may be right, although I wonder whether TiVo (once swallowed by Rovi) will choose to remain a consumer-facing company at all. Rovi is pure B2B and that may be the long-term goal for the company post-merger as well. They'll still want to make money on their IP on the retail side if they're able to, but maybe they'll do so only by licensing that IP to B2C CE companies who will handle hardware design, manufacturing, marketing, service, and customer support.

I'm only asking that question. There's not really anything in the CFO's recent comments to support that conclusion. And if they did go purely B2B, something would have to be done with all the current retail TiVo owners. (I guess they could allow monthly TiVo subscribers to pay a one-time fee to upgrade to lifetime guide data and then from that point forward all they do is passively send out Rovi guide data but don't offer any support, bug fixes, new features, etc.)


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Tivo's 425 filing with the SEC might give us some hope. On Jim Denney's slide, these are the projects currently being worked on -- In particular, notice "Next Gen Consumer Product" and "Next Gen UI."


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> The e-box sounds like an mso's delight. No accessing content without going through their software stack, no doubt no commercial skipping or fast forward as a result, and without a hard drive complete mso control of when you watch because they control expiration.


I'm sure they technically could put all those restrictions in place but doing so would be a great way to piss of customers and send many of them running to satellite or OTT services, no?


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

I haven't noticed them caring that much about angering customers. For example, Comcast customers are not eligible for HBO Go like other cable company customers are. Comcast only offers SD for many channels (including sports channels where HD is most necessary) even though there's no extra licensing cost for the HD in most cases. Indeed, they have the smallest HD lineup by far of the major carriers. Both have garnered many complaints, which are pointedly ignored. It's obvious Comcast doesn't consider satellite and OTT meaningful competition or else these complaints would be addressed. Why would they care if people complained about the restrictions I suggested?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> I haven't noticed them caring that much about angering customers. For example, Comcast customers are not eligible for HBO Go like other cable company customers are. Comcast only offers SD for many channels (including sports channels where HD is most necessary) even though there's no extra licensing cost for the HD in most cases. Indeed, they have the smallest HD lineup by far of the major carriers. Both have garnered many complaints, which are pointedly ignored. It's obvious Comcast doesn't consider satellite and OTT meaningful competition or else these complaints would be addressed. Why would they care if people complained about the restrictions I suggested?


They care if people start cancelling in droves. It's one thing not to offer some extras that your competitors do, like HBO Go access on certain devices or certain channels in HD. It's quite another thing to suddenly take away features that your customers have been used to using for years, like the ability to fast forward through commercials on the shows they've recorded. THAT would get people's attention, and not in a good way!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I think this new eBox from Evolution Digital is interesting and possibly a sign of where TiVo is heading, certainly in regards to MSO boxes but perhaps in regards to retail products as well. The eBox, which has one QAM tuner and no hard drive, uses software and data services from TiVo and Rovi and can sport either a TiVo UI or a FanTV UI. (FanTV, formerly Fanhattan, is a brand owned by Rovi.) It would seem like TiVo had no input on the hardware design of the eBox and, from what I can gather, they didn't contribute all of the software stack in the box either. Evolution Digital already had their own Android-based software platform for STBs to allow for on-demand content, etc. from MSOs. Evolution Digital mentions how the eBox will tie together QAM and IP cable TV with on-demand, cloud DVR, and a range of streaming apps, both authenticated and OTT. Based on all the little app logos they show in their marketing materials (if that's an accurate depiction of the eBox platform), it looks like the eBox can support a lot more streaming apps than the few that are currently on the TiVo platform. I presume this is because it can run Android-based apps. I wonder if all those apps will be supported by the TiVo OnePass system? Does the eBox even have OnePass? To what extent does the TiVo edition of the eBox function like, say, a Bolt? Are the differences between the TiVo edition and the FanTV edition of the eBox simply cosmetic differences in the UI? I write all this to point out that the future of TiVo may look a lot more like Rovi than like the TiVo we've known up to this point. TiVo may become more about a brand and UI that various boxes incorporate in different ways to help users discover and access the content they want when and where they want, from a range of sources, than what it is now, a particular brand of DVR that looks and works a certain way. And it may be that, a few years from now (if the TiVo brand still exists), it isn't in the sense that there are "TiVo boxes" and "TiVo service" but simply that a box or service somehow has TiVo baked in ("powered by TiVo," "TiVo included," etc.). There would be some recognizable similarities between those boxes but they wouldn't all work the same way or have the same feature set. They could all use different hardware/operating systems/software stacks with certain TiVo UI elements and features (which make use of Rovi data) tacked on top.


Haha, I knew I was breaking you down and working on you! 



BigJimOutlaw said:


> Tivo's 425 filing with the SEC might give us some hope. On Jim Denney's slide, these are the projects currently being worked on -- In particular, notice "Next Gen Consumer Product" and "Next Gen UI."


I like the part about IPTV Linear and nDVR.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Exactly. I am still trying to figure out how the comments were taken as they want to shut down the retail business. They want to shut down hardware manufacturing, which isn't new at all.
> 
> Everyone is ignoring the comments that the retail pipeline leads to innovation. The cable company model puts a buffer between TiVo and the customer and the product would get stale very fast.


It depends on whether he meant RETAIL hardware or retail HARDWARE.

The problem is that Tivo never wanted to enter the retail HARDWARE business. The Series 1 was made by Philips and Sony, but they didn't stick around for the Series 2. Was that because Tivo wanted too much control, or because there wasn't enough money being made to keep their interest, or both? Either way, Tivo was stuck making the hardware just so they had something to put their software on because nobody else wanted it in their hardware. Fast forward to today, and not much has changed.

On the other hand, Tivo is making money on small and mid-sized MSOs. That's not RETAIL hardware, so I took it to mean that they're exiting the RETAIL hardware business.

When you're looking for the next big set top box from Samsung, Amazon and Google, they already have their own software so I'm not sure how Tivo fits in with them. Maybe Panasonic or Philips again? It's not obvious which hardware mfr. would get into that business if only they had the software.

Finally, exiting the retail market can indeed stifle innovation, but since Tivo hasn't innovated anything in the last 10 years that shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Everyone is ignoring the comments that the retail pipeline leads to innovation.


That use to be the case before IP delivery. IP delivery still isn't a part of any standard and isn't a part of the cablecard/open access rules. So it is really hard at this point for TiVo to really innovate for non-MSO customers. Unless they plan their own IP delivery service themselves, they are going to be shut out supporting cable company users for the next few years at least outside of their MSO deals.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

rainwater said:


> That use to be the case before IP delivery. IP delivery still isn't a part of any standard and isn't a part of the cablecard/open access rules. So it is really hard at this point for TiVo to really innovate for non-MSO customers. Unless they plan their own IP delivery service themselves, they are going to be shut out supporting cable company users for the next few years at least outside of their MSO deals.


Exactly. The FCC's Unlock the Box initiative *could* result in an IP-compatible successor to CableCARD, but if so, it may take a few years to settle out. Without such a standard, TiVo really has no next-gen play on the retail side for consumers who subscribe to cable TV unless they work with specific MSOs to tailor custom solutions so that a TiVo retail device could work with their IP-based services. Although if they got Comcast and Charter to cooperate, that would be over half the cable TV subscribers in the US. But do we really see those giants willingly cooperating with TiVo in that way?

It's much simpler and more straightforward right now to target retail devices at OTT Internet streaming and/or OTA TV. I would guess that's what the "next gen consumer product" on that slide is about.


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

Rovi issues clarification today:

Update (6/6): Rovi has issued a statement regarding Halt's comments. "There has not been any decision to exit the consumer hardware business. One of the options to accelerate our consumer business growth includes continued collaboration with third-party hardware partners, just as Rovi has done for decades and TiVo has done more recently with MSOs."


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

NashGuy said:


> Although if they got Comcast and Charter to cooperate, that would be over half the cable TV subscribers in the US. But do we really see those giants willingly cooperating with TiVo in that way?


Hard to say, for all its faults Comcast is one of the most TiVo-friendly MSOs.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Maybe they'll just sue all other DVR makers once the acquisition is complete and they own the Tivo patents.

Another NPE which tries to get licensing revenues or sues those who won't cut deals.


----------



## keenanSR (Oct 13, 2004)

UCLABB said:


> Rovi issues clarification today:
> 
> Update (6/6): Rovi has issued a statement regarding Halt's comments. "There has not been any decision to exit the consumer hardware business. One of the options to accelerate our consumer business growth includes continued collaboration with third-party hardware partners, just as Rovi has done for decades and TiVo has done more recently with MSOs."


What's missing from that comment is anything about direct to consumer hardware.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

randian said:


> Hard to say, for all its faults Comcast is one of the most TiVo-friendly MSOs.


That's true. They've cooperated with TiVo in providing an OnDemand app. And over a year ago, TiVo said:

_Longer term, we want to transition with the cable industry to a more modern, IP-based cardless security solution. As part of our agreement, Comcast has agreed to work with TiVo on a two-way non-CableCARD security solution that will enable retail devices to access the full Comcast lineup of linear and VOD programming, whether QAM- or IP-delivered._

So maybe that will in fact happen. But I wonder why Comcast and other MSOs are so against the whole Unlock the Box effort -- which would essentially allow consumers to buy retail boxes that access an MSO's full range of video services without having to use the MSO's UI, in effect making the MSO a dumb video pipe -- if Comcast is cool with allowing TiVo to do that. Maybe because if UtB happens, Comcast would get nothing in return for that concession but by choosing to cooperate with TiVo, they can get some kind of payback from them?


----------



## andydumi (Jun 26, 2006)

mrizzo80 said:


> Forming partnerships would be preferable to the alternative (a complete end to retail) but wouldn't a partnership model be somewhat questionable?
> 
> TiVo adds new features and bug fixes on a regular basis. Every 3 to 4 months they roll those out to pretty much every Premiere/Roamio/Bolt DVR with a network connection. What happens when 1 or more vendors are in the mix? Does it move to a system similar to Android devices in the smartphone market where Google releases updates to hardware vendors and each vendor eventually gets around to qualifying the build for their devices and actually pushes the update out to end users?


Pretty much. But at the same time it's better than nothing.

I sure would appreciate being able to pay a bit more/less for features or lack thereof in various rooms in the house. Tivo has been pretty slow and inflexible on the hardware side, so maybe this lets someone come in and do it better.



> So maybe that will in fact happen. But I wonder why Comcast and other MSOs are so against the whole Unlock the Box effort -- which would essentially allow consumers to buy retail boxes that access an MSO's full range of video services without having to use the MSO's UI, in effect making the MSO a dumb video pipe -- if Comcast is cool with allowing TiVo to do that. Maybe because if UtB happens, Comcast would get nothing in return for that concession but by choosing to cooperate with TiVo, they can get some kind of payback from them?


They make tons of money off these boxes. From the "main" DVR ones that go for 10-20 a month to the smaller ones that allow them to enforce a "additional outlet fee" and "HD programming fee".

For example, with a Comcast cable card (free from comcast) and a monthly Tivo $15 fee I get to watch on a Roamio and same stuff on two Minis in the house. Same usage with Comcast hardware would be a minimum of monthly $15 for DVR, $10 for HD and another $20 or so for two additional outlets. $20-40 in savings a month.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> That's true. They've cooperated with TiVo in providing an OnDemand app. And over a year ago, TiVo said:
> 
> _Longer term, we want to transition with the cable industry to a more modern, IP-based cardless security solution. As part of our agreement, Comcast has agreed to work with TiVo on a two-way non-CableCARD security solution that will enable retail devices to access the full Comcast lineup of linear and VOD programming, whether QAM- or IP-delivered._
> 
> So maybe that will in fact happen. But I wonder why Comcast and other MSOs are so against the whole Unlock the Box effort -- which would essentially allow consumers to buy retail boxes that access an MSO's full range of video services without having to use the MSO's UI, in effect making the MSO a dumb video pipe -- if Comcast is cool with allowing TiVo to do that. Maybe because if UtB happens, Comcast would get nothing in return for that concession but by choosing to cooperate with TiVo, they can get some kind of payback from them?


Maybe that's what "TiVo Guard" is that's mentioned on the second page of this eBox spec sheet under "Conditional Access"?

http://m.evolutiondigital.com/acton/attachment/3194/f-00c5/1/-/-/-/-/eBOX_TiVoPowered_SS_160503.pdf


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> Maybe that's what "TiVo Guard" is that's mentioned on the second page of this eBox spec sheet under "Conditional Access"?
> 
> http://m.evolutiondigital.com/acton/attachment/3194/f-00c5/1/-/-/-/-/eBOX_TiVoPowered_SS_160503.pdf


Hmm. Good catch. Yeah, maybe TiVo Guard is an IP/non-hardware-based successor to CableCARD that TiVo has created and is pitching as a ready-to-go solution for MSOs.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Maybe that's what "TiVo Guard" is that's mentioned on the second page of this eBox spec sheet under "Conditional Access"?
> 
> http://m.evolutiondigital.com/acton/attachment/3194/f-00c5/1/-/-/-/-/eBOX_TiVoPowered_SS_160503.pdf


Off-topic, but that "TiVo Preview" on Evolution Digital's site is a nice looking piece of TiVo hardware... :up:


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Hmm. Good catch. Yeah, maybe TiVo Guard is an IP/non-hardware-based successor to CableCARD that TiVo has created and is pitching as a ready-to-go solution for MSOs.


That's some of the things I've been trying to get across since I made that post at avs. There's a lot of little clues and hints like this that have really made me say "hmmmmmm....."



Alan Gordon said:


> Off-topic, but that "TiVo Preview" on Evolution Digital's site is a nice looking piece of TiVo hardware... :up:


That's been out for awhile.


----------



## Alan Gordon (May 15, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> That's been out for awhile.


I had no clue. I just saw it and thought to myself how nice a design it was compared to the Bolt.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Alan Gordon said:


> I had no clue. I just saw it and thought to myself how nice a design it was compared to the Bolt.


I'm pretty sure the TiVo Preview is like the MSO-version of the TiVo Mini, except that it also has a QAM tuner in it. So for the MSO's customers who have a full-fledged TiVo DVR on their main TV, they can install Previews on other sets to act as extenders. And for those customers who don't want to pay extra for DVR service, the Preview can serve as a standalone basic digital cable box that lets them access live TV, VOD, a few apps like YouTube and Pandora that don't threaten the MSO's video business.

https://www.tivo.com/assets/pdfs/business/Generic_SS-2011_Preview.pdf

The new eBox is essentially the next-generation version of that box (built by Evolution Digital, not by Tivo), but more feature-rich in that it also can support a broad range of streaming apps and it can also support IP-based TV services in addition to QAM.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

keenanSR said:


> What's missing from that comment is anything about direct to consumer hardware.


Sigh.


----------



## keenanSR (Oct 13, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> Sigh.


You're assuming the comment "There has not been any decision to exit the consumer hardware business." includes retail TiVo-branded DVRs sold directly to the public? I hope you're right, but I find it curious that he did not state that direct to consumer was something that was going to continue. I see a comment that says working with MSOs will increase, the word "consumer" was used in that context, not as in a retail(Best Buy, etc.) context.

I like my TiVo, I hope they continue to make more, but based on what's happened with TiVo being purchased by Rovi, the personnel moves made just last year and Tivo themselves stating they want to get out of the retail business tells me that that's exactly what they're going to do, which dovetails nicely with a sale to a non-hardware producing patent licensing company like Rovi.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

davezatz said:


> But which of them want to get into the retail business? I'm thinking more along the lines of Best Buy going with their Insignia housebrand if TiVo were to do some sort of Roku-esque product with a partner.


Somebody will. The difference is that TiVo won't have any control over the hardware, they will just license their IP with certain guidelines and rules for the hardware design to OEMs. Somebody will probably make a better, faster, cheaper TiVo in China. The rate of innovation and iteration on the hardware side will probably jump at least an order of magnitude. Hopefully the quality doesn't suffer as a result.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Somebody will. The difference is that TiVo won't have any control over the hardware, they will just license their IP with certain guidelines and rules for the hardware design to OEMs. Somebody will probably make a better, faster, cheaper TiVo in China. The rate of innovation and iteration on the hardware side will probably jump at least an order of magnitude. Hopefully the quality doesn't suffer as a result.


Do you foresee that happening with OTA TiVos, CableCARD TiVos, or both?

I could see it maybe happening on the OTA side, as long as the cost of lifetime service is built into the hardware cost. I think with the current 1TB Roamio OTA, TiVo has conceded that there's not a viable market for OTA DVRs that require an ongoing monthly fee (or at least not a monthly fee as high as TiVo felt was necessary to justify that business line). That said, the pending transition to ATSC 3.0 could throw a bit of a wrench in the OTA DVR business in a couple years.

I *really* doubt that any OEM is going to want to jump into the retail CableCARD DVR business at this point. Would seem like a horrible business move.


----------



## keenanSR (Oct 13, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Do you foresee that happening with OTA TiVos, CableCARD TiVos, or both?
> 
> I could see it maybe happening on the OTA side, as long as the cost of lifetime service is built into the hardware cost. I think with the current 1TB Roamio OTA, TiVo has conceded that there's not a viable market for OTA DVRs that require an ongoing monthly fee (or at least not a monthly fee as high as TiVo felt was necessary to justify that business line). That said, the pending transition to ATSC 3.0 could throw a bit of a wrench in the OTA DVR business in a couple years.
> 
> I *really* doubt that any OEM is going to want to jump into the retail CableCARD DVR business at this point. Would seem like a horrible business move.


I really doubt it as well, of the roughly 110 million TV households I would guess that less than 5%(and I think that's being generous) have retail DVRs, it's an extreme niche market.


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Posted on June 6, 2016

As we move toward bringing Rovi and TiVo together, we continue to evaluate multiple paths to put the award-winning TiVo consumer experience in the hands of users around the world. Recent reports indicated a possible intent to exit portions of the consumer business following the completion of the acquisition. There has not been any decision to exit the consumer hardware business. One of the options to accelerate our consumer business growth includes continued collaboration with third-party hardware partners, just as Rovi has done for decades and TiVo has done more recently with MSOs. Our exploration of options to bring the TiVo experience to consumers in new and different ways should not be construed as a lack of passion or commitment to this important aspect of our business.

The TiVo brand, award-winning user interface and design-centered development approach are all a direct result of a relentless focus on the consumer experience. This consumer-experience focus will continue post-acquisition and remains one of the core reasons for Rovis acquisition of TiVo.

With a dynamic media and entertainment market undergoing rapid transformation, the proliferation of content and technology options have created fragmentation that makes the user experience more important than ever. As we combine the companies, we expect to draw upon our strengths to accelerate the adoption of our integrated solutions, bringing the next generation of entertainment discovery to consumers worldwide.

http://www.rovicorp.com/insights/insights_initiatives-and-agreements/clarification.html


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Do you foresee that happening with OTA TiVos, CableCARD TiVos, or both?


A lot hinges on the FCC decision. CableCard will eventually die because of IPTV taking over from QAM on the cable side. I expect TiVo to no longer work 100% on Comcast within the next year or two due to IPTV channel adds, maybe in 4k, although they probably won't actually take down existing HD QAM channels for 3-5 years.



> I could see it maybe happening on the OTA side, as long as the cost of lifetime service is built into the hardware cost. I think with the current 1TB Roamio OTA, TiVo has conceded that there's not a viable market for OTA DVRs that require an ongoing monthly fee (or at least not a monthly fee as high as TiVo felt was necessary to justify that business line). That said, the pending transition to ATSC 3.0 could throw a bit of a wrench in the OTA DVR business in a couple years.


The OTA market is much more sensitive to a monthly cost, so it will have to include some sort of PLS-like option.



> I *really* doubt that any OEM is going to want to jump into the retail CableCARD DVR business at this point. Would seem like a horrible business move.


I bet somebody will. It may come from the manufacturer who is making them for the MSOs, at that point, it's just a matter of throwing a bigger drive and making a few software tweaks to put out a consumer product. With greater Cox and Comcast support, retail CableCard is a decent market, even if it is still a small niche.


----------



## jmerr74 (Nov 3, 2015)

sbiller said:


> Posted on June 6, 2016
> 
> As we move toward bringing Rovi and TiVo together, we continue to evaluate multiple paths to put the award-winning TiVo consumer experience in the hands of users around the world. Recent reports indicated a possible intent to exit portions of the consumer business following the completion of the acquisition. There has not been any decision to exit the consumer hardware business. One of the options to accelerate our consumer business growth includes continued collaboration with third-party hardware partners, just as Rovi has done for decades and TiVo has done more recently with MSOs. Our exploration of options to bring the TiVo experience to consumers in new and different ways should not be construed as a lack of passion or commitment to this important aspect of our business.
> 
> ...


Thank you. There are a lot of negative comments on here recently. They would have stayed as Rovi if they don't plan to exploit the TiVo brand..., just my humble opinion.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I bet somebody will. It may come from the manufacturer who is making them for the MSOs, at that point, it's just a matter of throwing a bigger drive and making a few software tweaks to put out a consumer product. With greater Cox and Comcast support, retail CableCard is a decent market, even if it is still a small niche.


Seems unlikely to me. If TiVo has been bleeding CableCARD retail subs for years now, why should it be any different for another company retailing those same boxes, particularly now that some MSOs are beginning to transition some of their services to IP? Besides, other than Arris (Pace/Motorola), which really only has a consumer retail presence in cable modems, what cable STB manufacturers have an existing retail presence? Cisco no longer does. Evolution Digital doesn't. I don't think Technicolor does. Anything's possible, of course, but it seems unlikely to me, for more than one reason, that any of the companies that might partner with TiVo to make new MSO STBs (which, going forward, probably wouldn't contain a CableCARD anyhow) would take that box, repurpose it, and sell it as a retail product.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Seems unlikely to me. If TiVo has been bleeding CableCARD retail subs for years now, why should it be any different for another company retailing those same boxes, particularly now that some MSOs are beginning to transition some of their services to IP? Besides, other than Arris (Pace/Motorola), which really only has a consumer retail presence in cable modems, what cable STB manufacturers have an existing retail presence? Cisco no longer does. Evolution Digital doesn't. I don't think Technicolor does. Anything's possible, of course, but it seems unlikely to me, for more than one reason, that any of the companies that might partner with TiVo to make new MSO STBs (which, going forward, probably wouldn't contain a CableCARD anyhow) would take that box, repurpose it, and sell it as a retail product.


What would stop TiVo from contracting a third party company like Evolution Digital, Pace. Arris, Cisco, etc. to make their boxes for them but retail them under the TiVo brand name still? Nothing, that's what. It's what I suspect they already did with the Bolt actually.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> What would stop TiVo from contracting a third party company like Evolution Digital, Pace. Arris, Cisco, etc. to make their boxes for them but retail them under the TiVo brand name still? Nothing, that's what. It's what I suspect they already did with the Bolt actually.


They must have laughed their asses off when they saw the design of the Bolt TiVo wanted them to manufacture.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Haven't they been using contract manufacturers by now?

Problem for Tivo and Rovi is that the third-party market for DVRs which require hundreds in initial outlay is not that great.

Even if Comcast rapes people with their DVR fees, people figure it's better to pay $20-30 more a month than to pay $400 up front and then have to pay Tivo monthly fees on top.

It doesn't matter if Tivo UI is better. Given a choice between coming up with hundreds more or signing a Comcast deal with a "free" X1 DVR, most people are going to do the latter, until they get tired of the high monthly costs.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

sbiller said:


> Posted on June 6, 2016
> 
> As we move toward bringing Rovi and TiVo together, we continue to evaluate multiple paths to put the award-winning TiVo consumer experience in the hands of users around the world. Recent reports indicated a possible intent to exit portions of the consumer business following the completion of the acquisition. There has not been any decision to exit the consumer hardware business. One of the options to accelerate our consumer business growth includes continued collaboration with third-party hardware partners, just as Rovi has done for decades and TiVo has done more recently with MSOs. Our exploration of options to bring the TiVo experience to consumers in new and different ways should not be construed as a lack of passion or commitment to this important aspect of our business.
> 
> ...


No official decisions have been made because the merger is not complete. Unofficially, I'm sure there have been many meetings on this topic. At this point everything is on the table, including exiting the retail business.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

wco81 said:


> Haven't they been using contract manufacturers by now?
> 
> Problem for Tivo and Rovi is that the third-party market for DVRs which require hundreds in initial outlay is not that great.
> 
> ...


Especially since it means the Tivo has you locked into your cable provider and you can't switch to DBS. Many people jump back and forth after their contract is up to get the "new customer" deal.


----------



## Chuck_IV (Jan 1, 2002)

My thoughts on this are that Tivo(Rovi) will get out of the direct to consumer business as soon as they can. They will give the MSO side a shot for a while, while keeping up the existing consumer subs. However, my guess is, unless they can get on board with one of the top 3 cable players(which isn't likely), they will eventually exit that business as well and do what Rovi does best...collect patents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> What would stop TiVo from contracting a third party company like Evolution Digital, Pace. Arris, Cisco, etc. to make their boxes for them but retail them under the TiVo brand name still? Nothing, that's what. It's what I suspect they already did with the Bolt actually.


So you're proposing that's TiVo's possible pull-back from retail hardware as discussed by the CFO is really no change at all but simply a continuation of what's already in place with the Bolt? Come on, now. You're essentially talking about outsourced manufacturing (like Apple uses Foxconn to build their devices). I don't think that's what he meant.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wco81 said:


> Haven't they been using contract manufacturers by now?
> 
> Problem for Tivo and Rovi is that the third-party market for DVRs which require hundreds in initial outlay is not that great.
> 
> ...


Yeah. And while TiVo is probably better than X1 on DVR functionality, my guess is that the X1 is probably better for on-demand, which is a huge part of the marketing push behind that platform. ("The top 100 shows are pre-loaded and ready to watch!") Fortunately, Comcast does have an on-demand app for TiVo but I hear it's not that great.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

If you look at TiVo's fortunes over the last decade it is pretty clear that, as much as we may love having TiVo branded DVRs, their days are numbered. TiVo is on the wrong side of many trends - migration to IP distribution, the preference for on-demand viewing among younger viewers, the end of the Cablecard mandate, the trend away from large set tops in favor of small "stick" like adapters, or built-in functionality in the TV itself.

TiVo had been pursuing one survival strategy: become the DVR/STB supplier to MSOs. Rovi is talking about using their existing relationships with MSOs and CE manufacturers to do with TiVo what they did with on-line programming guides: embed it in the manufacturer's hardware. We may see something like what already exists in other parts of the world...the ability to simply attach a USB storage device to the TV and start recording content. In that world, you won't buy a "TiVo DVR" since the software will be built into your TV. You just add storage of your choice - flash, SSD, or HDD. IT can also be embedded in regular STBs (like the 'eBox'), allowing them to be clients to a cloud or local DVR, if the customer subscribes to such a service.

In a way this is back to the future for TiVo - this was their goal back in the beginning, but the market got away from them. Perhaps they can leverage the Rovi relationships to make it work. But short of moving to where RCN or WOW are the cable providers, it may be the only way any of us will see TiVo UI in a few years.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> So you're proposing that's TiVo's possible pull-back from retail hardware as discussed by the CFO is really no change at all but simply a continuation of what's already in place with the Bolt? Come on, now. You're essentially talking about outsourced manufacturing (like Apple uses Foxconn to build their devices). I don't think that's what he meant.


All I'm saying is that it's possible after you said that no b to b manufacturer would make and sell a retail product. So what I said is that TiVo can contract it all out to one of them (engineering, design, testing, manufacture, packaging, etc.) and retail it themselves, which is possible.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. And while TiVo is probably better than X1 on DVR functionality, my guess is that the X1 is probably better for on-demand, which is a huge part of the marketing push behind that platform. ("The top 100 shows are pre-loaded and ready to watch!") Fortunately, Comcast does have an on-demand app for TiVo but I hear it's not that great.


Menus look like crap.

But I just use the Tivo app. on my iPad to find the show or episode I want to watch and the iPad app. will give you the option of playing from Xfinity VOD and you tap that and it will start playing on your Tivo.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> ......... No, IF we ever see another cable-compatible retail TiVo box roll out post-2016, it won't have a CableCARD in it but will instead have some sort of downloadable security solution. ........





NashGuy said:


> ...which does not require a CableCARD since it's designed for MSOs to deploy to their own customers after the CableCARD mandate expired last December. The eBox is a great representation of where I see TiVo focusing its efforts in the future. But I still don't see there being a retail version of this box as it would require whoever manufactures it to partner with willing MSOs (e.g. Comcast, Charter, Cox) so that it could work with those specific pay TV services. Comcast wants to you consume their TV service via their own X1 interface (whether on their own STBs or via their Xfinity app for Roku, etc.). They don't want you to consume it with TiVo's interface.





HarperVision said:


> It certainly does NOT require them to partner with MSOs to make it work. It offers QAM, IPTV, OTT (Vue, SlingTV, DirecTV Now, VidGo, etc.), streaming apps, can be a whole home DVR client a la' a Mini, has built in security like a DTA (only thing that concerns what you're saying), TiVoGuard (?, whatever that is!), etc.





NashGuy said:


> If the eBox is to be used to access an MSO's services (that is, to communicate with that MSO's servers for live video, cloud DVR, on-demand content, authenticated apps), then, yes, OF COURSE it requires a partnership with the MSO. The eBox is not CableCARD-based. Therefore an MSO is not required to support it. It is designed to be a customized solution for individual MSOs that choose to deploy it.
> 
> Might we see a new TiVo-powered *retail* device in the future that's kinda-sorta similar but accesses only OTT streaming video (and/or OTA TV and/or acts as a TiVo Mini extender)? Sure, we might. But it's not going to be this same eBox and it won't be produced by Evolution Digital.


With this article confirming that it uses DTA (Digital Transport Adaptor) software, as well as the specs saying it has "TiVo Guard", then it doesn't specifically require working with the MSO directly. All they need is to have the compatible DTA firmware/software from the companies that make them for the MSOs (Arris/Motorola and Scientific Atlanta/Cisco).

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/wo...mR1JFbGthME5iaitwSnJ2cXRpMklXNVdXaz0ifQ%3D%3D



> *WOW integrates Evolution Digital's IP-based VOD platform*
> June 7, 2016 | By Daniel Frankel
> 
> ...*The set-tops will use security typically deployed on universal digital transport adapters* and will operate as a standalone HD set-top, a client to a TiVo DVR, or as a client to future cloud-based video services....


Then maybe all that has to happen is the retail eBox would need to be provisioned onto your particular local MSO's headend, just as your cablecard is now before they give it to you for installation, authorization and activation. I'm not sure of the particulars, but is "bring your own box" also part of the FCC's "Unlock the Box" program?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Seems unlikely to me. If TiVo has been bleeding CableCARD retail subs for years now, why should it be any different for another company retailing those same boxes, particularly now that some MSOs are beginning to transition some of their services to IP? Besides, other than Arris (Pace/Motorola), which really only has a consumer retail presence in cable modems, what cable STB manufacturers have an existing retail presence? Cisco no longer does. Evolution Digital doesn't. I don't think Technicolor does. Anything's possible, of course, but it seems unlikely to me, for more than one reason, that any of the companies that might partner with TiVo to make new MSO STBs (which, going forward, probably wouldn't contain a CableCARD anyhow) would take that box, repurpose it, and sell it as a retail product.


I think somebody will make one if there is demand for it. Retail TiVos have a decent margin, and if a company with the R&D resources can make a retail version of an MSO box, it could be a niche profitable product.

Hopefully the FCC will actually go forward with cable box choice, and then for sure we'll see something really interesting from TiVo.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> I think somebody will make one if there is demand for it. Retail TiVos have a decent margin, and if a company with the R&D resources can make a retail version of an MSO box, it could be a niche profitable product.
> 
> Hopefully the FCC will actually go forward with cable box choice, and then for sure we'll see something really interesting from TiVo.


I agree. If someone like ED is already making these and running them off the assembly line and it's not that much different, if at all, from the MSO version then the costs to run a retail version through the line shouldn't be that much at all.

Sure, I don't foresee a manufacturer like Philips who hasn't made a TiVo in many years, to say "Hey, let's design a new consumer retail TiVo DVR with or without cablecard and distribute it through our channels", but for a company like ED, Pace, Samsung, etc. that already makes MSO versions its much easier, especially if contracted by TiVo/Rovi to do so.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> I agree. If someone like ED is already making these and running them off the assembly line and it's not that much different, if at all, from the MSO version then the costs to run a retail version through the line shouldn't be that much at all.
> 
> Sure, I don't foresee a manufacturer like Philips who hasn't made a TiVo in many years, to say "Hey, let's design a new consumer retail TiVo DVR with or without cablecard and distribute it through our channels", but for a company like ED, Pace, Samsung, etc. that already makes MSO versions its much easier, especially if contracted by TiVo/Rovi to do so.


Yeah, I could see something like that happening too. Samsung did sell a retail CableCard cable box a few years ago. If TiVo stopped selling retail CableCard DVRs altogether, someone might step in to fill the void with something.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. And while TiVo is probably better than X1 on DVR functionality, my guess is that the X1 is probably better for on-demand, which is a huge part of the marketing push behind that platform. ("The top 100 shows are pre-loaded and ready to watch!") Fortunately, Comcast does have an on-demand app for TiVo but I hear it's not that great.


Works fine for me. No pretty pictures or menus but that's not an issue for us (we were still happy with our S3's). I usually search for what I need through TiVo's search and play it from there if it's available on XOD rather than launching the XOD application and looking for content.

Scott


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HerronScott said:


> Works fine for me. No pretty pictures or menus but that's not an issue for us (we were still happy with our S3's). I usually search for what I need through TiVo's search and play it from there if it's available on XOD rather than launching the XOD application and looking for content.
> 
> Scott


Yeah, that makes sense if the XOD app is ugly and/or slow, which I think I've read folks say on here. Do you have access to all the Comcast on-demand content on your TiVo that you would have via X1?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Yeah, I could see something like that happening too. Samsung did sell a retail CableCard cable box a few years ago. If TiVo stopped selling retail CableCard DVRs altogether, someone might step in to fill the void with something.


And Tivo would sue them and demand a lot of royalties. The product would be more expensive than a Tivo and do less, and it would flop too.

When Tivo went after all those companies to enforce their IP and ensure their monopoly, they chased everybody else away. They ruined their own market.

Many other companies in that position in the past have not enforced their IP because they needed the market to grow first. Philips never enforced their CD patent, AOL never enforced IM, and Apple never collected royalties on HTML5.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> With this article confirming that it uses DTA (Digital Transport Adaptor) software, as well as the specs saying it has "TiVo Guard", then it doesn't specifically require working with the MSO directly. All they need is to have the compatible DTA firmware/software from the companies that make them for the MSOs (Arris/Motorola and Scientific Atlanta/Cisco).


DTA has so many gray areas in it that you do need to work with the MSO to get it working properly. Verizon FIOS "supports" DTA, and it really only works on a PS3 which is the box they used when they developed DTA.

Bluetooth is the same way. It has many incompatibility problems and glitches to the point where certain devices simply don't work together. They have UnPlugFests every few months which test interoperability.

HTML is also the same way. Every web developer always loads the website using various browsers to ensure it gets rendered correctly. Cell phones are the same way too. When something is an open standard, it works in spite of itself.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that makes sense if the XOD app is ugly and/or slow, which I think I've read folks say on here. Do you have access to all the Comcast on-demand content on your TiVo that you would have via X1?


As far as I know, it's the same content.

Scott


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

BobCamp1 said:


> And Tivo would sue them and demand a lot of royalties. The product would be more expensive than a Tivo and do less, and it would flop too.
> 
> When Tivo went after all those companies to enforce their IP and ensure their monopoly, they chased everybody else away. They ruined their own market.
> 
> Many other companies in that position in the past have not enforced their IP because they needed the market to grow first. Philips never enforced their CD patent, AOL never enforced IM, and Apple never collected royalties on HTML5.


TiVo's patents don't have anything to do with cable cards, didn't put Replay TV out of business or stop them from building a cable card DVR, didn't make Microsoft all but abandon PC DVRs (which had a cable card DVR solution), or have not stopped Channel Master, Tablo, and others from currently building DVRs and had nothing to do with their decisions to not enter the cable card DVR market.

Cable card tech's costs and problems are the main reason other companies are not building cable card STBs or DVRs. Not to mention that DBS & IP TV are currently exempt.

If you truly want a competitive market for third party STBs & DVRs then you should be fighting for the FCC to force a new open STB/DVR standard that covers all forms of pay TV. Because that is the only way we are ever going to get more companies into the Pay TV STB/DVR market.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

BobCamp1 said:


> And Tivo would sue them and demand a lot of royalties. The product would be more expensive than a Tivo and do less, and it would flop too.
> 
> When Tivo went after all those companies to enforce their IP and ensure their monopoly, they chased everybody else away. They ruined their own market.
> 
> Many other companies in that position in the past have not enforced their IP because they needed the market to grow first. Philips never enforced their CD patent, AOL never enforced IM, and Apple never collected royalties on HTML5.


Most of TiVo's DVR patents are nearing the end of their life and their lawsuit gravy train is coming to a stop. Besides, if TiVo wants to get out of hardware and be a software company, they would probably be willing to license their DVR software to other companies that want to try to make a DVR.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Most of TiVo's DVR patents are nearing the end of their life and their lawsuit gravy train is coming to a stop. Besides, if TiVo wants to get out of hardware and be a software company, they would probably be willing to license their DVR software to other companies that want to try to make a DVR.


Of the overall set of patents TiVo has, only a few are expiring soon. Granted, those are the ones that TiVo has used to get licensing fees from various companies. They really have yet to be tested on their newer patents so it remains to be seen if those will be profitable at all.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

BobCamp1 said:


> DTA has so many gray areas in it that you do need to work with the MSO to get it working properly. Verizon FIOS "supports" DTA, and it really only works on a PS3 which is the box they used when they developed DTA. ..........


Hardware DTAs built by the likes of Arris and Cisco are made to be plug and play when provisioned, authorized and paired with their respective headends, just like any other MSO cable box.


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

atmuscarella said:


> If you truly want a competitive market for third party STBs & DVRs then you should be fighting for the FCC to force a new open STB/DVR standard that covers all forms of pay TV. Because that is the only way we are ever going to get more companies into the Pay TV STB/DVR market.


Even if the same party retains the White House, they may replace Wheeler, who was pushing STB choice, as FCC chairman.

So he may only have 6 months left as FCC chairman, not enough time to push through this STB initiative.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> Hardware DTAs built by the likes of Arris and Cisco are made to be plug and play when provisioned, authorized and paired with their respective headends, just like any other MSO cable box.


Look, MSOs won't let you even use the device of your choice (e.g. Roku, Android phone, Apple TV, etc.) to access TV-everywhere apps (e.g. Showtime Anytime) without their permission to do so. (See, for instance, TiVo owners who are angry that Comcast won't let them use the HBO Go app on their TiVo.) And content fed to those TV-everywhere apps isn't even served up from the MSO's servers -- those apps simply need to first check in with the MSO's servers to make sure you have permission to use them as a paying subscriber.

So there's no way in heck that MSOs are going to let ANY device access their main encrypted digital pay TV service without first giving that device permission to do so.

As I've said before, we COULD see retail non-CableCARD TiVo-powered boxes (regardless of whoever the manufacturer/marketer is) come to market that can work with specifically authorized MSOs. But it's going to require that the manufacturer work out individual deals with each MSO. It will be up to the MSO to determine if they want to allow that device to access their services. And simply because they use a very similar version of the box as their own equipment doesn't necessarily mean they'd allow a retail version of the box on their network.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wco81 said:


> Even if the same party retains the White House, they may replace Wheeler, who was pushing STB choice, as FCC chairman.
> 
> So he may only have 6 months left as FCC chairman, not enough time to push through this STB initiative.


Wheelers term doesn't expire until 2018. The terms are five years so they overlap the presidencies. Just like chairmans from many other Federal agencies. So he will be in there for awhile longer unless he steps down from the position.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> Wheelers term doesn't expire until 2018. The terms are five years so they overlap the presidencies. Just like chairmans from many other Federal agencies. So he will be in there for awhile longer unless he steps down from the position.


I've read that there is some kind of unwritten tradition of the FCC Chairman stepping down when a new president is elected, but that Wheeler has implied he won't do it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> I agree. If someone like ED is already making these and running them off the assembly line and it's not that much different, if at all, from the MSO version then the costs to run a retail version through the line shouldn't be that much at all.
> 
> Sure, I don't foresee a manufacturer like Philips who hasn't made a TiVo in many years, to say "Hey, let's design a new consumer retail TiVo DVR with or without cablecard and distribute it through our channels", but for a company like ED, Pace, Samsung, etc. that already makes MSO versions its much easier, especially if contracted by TiVo/Rovi to do so.


Yeah, they could also do something similar to the THR22, although hopefully do a MUCH better job at it with current software, by taking an existing cable box design, loading TiVo software on it, and pairing it up with a peanut.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Look, MSOs won't let you even use the device of your choice (e.g. Roku, Android phone, Apple TV, etc.) to access TV-everywhere apps (e.g. Showtime Anytime) without their permission to do so. (See, for instance, TiVo owners who are angry that Comcast won't let them use the HBO Go app on their TiVo.) And content fed to those TV-everywhere apps isn't even served up from the MSO's servers -- those apps simply need to first check in with the MSO's servers to make sure you have permission to use them as a paying subscriber.
> 
> So there's no way in heck that MSOs are going to let ANY device access their main encrypted digital pay TV service without first giving that device permission to do so.
> 
> As I've said before, we COULD see retail non-CableCARD TiVo-powered boxes (regardless of whoever the manufacturer/marketer is) come to market that can work with specifically authorized MSOs. But it's going to require that the manufacturer work out individual deals with each MSO. It will be up to the MSO to determine if they want to allow that device to access their services. And simply because they use a very similar version of the box as their own equipment doesn't necessarily mean they'd allow a retail version of the box on their network.


That's why I asked if 'Bring your own Box" was part of the FCC's "Unlock the Box" initiative.

Plus, TiVo has a working relationship with the big MSOs like Comcast, and it's most likely increased with their new relationship with Rovi now. This can only help with negotiations with things like these. They do it with cablecards now and something like a DTA is even easier to provision and install than cablecards, as well all know.

Who knows really, maybe to appease the FCC and Wheeler these MSOs would be willing to work with TiVo to allow their new boxes like this to connect to their systems, the same as they do with cablecard now, so they can say "Look FCC, we do work with and allow third party devices on our networks! No need for your Unlock the Box mandate now!"


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Hmmmm, well at least for Comcast, you certainly CAN bring your own box, be it a retail box like TiVo, Ceton or Silicon Dust, or any other manufacturer's box (Arris/Motorola, Cisco/SA, Pace) that is cable labs approved, gotten legally and not stolen from Comcast or any other MSO:

http://customer.xfinity.com/help-and-support/cable-tv/customer-owned-set-top-box



> *Customer-Owned Cable Set-Top Boxes*
> 
> Cable operators purchase set-top boxes from set-top box manufacturers that they then lease to their customers. While these boxes are generally not intended for retail sale to consumers, some of the boxes find their way into the marketplace (lawfully or not) and are sold by resellers to consumers.
> 
> ...


*Here is the Customer Owned Equipment Policy and link*:



> *CUSTOMER OWNED VIDEO EQUIPMENT POLICY*
> 
> Comcast offers a variety of video service packages. Many of these packages include equipment. However, you are not required to use Comcast supplied equipment with your video services. Instead, you may choose to use qualifying equipment that you own.
> 
> ...


http://cdn.comcast.com/~/Media/File...NED_EQUIPMENT_POLICY_revised_6_13_11.pdf?vs=1


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> Plus, TiVo has a working relationship with the big MSOs like Comcast, and it's most likely increased with their new relationship with Rovi now. This can only help with negotiations with things like these.


Well, except that Rovi filed suit against Comcast just over two months ago, saying that their DVRs, including X1, infringe 14 Rovi patents.



HarperVision said:


> Who knows really, maybe to appease the FCC and Wheeler these MSOs would be willing to work with TiVo to allow their new boxes like this to connect to their systems, the same as they do with cablecard now, so they can say "Look FCC, we do work with and allow third party devices on our networks! No need for your Unlock the Box mandate now!"


Yeah, that's a valid point. I tend to think that the reason that Comcast will allow Rokus and Samsung smart TVs access their full range of TV services in place of Comcast-provided STBs starting later this year is for that exact reason. Of course, in the case of those devices, users will simply interact with a Comcast-designed app, so the UI may be pretty much the same as on an X1 box.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> Hmmmm, well at least for Comcast, you certainly CAN bring your own box, be it a retail box like TiVo, Ceton or Silicon Dust, or any other manufacturer's box (Arris/Motorola, Cisco/SA, Pace) that is cable labs approved, gotten legally and not stolen from Comcast or any other MSO:


I think the relevant point is:

Qualifying equipment must meet the following requirements:

(ii) it must be technically compatible with Comcasts cable systems *and approved for use by Comcast*


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I think the relevant point is:
> 
> Qualifying equipment must meet the following requirements:
> 
> (ii) it must be technically compatible with Comcasts cable systems *and approved for use by Comcast*


That just means you have to tell them you have your own STB and give them the numbers off of it so they can make sure it's not stolen and is compatible with the particular headend you're trying to provision it on, as in it's not a Cox box with their software that you're trying to put on a Comcast system. Then they will approve it for use and provision it in their system, just like a modem. If it is a box that takes cablecards then you must get one from them.

I may just look into buying one for cheap (<$50) on eBay, but get the numbers first and check with Comcast for when I'm back in PA getting my daughter setup for college.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> "Look FCC, we do work with and allow third party devices on our networks! No need for your Unlock the Box mandate now!"


Without UtB they can revoke that allowance at any time or make breaking changes to their implementation. I think they also want control over when and how you can store local copies of content, which power they don't have with linear channels, because they want advertising you can't avoid or speed through and the FCC might look askance at that under a UtB mandate.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Bigg said:


> A lot hinges on the FCC decision. CableCard will eventually die because of IPTV taking over from QAM on the cable side. I expect TiVo to no longer work 100% on Comcast within the next year or two due to IPTV channel adds, maybe in 4k, although they probably won't actually take down existing HD QAM channels for 3-5 years.


Tivo and Comcast have been working on a Cablecard successor, so I doubt they will leave Tivo in the lurch on IPTV.

See next to last para here:
http://blog.tivo.com/2015/01/future-of-cablecard/


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Tivo and Comcast have been working on a Cablecard successor, so I doubt they will leave Tivo in the lurch on IPTV


With Rovi suing Comcast and Comcast suing Rovi and TiVo's timewarp patent expiring in 2018 along with their divergent Unlock the Box lobbying... well, I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> TiVo's patents don't have anything to do with cable cards, didn't put Replay TV out of business or stop them from building a cable card DVR, didn't make Microsoft all but abandon PC DVRs (which had a cable card DVR solution), or have not stopped Channel Master, Tablo, and others from currently building DVRs and had nothing to do with their decisions to not enter the cable card DVR market.
> 
> Cable card tech's costs and problems are the main reason other companies are not building cable card STBs or DVRs. Not to mention that DBS & IP TV are currently exempt.
> 
> If you truly want a competitive market for third party STBs & DVRs then you should be fighting for the FCC to force a new open STB/DVR standard that covers all forms of pay TV. Because that is the only way we are ever going to get more companies into the Pay TV STB/DVR market.


Cablecard problems are contributing for sure. And I don't expect people in a Tivo forum will acknowledge that Tivo is part of the problem. But they are.

We only know that companies left the DVR market because it wasn't profitable. Poor Moxi had to charge the same as a Tivo even though they were paying royalties to them. By definition, they couldn't have been making as much money as Tivo. And Tivo wasn't generating much income from the retail DVRs.

Tivo is very aggressively enforcing their IP. AT&T and Microsoft don't appear to be nearly as aggressive enforcing their DVR IP, but they could change their mind. And Tivo is hardly making any money in retail DVRs despite owning a good chunk of the IP and being in the market for over a decade. The cable TV market is slowly shrinking. Half of the companies in this new open standard (the important half) are being dragged kicking and screaming into supporting it. Tivo can't compete with the MSOs' rentals, and no other third-party DVR can compete with Tivo. Even Tivo is making rumblings about exiting the retail DVR market. Those are all huge, gigantic danger signs to avoid that market.

Tablo is an OTA DVR -- they're trying to avoid competing directly with the MSOs and they don't have to deal with all that silly CableCard nonsense. It's not in the same market.

At this point, even an open standard won't help save the cable retail DVR market. Maybe a Fire TV box with built-in decryption could sell, if it were under $50, had $5 or less monthly fees, was insanely easy to install, and fully supported the MSOs VOD library.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

davezatz said:


> With Rovi suing Comcast and Comcast suing Rovi and TiVo's timewarp patent expiring in 2018 along with their divergent Unlock the Box lobbying... well, I wouldn't count on it.


Exactly. For folks who would like to see a future for TiVo cable-compatible retail devices, yes, there are reasons to be hopeful, but I think any honest assessment of the current landscape would lead one to believe that TiVo's future is going to look significantly different than its past. The company is changing with the Rovi merger, the cable TV industry is changing, the regulatory environment is changing, and consumer entertainment preferences are changing.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Exactly. For folks who would like to see a future for TiVo cable-compatible retail devices, yes, there are reasons to be hopeful, but I think any honest assessment of the current landscape would lead one to believe that TiVo's future is going to look significantly different than its past. The company is changing with the Rovi merger, the cable TV industry is changing, the regulatory environment is changing, and consumer entertainment preferences are changing.


Exactly........enter, the eBox!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> Exactly........enter, the eBox!


I'll give you, this, HarperVision, I certainly appreciate your capacity for optimism.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I'll give you, this, HarperVision, I certainly appreciate your capacity for optimism.


That's one word for it.


----------



## janitor53 (Jun 9, 2016)

NashGuy said:


> Exactly. For folks who would like to see a future for TiVo cable-compatible retail devices, yes, there are reasons to be hopeful, but I think any honest assessment of the current landscape would lead one to believe that TiVo's future is going to look significantly different than its past. The company is changing with the Rovi merger, the cable TV industry is changing, the regulatory environment is changing, and consumer entertainment preferences are changing.


totally bummed by this. I just got my first TiVo a couple days ago after using cable or uverse for years and years. I'm not ready for it to end!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Tivo and Comcast have been working on a Cablecard successor, so I doubt they will leave Tivo in the lurch on IPTV.
> 
> See next to last para here:
> http://blog.tivo.com/2015/01/future-of-cablecard/


Comcast and Cox using a semi-proprietary solution would technically get them on those systems, but CableCard is already a subset of the market, since it doesn't do DBS and IPTV, and taking Charter and Verizon off the table as the two other large QAM MSOs would make a small-scale product even more small scale. They really need the FCC solution.



BobCamp1 said:


> At this point, even an open standard won't help save the cable retail DVR market. Maybe a Fire TV box with built-in decryption could sell, if it were under $50, had $5 or less monthly fees, was insanely easy to install, and fully supported the MSOs VOD library.


I disagree. DirecTV is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. They have a huge chunk of the tech-savvy users out there. You also fundamentally need a local DVR for DBS to work, as opposed to cable, which is moving towards a cloud-based model.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I'll give you, this, HarperVision, I certainly appreciate your capacity for optimism.





davezatz said:


> That's one word for it.


You do realize a lot of this is just messing with you and being a smart-azz, right?

I know this only based on small bits of circumstantial evidence and speculation, but I just love researching and digging into these things and if they turn out to be true it's a weird thrill for me. Just ignore me, I'm fine with that too!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Exactly. For folks who would like to see a future for TiVo cable-compatible retail devices, yes, there are reasons to be hopeful, but I think any honest assessment of the current landscape would lead one to believe that TiVo's future is going to look significantly different than its past. The company is changing with the Rovi merger, the cable TV industry is changing, the regulatory environment is changing, and consumer entertainment preferences are changing.


Ya gotta admit, just about everything you mentioned in that quote is covered by the Evolution Digital eBox!


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

But really, when has TiVo not said they wanted out of the hardware business?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

janitor53 said:


> totally bummed by this. I just got my first TiVo a couple days ago after using cable or uverse for years and years. I'm not ready for it to end!


I'd be surprised if you weren't able to use your new TiVo with whatever source you're currently using, either cable or OTA, for at least a few years to come. (If you're using it with Verizon FiOS, that could be a problem IF they switch to all IP in the next year as rumored.) And in a few years, who knows what new options may be available? There's a lot of speculation on here but I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy your new TiVo.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

wizwor said:


> It would be ironic if TiVo installed their OS on a Funai built box designed by EchoStar supported by Rovi.


Not really. Echostar is agnostic (yes, owned by parent Dish Network LLC, but NOT under Dish DBS which is the Dish sat service, also under Dish Network LLC. Dish DBS and Echostar are different, separate companies), and has been trying for years to get with MSO's and ANYBODY willing to license their tech. Echostar does, in fact provide hardware and software for some small MSO's, and Echostar will license "Hopper" tech, as well.

FWIW, Echostar provides Channel Master with hardware and software for its DVR+ product that uses Rovi for EPG data (along with a PSIP option). Channel Master just licenses the product and get its brand on the box. So, there has already been and will continue to be a relationship between Echostar and Rovi. Why? because it is business. But there are other examples of relationships between what many consider competitors, especially due to mergers .


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> I'd be surprised if you weren't able to use your new TiVo with whatever source you're currently using, either cable or OTA, for at least a few years to come. (If you're using it with Verizon FiOS, that could be a problem IF they switch to all IP in the next year as rumored.) And in a few years, who knows what new options may be available? There's a lot of speculation on here but I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy your new TiVo.


Even if Verizon launches IP distribution as rumored, it will take at least a few years to swap out all the old boxes that can't run with IP sources only. So even FiOS users will have at least a few years before QAM is turned off. The IP model will run in parallel with QAM for quite some time.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> Even if Verizon launches IP distribution as rumored, it will take at least a few years to swap out all the old boxes that can't run with IP sources only. So even FiOS users will have at least a few years before QAM is turned off. The IP model will run in parallel with QAM for quite some time.


That may be so but it seems to me that Verizon would be motivated to make the transition complete in far less time than a few years. At least part of the point of switching from QAM to IP is bandwidth savings, right? But during a transition, in which QAM and IP TV are both in use, that would seem to use more total bandwidth than the QAM-only situation they have now.

Are any of their STBs currently in use capable of acting in IP-only mode via a software update, letting the QAM tuners inside just lie dormant? Seems like I've read that some of the FiOS TV boxes in the field can't decode MPEG4/h.264 (much less HEVC/h.265), so I guess those would need to be switched out immediately regardless, as I can't imagine that Verizon would transmit in anything less efficient than h.264 once they switch over to IPTV.


----------



## caughey (May 26, 2007)

http://www.lightreading.com/cable-video/verizon-hd-vod-is-coming/d/d-id/643363


> Wegleitner also said that Verizon is moving toward IPTV and that it has an evolution plan in place that would take "two years minimum" to begin. "It's going to be an all IPTV world within a three- to five-year time frame."


That's from an article in June 2007. I'll stop holding my breath now.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

caughey said:


> http://www.lightreading.com/cable-video/verizon-hd-vod-is-coming/d/d-id/643363
> 
> That's from an article in June 2007. I'll stop holding my breath now.


From a Comcast perspective, I could see this being a PERFECT time for them to be migrating to IPTV, as they are migrating from MPEG2-MPEG4 which would free up a lot of bandwidth for the inevitable duplicating sunset that would be needed).

That said, I have heard nothing about this in Minneapolis, and we just started migrating to MPEG4. What I have heard, and where the engineering/bandwidth priority seems to be at, is increased internet speeds, more HD channels, and DOCSIS 3.1, which all will eat up the extra bandwidth.

That said, it seems that every Comcast box that is being deployed today is capable of both QAM and IPTV, so it could be one of those things where there is a "flash cut" to IP TV (since it would only affect third party boxes at some point).


----------



## Krandor (Jun 10, 2004)

mntvjunkie said:


> From a Comcast perspective, I could see this being a PERFECT time for them to be migrating to IPTV, as they are migrating from MPEG2-MPEG4 which would free up a lot of bandwidth for the inevitable duplicating sunset that would be needed).
> 
> That said, I have heard nothing about this in Minneapolis, and we just started migrating to MPEG4. What I have heard, and where the engineering/bandwidth priority seems to be at, is increased internet speeds, more HD channels, and DOCSIS 3.1, which all will eat up the extra bandwidth.
> 
> That said, it seems that every Comcast box that is being deployed today is capable of both QAM and IPTV, so it could be one of those things where there is a "flash cut" to IP TV (since it would only affect third party boxes at some point).


Or one where they initiall start adding new chanels as IPTV leaving existing ones on QAM and the motivation to get the new channels could pressure people into replacing their boxes. Then once you have enough replaced, then schedule a flash cut.


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

I'm sorry but I don't understand that.

QAM and IP are totally different layers in the transmission process. QAM is a method (a very good one) of sending electrical signals down a cable. IP is a method of encoding data in packets so that the information can be sent/received by the correct station.

So saying QAM will replace IP is like saying IP will replace the coax cable!



Diana Collins said:


> The IP model will run in parallel with QAM for quite some time.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Krandor said:


> Or one where they initiall start adding new chanels as IPTV leaving existing ones on QAM and the motivation to get the new channels could pressure people into replacing their boxes. Then once you have enough replaced, then schedule a flash cut.


Comcast will add new channels, then start cutting existing ones over in blocks, just like analog to digital and MPEG-2 to MEPG-4.

Verizon will just move IP-capable boxes to all-IP, and leave QAM boxes on QAM, as they have two totally separate systems that aren't competing for bandwidth.



Sheffield Steve said:


> I'm sorry but I don't understand that.
> 
> QAM and IP are totally different layers in the transmission process. QAM is a method (a very good one) of sending electrical signals down a cable. IP is a method of encoding data in packets so that the information can be sent/received by the correct station.
> 
> So saying QAM will replace IP is like saying IP will replace the coax cable!


Nitpicky. You know what we're talking about here, and QAM and IP are widely accepted terms in this discussion.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Sheffield Steve said:


> I'm sorry but I don't understand that.
> 
> QAM and IP are totally different layers in the transmission process. QAM is a method (a very good one) of sending electrical signals down a cable. IP is a method of encoding data in packets so that the information can be sent/received by the correct station.
> 
> So saying QAM will replace IP is like saying IP will replace the coax cable!


In general what is being talking about is the tech being used to deliver broadcast Pay TV. As an example AT&T Uverse uses IP TV to deliver their broadcast Pay TV service and FIOS currently uses QAM to deliver theirs.

Verizon has announced they are testing a broadcast Pay TV service that will be delivered via IP TV. Currently there is no requirement for broadcast Pay TV service being delivered via IP TV to support third part STB/DVRs which has some people concerned that when/if Verizon moves from delivering their broadcast Pay TV service from QAM to IP TV that they will not support TiVos.


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

Not really!

I think you are talking about moving cable channels to TVoIP. That has nothing to do with QAM as it will still be used.



Bigg said:


> Nitpicky. You know what we're talking about here, and QAM and IP are widely accepted terms in this discussion.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Sheffield Steve said:


> Not really!
> 
> I think you are talking about moving cable channels to TVoIP. That has nothing to do with QAM as it will still be used.


We are talking about what tech a Pay TV service uses to deliver the broadcast channels. The concern is that Verizon will stop using QAM (traditional digital cable) and convert to a IP TV only service (like AT&T Uverse).


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> We are talking about what tech a Pay TV service uses to deliver the broadcast channels. The concern is that Verizon will stop using QAM (traditional digital cable) and convert to a IP TV only service (like AT&T Uverse).


I'm sure they will. Maximum lockdown is the name of the game, that's why everybody wants to drop QAM and stop every effort to allow open interoperability.


----------



## disturbedfred (Oct 2, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> so i guess " but dont look for us to exit the consumer space." (quote from rovi cfo in article you linked to) to you means they are planning on exiting the consumer space? Who manufactures the hardware is irrelevant, my first tivo was made my humax worked just the same as my second tivo that was made by tivo. I see no issue if tivo doesn't make what ever comes after the bolt.
> 
> Your posts make it pretty clear you really don't care much about linear broadcasts, which by default means you also do not really need a dvr. Regardless of what you would like to believe households not viewing tv via linear broadcasts are a small minority. The vast majority of house holds (something north of 100 million) still consume significant amounts of tv via linear broadcasts and anyone consuming tv via linear broadcasts is a potential dvr costumer.
> 
> ...


db


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Sheffield Steve said:


> I'm sorry but I don't understand that.
> 
> QAM and IP are totally different layers in the transmission process. QAM is a method (a very good one) of sending electrical signals down a cable. IP is a method of encoding data in packets so that the information can be sent/received by the correct station.
> 
> So saying QAM will replace IP is like saying IP will replace the coax cable!


QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) is a way to use an analog carrier (such as radio or light) to transmit digital information. It does not send "electrical signals down a wire" it modulates an electromagnetic frequency. Think of it as a "language" used to transmit information.

IP (more accurately TCP/IP or Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) is a way of preparing data for transmission over any number of different media using a variety of modulations and/or carriers, and addressing the various nodes on a peer to peer network. Think of it as a way to get a message from point A to B.

Both are ways of encoding digital data for transmission over carriers. IP is somewhat higher level than QAM (indeed, IP formatted packets can be transmitted over QAM based networks - it is called DOCIS). However, in conversation here, QAM has become a shortcut for "traditional broadcast" delivery, where all channels are delivered all the time) and "IP" or "IPTV" is shorthand for only delivering the particular channels being watched at the moment, using a particular aspect of IP called "multicast IP".

Hopefully, that clarifies the terminology.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> That may be so but it seems to me that Verizon would be motivated to make the transition complete in far less time than a few years. At least part of the point of switching from QAM to IP is bandwidth savings, right? But during a transition, in which QAM and IP TV are both in use, that would seem to use more total bandwidth than the QAM-only situation they have now. Are any of their STBs currently in use capable of acting in IP-only mode via a software update, letting the QAM tuners inside just lie dormant? Seems like I've read that some of the FiOS TV boxes in the field can't decode MPEG4/h.264 (much less HEVC/h.265), so I guess those would need to be switched out immediately regardless, as I can't imagine that Verizon would transmit in anything less efficient than h.264 once they switch over to IPTV.


They could save a ton of bandwidth far cheaper by cutting SD channels and swapping those boxes out but they didn't.

I wouldn't expect fios to do anything that costs money when they can save their money by taking more time.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> We only know that companies left the DVR market because it wasn't profitable. Poor Moxi had to charge the same as a Tivo even though they were paying royalties to them. By definition, they couldn't have been making as much money as Tivo. And Tivo wasn't generating much income from the retail DVRs. .


I don't recall reading anything about Moxi having to pay royalties or license fees to TiVo? You have a link to information on that?

Scott


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

I appreciate the attempt to clarify things, but clearly you are not an electrical engineer.

A coax cable system uses high frequency* electric current*.

Electromagnetic waves (There is no such thing as electromagnetic frequency) are radio waves, they are not used in a cable system.

QAM is also used for digital transmission and if you are using cable for your internet access you still have QAM, as you will when they switch to TVoIP.

So what I'm getting at, it is INCORRECT to say IP will replace QAM. QAM is here to stay.

p.s. IP is NOT more accurately called TCP/IP, they are two different things, although often used together on the internet. Another popular combination on the internet is UDP/IP. Note: In fact TCP will NOT be used for TVoIP as the error correction it provides is worthless for streaming video or audio.

Hope that helps....



Diana Collins said:


> QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) is a way to use an analog carrier (such as radio or light) to transmit digital information. *It does not send "electrical signals down a wire" it modulates an electromagnetic frequency*. Think of it as a "language" used to transmit information.
> 
> *IP (more accurately TCP/IP *or Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) is a way of preparing data for transmission over any number of different media using a variety of modulations and/or carriers, and addressing the various nodes on a peer to peer network. Think of it as a way to get a message from point A to B.
> 
> ...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Whoa. I think I've opened the pedantic thread. 

&#127773;


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

And yet we wonder why so much information on the internet is incorrect.....



TonyD79 said:


> Whoa. I think I've opened the pedantic thread.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Sheffield Steve said:


> And yet we wonder why so much information on the internet is incorrect.....


You may find this informative. It's a technical white paper from the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers on migrating from QAM-based to IP-based video delivery.

http://www.gainspeed.com/wp-content...rum-Migrating-to-IP-Video_SCTE-2013-Paper.pdf


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Sheffield Steve said:


> I appreciate the attempt to clarify things, but clearly you are not an electrical engineer.
> 
> A coax cable system uses high frequency* electric current*.
> 
> ...





Sheffield Steve said:


> And yet we wonder why so much information on the internet is incorrect.....


We have been talking about Verizon FIOS - which I do not believe is the same as a traditional COAX cable system.

This is a quote from the article linked to above:
Wegleitner also said that Verizon is moving toward IPTV and that it has an evolution plan in place that would take "two years minimum" to begin. "It's going to be an all IPTV world within a three- to five-year time frame."​
Note he said IPTV not TVoIP which depending on who you talk to are not the same thing.

My guess is that most people don't give a crap about exactly how the tech works. What they are concerned with is will they continue to be able to use their TiVos with what ever Verizon is switching too and if not how long will Verizon continue to provide cable card support and QAM linear broadcasts that will work with their TiVos.

My guess is they have at least 3-5 years. After that it depends on what the FCC does and what video compression format Verizon uses when they convert to IPTV linear broadcasts. Without FCC requirements forcing the system open to third party STB/DVRs Verizon will likely become a close system like AT&T Uverse, Dishnetwork, & Direct TV. With FCC requiring the system to be open to third party STB/DVRs perhaps some existing TiVos (my guess only the Bolt) will still be usable with Verizon and an all IPTV system.


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

That's a nice article!

Now I see why the confusion exists. Here QAM is being used interchangeable with "QAM Video" when it's not the same thing. Fair enough I suppose

Again they are not taking about replacing QAM. Any replacements for "QAM Video" will still run on QAM. e.g. DOCSIS 3.1 will use 4096 QAM



NashGuy said:


> You may find this informative. It's a technical white paper from the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers on *migrating from QAM-based to IP-based video delivery*.
> 
> http://www.gainspeed.com/wp-content...rum-Migrating-to-IP-Video_SCTE-2013-Paper.pdf


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

Verizon use QAM on FIOS too.



atmuscarella said:


> We have been talking about Verizon FIOS - which I do not believe is the same as a traditional COAX cable system.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Sheffield Steve said:


> Verizon use QAM on FIOS too.


Well that is kind of self evident as users are worried they will stop using it. With a pure fiber network I assume (but of course don''t know) that they have more options than a traditional cable system. But again the relevant issue is will people be able to continue using their TiVos for an extended period of time or will they be dead in the water at some time in the near future (say less than 5 years).


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

If I get 4-5 more years out of my TiVo I'll be happy. The problem is whether I'll be able to replace it or be stuck with a cableco DVR. In my case that's X1, and they suck compared to a TiVo, not just because they're slow and laggy and the UI makes everything hard to find with many clicks to navigate anywhere, but because they have minimal storage due to Comcast's fixation on VOD. That brings with it mandatory commercial breaks, no fast forward, and limited time to view before they disable old episodes.


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

FIOS and cable are both in the same situation in this regard.

Both use QAM Video and need a set-top box or cablecard to decode the channels.

How long before our current equipment becomes obsolete is anyones guess, although I would expect that a converter box would be come available should it be needed. (just like they have Digital converter boxes for old TV's)



atmuscarella said:


> Well that is kind of self evident as users are worried they will stop using it. With a pure fiber network I assume (but of course don''t know) that they have more options than a traditional cable system. But again the relevant issue is will people be able to continue using their TiVos for an extended period of time or will they be dead in the water at some time in the near future (say less than 5 years).


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Sheffield Steve said:


> FIOS and cable are both in the same situation in this regard.
> 
> Both use QAM Video and need a set-top box or cablecard to decode the channels.
> 
> How long before our current equipment becomes obsolete is anyones guess, although I would expect that a converter box would be come available should it be needed. (just like they have Digital converter boxes for old TV's)


Agreed - But based on info in several articles, Verizon is getting ready to test a pure IPTV delivery system and has stated they expect to be on it within 3-5 years. If that actually happens is to be seen and if other traditional cable providers are also planning on the same thing and just haven't told anyone is also an unknown.

Many on these forums have indicated it is just a matter of time before everyone converts but this is the first time we have a company indicating any time frame, not to mention such a short one, for it to happen.


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

Our Tivo's already have all the hardware they need to receive IP based TV. e.g. They already stream video over the Ethernet port

Thus, to make it work it would only need a change in the Tivo's software.



atmuscarella said:


> Agreed - But based on info in several articles, Verizon is getting ready to test a pure IPTV delivery system and has stated they expect to be on it within 3-5 years. If that actually happens is to be seen and if other traditional cable providers are also planning on the same thing and just haven't told anyone is also an unknown.
> 
> Many on these forums have indicated it is just a matter of time before everyone converts but this is the first time we have a company indicating any time frame, not to mention such a short one, for it to happen.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Sheffield Steve said:


> Our Tivo's already have all the hardware they need to receive IP based TV. e.g. They already stream video over the Ethernet port
> 
> Thus, to make it work it would only need a change in the Tivo's software.


Depends on what video compression they move to with the change. If they just move to H.264 my guess is Series 4 and newer TiVos would work with a software upgrade. If they move to H.265 HEVC then only the Bolt will work.

And of course the above assumes either TiVo somehow makes a deal with each provider for access or the FCC mandates it.

We are in an interesting period right now. Lots of potential changes for both cable and OTA. In 5 years everything could be basically the same or completely different. Unfortunately there are very few hard facts - we know the tech is out there that could change cable & OTA linear broadcasts but from what I can tell there is no way to know if, when, where, or how it will be deployed.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Sheffield Steve said:


> Our Tivo's already have all the hardware they need to receive IP based TV. e.g. They already stream video over the Ethernet port Thus, to make it work it would only need a change in the Tivo's software.





atmuscarella said:


> Depends on what video compression they move to with the change. If they just move to H.264 my guess is Series 4 and newer TiVos would work with a software upgrade. If they move to H.265 HEVC then only the Bolt will work. And of course the above assumes either TiVo somehow makes a deal with each provider for access or the FCC mandates it. We are in an interesting period right now. Lots of potential changes for both cable and OTA. In 5 years everything could be basically the same or completely different. Unfortunately there are very few hard facts - we know the tech is out there that could change cable & OTA linear broadcasts but from what I can tell there is no way to know if, when, where, or how it will be deployed.


I'm pretty sure IPTV being broadcast through a cable system is quite different than streaming it around your house on a local LAN, be it MoCA, powerline or Ethernet.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> I'm pretty sure IPTV being broadcast through a cable system is quite different than streaming it around your house on a local LAN, be it MoCA, powerline or Ethernet.


Which is why I believe we will need FCC mandates for open access (third party STBs/DVRs) for any TiVo to ever work on a IPTV system.

Without the FCC mandate we will likely end up with closed systems like AT&T Uverse, of course the Comcasts of the world will claim they have open systems because they will have apps for third party devices - but I doubt we will like how the apps work and they many never get around to making ones for TiVos.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> Which is why I believe we will need FCC mandates for open access (third party STBs/DVRs) for any TiVo to ever work on a IPTV system.
> 
> Without the FCC mandate we will likely end up with closed systems like AT&T Uverse, of course the Comcasts of the world will claim they have open systems because they will have apps for third party devices - but I doubt we will like how the apps work and they many never get around to making ones for TiVos.


Also as Comcast has been working with TiVo, so a Comcast TiVo solution may come with any Comcast cable change, but for other cable systems ?? TiVos that only worked on a Comcast cable systems would kill the retail TiVo as we know it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Sheffield Steve said:


> Not really!
> 
> I think you are talking about moving cable channels to TVoIP. That has nothing to do with QAM as it will still be used.


IPTV will replace QAM eventually. It is going to happen. It will be a slow transition on cable, as they can't run both at once. FIOS will run both at once for a while, but they have no incentive to shut QAM down, because it's not competing for bandwidth on FIOS, since they run on different wavelengths.



randian said:


> I'm sure they will. Maximum lockdown is the name of the game, that's why everybody wants to drop QAM and stop every effort to allow open interoperability.


They're not re-engineering their entire system to try and kill off a relative handful of TiVo users.

They want to have unlimited channel capacity and not have to maintain a QAM system, or have QAM tuners in things. IPTV also allows faster channel changes, more tuners with less hardware, etc, etc.



atmuscarella said:


> My guess is that most people don't give a crap about exactly how the tech works. What they are concerned with is will they continue to be able to use their TiVos with what ever Verizon is switching too and if not how long will Verizon continue to provide cable card support and QAM linear broadcasts that will work with their TiVos.


On FIOS, it will stay around for a while, since they have basically no incentive to turn it off. It's just that the IPTV system will get more channels, since it has no capacity limitation like the QAM side. On cable, however, as soon as IPTV ramps up, the QAM side will start to lose channels as they are migrated to IPTV-only, and eventually, the entire cable plant will be IP-only with all the bandwidth going to DOCSIS 3.1 for IPTV and HSI delivery.



lessd said:


> Also as Comcast has been working with TiVo, so a Comcast TiVo solution may come with any Comcast cable change, but for other cable systems ?? TiVos that only worked on a Comcast cable systems would kill the retail TiVo as we know it.


Yeah, Comcast and Cox combined are still too small for a retail product. They'd really need at least Charter, and hopefully Altice, Atlantic Broadband, and a few others on board, although Altice and Atlantic Broadband offer their own TiVos, so that's a challenge there too.

Ultimately, the FCC needs to step in and do the mandate so that TiVo can get access to DirecTV in addition to cable, FIOS, and IPTV platforms.


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

Not it's not!

Instead of having your DVR connected to a coax connection it will receive TV via the the Ethernet port

i.e. That's the whole point of moving to using IP. TV, phone, streaming video, sound, www, etc. these will all just data streams to the system.



HarperVision said:


> I'm pretty sure IPTV being broadcast through a cable system is quite different than streaming it around your house on a local LAN, be it MoCA, powerline or Ethernet.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

His point was that there are proprietary streaming methods for cable IPTV delivery due to authentication/encryption/DRM concerns, not the actual flow of UDP packets or the video codec used.

C'mon man, don't be so pedantic. Everyone here knows what is being discussed, we don't need to split hairs. IPTV delivery is NOT a standard. We all agree that Tivo can easily implement whatever protocol is used because it's just software, but the FCC has to help mandate that standard.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I feel TiVo exiting the hardware business would be a bad idea. Every time TiVo has tried to create add "powered by TiVo" software product, it failed spectacularly. Examples of this are the Insignia TiVo TV that was on the market for a few months and Nero's LiquidTV TiVo software for PCs which was also pulled not to long after release.

http://gizmodo.com/5826416/the-insignia-tivo-tv-a-smart-television-that-isnt-dumb
http://www.cnet.com/news/nero-liquid-tv-tivo-for-your-pc/

The only reason the Sony and Pioneer Series 1 TiVo boxes succeeded was that TiVo designed the hardware and I'm pretty sure the only reason they originally had other companies manufacturer the Series 1 is that TiVo didn't have the infrastructure to do it itself.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Sheffield Steve said:


> So what I'm getting at, it is INCORRECT to say IP will replace QAM. QAM is here to stay.


Yet, it makes the point to far more people than to say that the usage of "ITU-T J.83 Annex B" protocol in cable TV systems will be replaced by "ESTU TS 182 027".

fwiw, I don't see why Verizon would immediately phase out their "QAM-based" systems just because they introduce IPTV for wireless systems. I mean they could if they wanted to encourage their customer based to consider other providers, but I would think they'd run the systems in parallel for a reasonable period until it was no longer tenable to support both.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Sheffield Steve said:


> Not it's not!
> 
> Instead of having your DVR connected to a coax connection it will receive TV via the the Ethernet port
> 
> i.e. That's the whole point of moving to using IP. TV, phone, streaming video, sound, www, etc. these will all just data streams to the system.


Most will not use Ethernet, at least not as the primary option. MoCA or HPNA will be used for compatibility with existing wiring. Cable companies are MoCA since it works with existing QAM, and is already in use for WHDVR applications, TiVo, X1, Motorola with iGuide, etc.

Verizon can do QAM and IP indefinitely since they aren't fighting for bandwidth like cable is. Cable cannot practically have channels on both. They have to be one or the other, and for at least a few years, more popular channels will be QAM, with less popular or specialized channels on IP, and the boxes, like X1, will have to be able to handle both without the user knowing which are which. They may already be using IP for cloud DVR and VOD delivery, although I can't really tell.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

jonw747 said:


> I don't see why Verizon would immediately phase out their "QAM-based" systems just because they introduce IPTV for wireless systems.


I've not read anything about IPTV service for wireless systems from Verizon (aside from their Go90 initiative for Verizon Wirless cell phone customers). The full-fledged IPTV service that Verizon is rumored to introduce late this year (based in part on the OnCue technology they bought from Intel's aborted attempt at IPTV) will be over their existing wired infrastructure (and maybe also, at some point, as an OTT service beyond their wired footprint?):

http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/verizon-ip-tv-service-set-top-box-1201754543/


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Sheffield Steve said:


> Not it's not! Instead of having your DVR connected to a coax connection it will receive TV via the the Ethernet port i.e. That's the whole point of moving to using IP. TV, phone, streaming video, sound, www, etc. these will all just data streams to the system.


Yes, see below......



slowbiscuit said:


> His point was that there are proprietary streaming methods for cable IPTV delivery due to authentication/encryption/DRM concerns, not the actual flow of UDP packets or the video codec used. C'mon man, don't be so pedantic. Everyone here knows what is being discussed, we don't need to split hairs. IPTV delivery is NOT a standard. We all agree that Tivo can easily implement whatever protocol is used because it's just software, but the FCC has to help mandate that standard.


Exactly. The passengers in the vehicle may be the same (data), but the mode of transportation is different. That's like saying that satellite and OTA are the same since they each carry MPEG 2 video data.


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

It's the exact opposite to what you are saying. 

The vehicle is the the same (IP) the passengers are different.



HarperVision said:


> Yes, see below......
> Exactly. The passengers in the vehicle may be the same (data), but the mode of transportation is different. That's like saying that satellite and OTA are the same since they each carry MPEG 2 video data.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Sheffield Steve said:


> It's the exact opposite to what you are saying.  The vehicle is the the same (IP) the passengers are different.


Nope, there's different forms of IP delivery. The passengers we are talking about are the video data info (a movie, let's say).

So according to your logic I can take the output data stream of my TiVo Bolt that normally goes to and is designed for my TiVo mini within my LAN and just broadcast it out over a cable headend and it magically gets broadcast out as IPTV??? Puh-leeze! You have to change the delivery method (vehicle) to make this happen.

I really don't know the details or claim to be an expert, but I know enough that it's not as simple as you're claiming. Hopefully someone with some real knowledge chimes in here to set the record straight.


----------



## Sheffield Steve (Jun 11, 2010)

No because that would be like changing the car for a train. Different transport layer that needs a converter.

I'm not claiming any of this is simple, quite the opposite. This all got started because people here were taking QAM going away when they meant QAM Video going away (totally different thing). Then it got onto terminology that was completely wrong. (like posts saying that the cable system uses radio waves)

p.s. I'm done!



HarperVision said:


> So according to your logic I can take the output data stream of my TiVo Bolt that normally goes to and is designed for my TiVo mini within my LAN and just broadcast it out over a cable headend and it magically gets broadcast out as IPTV??? Puh-leeze! You have to change the delivery method (vehicle) to make this happen.
> 
> I really don't know the details or claim to be an expert, but I know enough that it's not as simple as your claiming. Hopefully someone with some real knowledge chimes in here to set the record straight.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steve, is there any chance we could get you to stop top posting (putting your reply on top of the quote you're replying to)? When reading this forum on a mobile device, it's not always apparent that you're replying to someone until you've already read most of the post and start to scroll.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Thank god!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Sheffield Steve said:


> No because that would be like changing the car for a train. Different transport layer that needs a converter.
> 
> I'm not claiming any of this is simple, quite the opposite. This all got started because people here were taking QAM going away when they meant QAM Video going away (totally different thing). Then it got onto terminology that was completely wrong. (like posts saying that the cable system uses radio waves)
> 
> p.s. I'm done!


Exactly, thanks for agreeing with me. 



TonyD79 said:


> Thank god!


Ditto.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

I am reminded of what Winston Churchill is said to have responded when a woman chided him for having dangling participles in his memoir. His response was "Pedantry madam, is something up with which I will not put."


----------



## jmpage2 (Jan 21, 2004)

morac said:


> I feel TiVo exiting the hardware business would be a bad idea. Every time TiVo has tried to create add "powered by TiVo" software product, it failed spectacularly. Examples of this are the Insignia TiVo TV that was on the market for a few months and Nero's LiquidTV TiVo software for PCs which was also pulled not to long after release.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5826416/the-insignia-tivo-tv-a-smart-television-that-isnt-dumb
> http://www.cnet.com/news/nero-liquid-tv-tivo-for-your-pc/
> ...


It doesn't matter if we think it's a bad idea or not. TiVo already didn't want to be in the hardware business (wanted to license to others who provide to cable companies) and Rovi absolutely has zero interest in going into the ugly business of retail consumer electronics.

Having worked for a massive communications equipment provider who made the statement "we want to be a software company" I can 100% guarantee you that this is happening if they are saying the things that they are saying.

The real question is how long it takes to achieve and how long they continue to support the existing hardware.

100% for sure I have purchased the last TiVo I will ever own (Roamio), because when it croaks I will be moving on to something else.

While there are programs I enjoy that are on CATV, I will find some other way to watch them and give Comcast the finger about their $110 a month charge for "silver" cable TV service (no premium channels and not even 1/2 of the higher tier CATV channels).


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Verizon can do QAM and IP indefinitely since they aren't fighting for bandwidth like cable is.


IP yes, QAM no.

FIOS doesn't have a huge pipe for QAM. It is only 10-15% bigger (870 MHz span vs. 750 or 800 MHz for cable). They have a CLEANER pipe for QAM. That's the main secret of fiber. I've heard FIOS uses 256 QAM vs. TWC's 64 QAM, so they can squeeze 60 or so more channels into the same frequency range.

The other benefit FIOS has is that VoD and PPV are IP delivery, unlike cable which has to take away even more channels to support those functions.

Nevertheless, FIOS too has already run out of room. The analog channels are gone, and people have been noticing that a few of the less popular channels have increased compression.

But if all FIOS boxes can already use IP delivery, then why waste time upgrading all the equipment to further expand the frequency range? You would also start running into issues with splitters and existing home wiring. If FIOS were smart, they'd just convert some of the QAM channels over to IP.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I'm still holding out hope that we'll see TiVo release later this year that "not-a-traditional-DVR" retail product that they've mentioned on recent calls. It could be something I'm interested in, depending of course on what it turns out to be. Other than possibly that, though, I don't see myself buying another TiVo at this point.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> ...But if all FIOS boxes can already use IP delivery, then why waste time upgrading all the equipment to further expand the frequency range? ...


Ahhh, that is the key question. We know that Verizon only carries a handful of channels in MPEG4 because only the 7000 series and up boxes can decode MPEG4. It is the large number of 6000 series boxes and DTAs that stalled the announced shift to MPEG4 several years ago. A lot of those boxes are still in the field, so even if they can handle an IP stream, they can only do it in MPEG2.

It is assumed that the Quantum DVRs and IP remotes can handle IP delivery of multiple streams. If so, that's good news for Tivo, since they have a VERY similar architecture to the Roamio Plus and Minis (and assuming the FCC does "unlock the box"). But will the Quantum boxes be able to RECORD multiple IP streams? Is Verizon even going to support DVRs at all under IP delivery?

One last note: Verizon also has the advantage that they don't have to pipe their broadband service through DOCSIS/QAM. All the broadband service is above and below the band used to carry QAM. Theoretically, they could expand to a full 1 GHz QAM band, but I'm told that also has equipment issues.

Oh, and it is true that Verizon uses QAM256.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> I'm still holding out hope that we'll see TiVo release later this year that "not-a-traditional-DVR" retail product that they've mentioned on recent calls. It could be something I'm interested in, depending of course on what it turns out to be. Other than possibly that, though, I don't see myself buying another TiVo at this point.


Oh, you mean the eBox?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

HarperVision said:


> Oh, you mean the eBox?


Why yes, exactly.


----------



## parkcastle (Jan 14, 2016)

I would be concerned about the retail hardware business. I heard from a friend who used to work at TiVo, who said that people are quitting left and right, including management.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

parkcastle said:


> I would be concerned about the retail hardware business. I heard from a friend who used to work at TiVo, who said that people are quitting left and right, including management.


I have an associate, for lack of a better term, who landed a new job and indicated many in that same unit (which will go unnamed) were looking due to work conditions (prior to the merger) and general uncertainty (due to the merger). I can't say if this is representative or not and I assume many losses can be backfilled. But fyi.


----------



## parkcastle (Jan 14, 2016)

davezatz said:


> I have an associate, for lack of a better term, who landed a new job and indicated many in that same unit (which will go unnamed) were looking due to work conditions (prior to the merger) and general uncertainty (due to the merger). I can't say if this is representative or not and I assume many losses can be backfilled. But fyi.


From what I understand, they aren't replacing people, just spreading the additional work amongst the remaining employees.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

parkcastle said:


> From what I understand, they aren't replacing people, just spreading the additional work amongst the remaining employees.


While I can't say for certain, I would assume that depends on unit and responsibility. Although there could be a hold while they wait upon regulatory approval of the merger and we do know some groups will be consolidated (aka "syngery").


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

parkcastle said:


> From what I understand, they aren't replacing people, just spreading the additional work amongst the remaining employees.


Tivo employees marking skip points now have to watch split screen tv to cut costs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> But if all FIOS boxes can already use IP delivery, then why waste time upgrading all the equipment to further expand the frequency range? You would also start running into issues with splitters and existing home wiring. If FIOS were smart, they'd just convert some of the QAM channels over to IP.


I'm not suggesting that they would or could (it's impractical) to extend the frequency range. I'm saying that existing customers could continue to get their existing lineups in MPEG-2 QAM for a long time into the future, while users who want more/newer channels would need to get MPEG-4 IP equipment for a gradual transition.



Diana Collins said:


> One last note: Verizon also has the advantage that they don't have to pipe their broadband service through DOCSIS/QAM. All the broadband service is above and below the band used to carry QAM. Theoretically, they could expand to a full 1 GHz QAM band, but I'm told that also has equipment issues.
> 
> Oh, and it is true that Verizon uses QAM256.


They can't run a 1ghz QAM band with the MoCA C band in the 900mhz range. However, they start off with a lot more bandwidth than cable. Some cable plants are as low as 625mhz, others are the "full" 860mhz, Cox has 1ghz systems. But comparing FIOS to an 860mhz Comcast system, FIOS has 810mhz for linear channels, Comcast has maybe 660mhz after you subtract for VOD, DOCSIS, and CDV. The lower frequency systems are even more challenged, although I'd imagine all of the systems that have to compete with FIOS have been upgraded to 860mhz.


----------



## dantruong (Apr 20, 2014)

Ads: FPT Telecom Tân Phú và FPT Thủ Đức trực thuộc trung tâm giao dịch Fpt 66 Hoàng Diệu 2 chi nhánh FPT HCM quản lý bao gồm các phường Hiệp Bình Chánh, Hiệp Bình Phước, Tam Phú, Tam Bình, Linh Chiểu, Linh Ðông, Linh Tây, Linh Xuân, Linh Trung,
Bình Thọ, Bình Chiểu và Trường Thọ.Hiện nay, FPT tại Thủ Đức đã thực hiện quang hóa lap internet fpt thu duc lap internet fpt tan phu 100% các tuyến đường, tòa nhà, building, chung cư... trong địa bàn

Xem them >>> đăng ký lắp mạng internet fpt Tân Bình

mình quản lý. Do đó, khi khách hàng đăng ký lap internet fpt tan binh lắp mạng fpt bình tân - đăng ký internet fpt bình tân, tp Hồ Chí Minh mặc định sẽ được cung cấp đường truyền cáp quang
tốc độ cao có thể lên đến 80Mbps.Cáp quang FPT Quận Thủ Đức đang có chương trình khuyến mãi lap internet fpt binh tan hấp dẫn dành cho khách hàng đăng ký dịch vụ. Miễn phí
lắp đặt, miễn phí modem Wifi 4 cổng dành cho khách hàng trả trước 12 tháng cước. Giảm cước liên tục 24 tháng.

Có thuyết rằng tên gọi Thủ Đức lap internet fpt tan phu lắp mạng fpt tân phú - đăng ký internet fpt tân phú, tp hồ Chí minh chi tiết >>> lắp mạng fpt tân phú - đăng ký internet fpt tân phú, tp hồ Chí minh là lấytừ tên một vị quan trấn thủ một khu đồi xưa trên khu vực này tên là Đức. Về sau,một thương gia tên Tạ Dương Minh đếnđây lập chợ lap internet fpt binh tan, lấy tên và chức của vị quan trấn thủ tên Đức kia đặt cho chợ Thủ
Đức để tỏ lòng biết ơn. Từ đó có địa danh Thủ Đức.








Tuy nhiên, trong báocáo của phòng Di sản văn hóa thuộc Sở Văn hóa, Thông tin và Du lịch Thành phố Hồ Chí Minhngày10 tháng 10 năm 2010, thì: "...ông Tạ Dương Minh (Tạ Huy), hiệu Thủ Đức, chính là người đã góp lap internet fpt cu chi phần khai khẩn lập ấp
vùng Linh Chiểu xưa và xây dựng ngôi chợ đầu tiên tại đây mang tên hiệu của ông là chợ Thủ Đức".FPT Quận Thủ Đức giáp ranh giữa FPT các quận: FPT Quận 12, FPT Quận 9, FPT Quận 2 và lap internet fpt binh thanh lắp mạng fpt bình thạnh - đăng Ký internet fpt Bình Thạnh giá rẻ và FPT Quận Bình Thạnh.

Một số thông tin liên quan đến mạng fpt Tân Phú:
Rampage IV Black Edition Random shutdown/restart - Page 5
Lắp Mạng Internet FPT Thuỷ Nguyên, Hải Phòng
https://www.kozbeszerzes.gov.hu/web.../-ia-ao-cu-chi-me-cung-tuyet-voi-duoi-long-at
Lắp Mạng Internet FPT Chương Mỹ - Audacity Forum
Lắp Mạng Internet FPT Hoàng Mai - Audacity Forum
Lắp Mạng internet FPT Ba Đình - Audacity Forum
Lắp Mạng Internet FPT Thị Xã Đông Triều, Quảng Ninh - OpenCart Community
Lắp Mạng Internet FPT Hải An, Hải Phòng - OpenCart Community
Lắp Mạng Internet FPT Ngô Quyền, Hải Phòng - OpenCart Community
advice choose any version window should I purchase for Rampage iv
Eclipse Community Forums: C / C++ IDE (CDT) » Question about code std vector In eclipse. | The Eclipse Foundation
Lắp Đặt Camera nam Từ Liêm - MikroTik


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

dantruong said:


> Follow me. Problem for Tivo and Rovi is that the third-party market for DVRs which require hundreds in initial outlay is not that great.


TiVo's indicated they're working on non-DVR things...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dantruong said:


> Follow me. Problem for Tivo and Rovi is that the third-party market for DVRs which require hundreds in initial outlay is not that great.
> 
> Even if Comcast rapes people with their DVR fees, people figure it's better to pay $20-30 more a month than to pay $400 up front and then have to pay Tivo monthly fees on top.
> It doesn't matter if Tivo UI is better.


My current Comcast plan includes a DVR, with no $20 to $30 a month more, but because I have a TiVo I don't take the Comcast DVR and get 1 cable card free and a $2,50 /month credit on my bill, that makes the extra cost of TiVo even greater than your example, and no on-sight repair as I would get with the Comcast DVR. There is no financial advantage for me using TiVo on my Comcast system, don't know about pricing on other MSO systems or plans.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

davezatz said:


> TiVo's indicated they're working on non-DVR things...


Any new info leaked on what that might be? Do you think a new type of retail product is still likely now post-merger?


----------



## UCLABB (May 29, 2012)

lessd said:


> My current Comcast plan includes a DVR, with no $20 to $30 a month more, but because I have a TiVo I don't take the Comcast DVR and get 1 cable card free and a $2,50 /month credit on my bill, that makes the extra cost of TiVo even greater than your example, and no on-sight repair as I would get with the Comcast DVR. There is no financial advantage for me using TiVo on my Comcast system, don't know about pricing on other MSO systems or plans.


With Charter the fees make TiVo viable. A problem I see in the future even if set top boxes were plug and play so as to be easy for the consumer to deal with, all the MSOs would have to do is what Comcast is doing with you, fold the cost of their DVRs into the base price so as to make third party boxes look financially poor for the customer.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

lessd said:


> My current Comcast plan includes a DVR, with no $20 to $30 a month more, but because I have a TiVo I don't take the Comcast DVR and get 1 cable card free and a $2,50 /month credit on my bill, that makes the extra cost of TiVo even greater than your example, and no on-sight repair as I would get with the Comcast DVR. There is no financial advantage for me using TiVo on my Comcast system, don't know about pricing on other MSO systems or plans.


Depends on your viewing habits. We have a total of 7 TVs (one in each of 4 bedrooms, kitchen, family room and rec room). We would be paying Verizon $68 per month additional if we had Quantum DVRs and IP1000s instead Roamio Pros and Minis. We switched from DirecTV and were paying them almost $90 per month for one Genie, 3 dual tuner DVRs, 1 receiver and 2 minis. Between the savings on content we get from Verizon through the triple play, and the reduced hardware rental (just 2 cablecards) we broke even on the 2 Roamio Pros and 5 Minis, all with PLS, in 17 months (that was last November).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

davezatz said:


> TiVo's indicated they're working on non-DVR things...


I still think TiVo's best option would be to try to get in to the content provider business. A service similar to PSVue with the TiVo UI on the cloud DVR. In that case there would be no upfront cost. You'd just use a streaming stick of some sort to access the service. Or if you were OK with the upfront cost you could by an inexpensive OTA only TiVo box which integrated local OTA recordings seamlessly with cloud based recordings from the streaming TV service.

By bundling content with the service fee people would be more open to paying a monthly fee to TiVo. (PSVue is like $30-$40/mo) TiVo could then make money on that and then sell the OTA hardware at an actual profit, instead of having to subsidize it like they're doing now.

The only issue here is all the licensing deals. I'm not sure if TiVo could get enough content to make a service like this work. I know bigger companies have tried and failed, so I'm not sure how well TiVo would fare in this kind of market.


----------



## glugglug (Sep 8, 2010)

BobCamp1 said:


> IP yes, QAM no.
> 
> FIOS doesn't have a huge pipe for QAM. It is only 10-15% bigger (870 MHz span vs. 750 or 800 MHz for cable). They have a CLEANER pipe for QAM. That's the main secret of fiber. I've heard FIOS uses 256 QAM vs. TWC's 64 QAM, so they can squeeze 60 or so more channels into the same frequency range.


Most if not *ALL* cable providers currently use 256QAM, including TWC. Only the channels between 750 and 850MHz which get worse SNR are using 64QAM with them.

FIOS has both a slightly bigger span and doesn't have large *gaps* in that span because cable modems aren't eating a big chunk of it. That chunk gets bigger as new standards are introduced to give cable users more internet bandwidth (and as you mentioned they FIOS doesn' t have QAM bandwidth taken for VoD and PPV). It DOES however, have *80 channels reserved for targeted advertising*, which the rented set top boxes know to switch to during certain commercial breaks. Using a CableCARD tuner and Windows Media Center I see default commercials for places on Staten Island during those breaks even though it is not my location.



> But if all FIOS boxes can already use IP delivery, then why waste time upgrading all the equipment to further expand the frequency range? You would also start running into issues with splitters and existing home wiring. If FIOS were smart, they'd just convert some of the QAM channels over to IP.


MoCA, which the FIOS boxes use for IP, is limited bandwidth. Only users who have upgraded to Quantum have a router supporting MoCA 2.0 to increase that above ~150Mbps total between all devices, and only 75Mbps between any two devices (which in most cases means a limit of 75Mbps between the router and the ONT regardless of your subscription bandwidth limit unless you wire it with ethernet, which installers don't by default), and I suspect even then the set top boxes themselves are probably only 1.0. I remember reading on their site somewhere there was a limit of I think 4 or 5 DVRs before they make you pay extra to have them installed on ethernet instead of MoCA for this reason (the on-demand can saturate the MoCA).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> I still think TiVo's best option would be to try to get in to the content provider business. A service similar to PSVue with the TiVo UI on the cloud DVR. In that case there would be no upfront cost. You'd just use a streaming stick of some sort to access the service. Or if you were OK with the upfront cost you could by an inexpensive OTA only TiVo box which integrated local OTA recordings seamlessly with cloud based recordings from the streaming TV service.
> 
> By bundling content with the service fee people would be more open to paying a monthly fee to TiVo. (PSVue is like $30-$40/mo) TiVo could then make money on that and then sell the OTA hardware at an actual profit, instead of having to subsidize it like they're doing now.
> 
> The only issue here is all the licensing deals. I'm not sure if TiVo could get enough content to make a service like this work. I know bigger companies have tried and failed, so I'm not sure how well TiVo would fare in this kind of market.


Yeah, I don't see anything in what we know about TiVo/Rovi that would lead me to believe that they would attempt or be successful at working out the licensing deals to become a virtual MSO. Perhaps they could partner with an existing service (PS Vue, Vidgo, etc.) and essentially white-label it as their own first-party service embedded in the TiVo UI. Include popular OTT streaming apps (Netflix, etc.) in the hardware but of course refuse to include any competing skinny streaming cable apps (e.g. Sling TV, etc.). I'm sure it could pull in _some_ buyers but I'm still not sure what would really differentiate it in consumers' minds from the likes of Roku, Fire TV, etc., which already offer all that stuff and more. (Yes, it would offer the TiVo UI but outside of us folks on the TCF, does anyone much know or care about that any more?)

That said, I'm still awaiting whatever new hardware offerings TiVo may have for us this year...


----------



## wco81 (Dec 28, 2001)

Tivo's best chance at new sales is getting the installed base to upgrade, not depend on getting new customers.

So at a minimum, they need support for 4K Netflix and Amazon. Of course 4K recording when 4K programming is sent through cable.

Then maybe some incentives like transferring your lifetime at a discount. That would also get a lot of boxes with lifetime out of the secondary market, which might spur more sales of new hardware.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wco81 said:


> Tivo's best chance at new sales is getting the installed base to upgrade, not depend on getting new customers.
> 
> So at a minimum, they need support for 4K Netflix and Amazon. Of course 4K recording when 4K programming is sent through cable.
> 
> Then maybe some incentives like transferring your lifetime at a discount. That would also get a lot of boxes with lifetime out of the secondary market, which might spur more sales of new hardware.


They have to grow. The case for 4k on TiVo is nonexistent. I have a Premiere that's now two generations old, and between the Premiere and my 4k TV with it's built in apps, I have everything I could do on a Bolt.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Bigg said:


> ......., and between the Premiere and my 4k TV with it's built in apps, I have everything I could do on a Bolt.


......only slower!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

HarperVision said:


> ......only slower!


A little, but it's plenty fast enough for what I need.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

This is not TiVo/Rovi related but it is a device related to the TiVo. The Arris/Moxi owners are being notified that after August 12th, that hardware and software support will end and most features on the Moxi units will no longer work as Arris has sold off the Moxi UI to Espial.
The announcement:
http://espial.com/espial-announces-agreement-to-acquire-whole-home-solution-platform-from-arris/

The notice Moxi owners are getting:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/42-hdtv-recorders/1095015-moxi-hd-dvr-226.html#post45838721


> August 5, 2016
> 
> Thank you for your loyalty to Moxi over the past 8 years.
> When we introduced Moxi in 2008, it was a groundbreaking service, and your support for the platform helped us pave the way to newer, more advanced entertainment services. That's why we continued to support the Moxi experience for five years beyond its warranty.
> ...


I hope this news is not in our future but this maybe a storm cloud on the horizon.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Jed1 said:


> This is not TiVo/Rovi related but it is a device related to the TiVo. The Arris/Moxi owners are being notified that after August 12th, that hardware and software support will end and most features on the Moxi units will no longer work as Arris has sold off the Moxi UI to Espial.
> The announcement:
> http://espial.com/espial-announces-agreement-to-acquire-whole-home-solution-platform-from-arris/
> 
> ...


They (Moxi owners) are in about the same position as Series 3 owners, they will get guide data and it will work just fine as a DVR, but not much more. Which isn't all that bad for 8 year old hardware.


----------

