# Google Fiber's DVR vs TiVo



## Joe Siegler (May 10, 2000)

I just found out today that Google will be putting Fiber in my town. I've always said I've wanted that, and that remains the same.

However.. I know it's incompatible with TiVo, so if they came, I'd ahve a big decision to make. I'm currently antenna only, and have gotten along that way for awhile. But I do miss having pay TV.

Makes me wonder what I'll actually do if the day comes where I have the option to pick up Fiber's TV option. I'm a 16 year TiVo vet, so it wouldn't be a light decision.

But has anyone seen stories or links that compare the Google Fiber DVR functionality vs TiVo functionality?

Tkx.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Joe Siegler said:


> I just found out today that Google will be putting Fiber in my town. I've always said I've wanted that, and that remains the same.
> 
> However.. I know it's incompatible with TiVo, so if they came, I'd ahve a big decision to make. I'm currently antenna only, and have gotten along that way for awhile. But I do miss having pay TV.
> 
> ...


If you Google "Google Fiber" there is a lot of information.


----------



## Joe Siegler (May 10, 2000)

JoeKustra said:


> If you Google "Google Fiber" there is a lot of information.


I did that. That's part of the problem. Too much info. Was just looking for a feature set comparison to TiVo.

I found this review of the Fiber DVR, but it's 3.5 years old now. have to imagine it's changed since then.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I know that the Google Fiber DVR uses or is based on the SageTV software that Google acquired. I also know that TV service is somewhat of an afterthought for Google Fiber; they have to offer it in order to compete with cable but it's not something they're that excited about. I've read that their DVR looks and performs a lot like a cableco DVR; no idea how it stacks up against TiVo feature-wise. My guess is that, if you're picky about the sort of power-user options that TiVo offers that other DVRs typically don't, you may be a little disappointed in the Fiber DVR, but that's just a guess. 

However, that isn't to say that Fiber TV isn't good. From what I've read, I think it offers the nation's best-quality (least-compressed) HD among traditional pay TV providers. And they finally added AMC to their channel line-up, so there's that.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Get Google Fiber and then just throw PS Vue on top of it!


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> I've read that their DVR looks and performs a lot like a cableco DVR;


I assume you are joking. Google is constantly rolling out updates to their DVR. It is a much better interface than cable company DVRs. It is also a true whole home DVR solution. No need to have big boxes in each room and the picture quality is very good. You also get built-in Netflix and Google Cast support. I love TiVo, but if/when Google Fiber comes to my area, there would be no doubt I would switch.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Joe Siegler said:


> I just found out today that Google will be putting Fiber in my town. I've always said I've wanted that, and that remains the same.
> 
> However.. I know it's incompatible with TiVo, so if they came, I'd ahve a big decision to make. I'm currently antenna only, and have gotten along that way for awhile. But I do miss having pay TV.
> 
> ...


Where did you hear this? I live in Garland TX too and have not heard anything other than Google is exploring Dallas right now.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

mwhip said:


> Where did you hear this? I live in Garland TX too and have not heard anything other than Google is exploring Dallas right now.


http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/exploring-dallas-for-google-fiber.html

Google announced it today adding Dallas to their list of "potential" cities.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

rainwater said:


> http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/exploring-dallas-for-google-fiber.html
> 
> Google announced it today adding Dallas to their list of "potential" cities.


OK I read that too the OP's post was misleading then.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

rainwater said:


> I assume you are joking.


Nope, not joking.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/5/7339205/google-fiber-cant-fix-cable-tv

_Google Fiber's TV interface is simple, clean, and, for the most part, fluid, but it shares nothing in common with the modern software marvel that is Android Lollipop, nor does it borrow from Google's Material Design language. It doesn't look as refreshing as webOS running on an LG TV, and it doesn't have the dead simplicity of Roku's TV interface. *It looks like a cable box UI*._


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

If you're antenna only anyways, there's no real downside. You could still get Google Fiber and still keep your antenna hooked up and working with your TiVos. You wouldn't have any less service than you have now. After awhile, you can decide whether to keep the TiVos hooked up or not.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Perhaps Google will end up using millimeter wave wireless tech to connect individual homes in the Dallas area (and/or other upcoming cities) to the fiber network. If it works, that could create a much cheaper and faster rollout and allow Google Fiber to truly become a nationwide ISP.

http://bgr.com/2016/06/10/google-fiber-wireless-gigabit-millimeter-wave/

http://www.recode.net/2016/4/14/11586114/access-google-fiber-ceo-interview


----------



## Joe Siegler (May 10, 2000)

mwhip said:


> OK I read that too the OP's post was misleading then.


I don't know if I'd call that "misleading". That implies intent, to me. Overly excited, perhaps. and most of the other cities they operate in are metro areas, not generally the "city" as such.

Still, my original post was about the Fiber DVR vs TiVo. That three year old video I linked to above seems to show most (not all) of the core functionality that I already use in TiVo. We'll see. Plenty of time. 

UPDATE: Google said it's "Dallas Only". Still, I'd like to know about the DVR.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/742779177577897984


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Nope, not joking.
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/5/7339205/google-fiber-cant-fix-cable-tv
> 
> _Google Fiber's TV interface is simple, clean, and, for the most part, fluid, but it shares nothing in common with the modern software marvel that is Android Lollipop, nor does it borrow from Google's Material Design language. It doesn't look as refreshing as webOS running on an LG TV, and it doesn't have the dead simplicity of Roku's TV interface. *It looks like a cable box UI*._


So you are basing that off an old article that is somehow comparing a TV UI to a mobile operating system? The Fiber UI is quite well done. I've used it a few times myself and I would be more than satisfied using it full time. Google is constantly rolling out updates (much more regularly than TiVo) and unlike cable company boxes the whole Fiber system is using modern hardware.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

rainwater said:


> So you are basing that off an old article that is somehow comparing a TV UI to a mobile operating system? The Fiber UI is quite well done. I've used it a few times myself and I would be more than satisfied using it full time. Google is constantly rolling out updates (much more regularly than TiVo) and unlike cable company boxes the whole Fiber system is using modern hardware.


Hey, I prefaced what I originally said with "I read". And it's certainly not like The Verge is some unknown blog; it's a pretty widely read and respected tech site. (And I fail to see why Android, also from Google -- which is an OS for phones, tablets, TV boxes, etc. -- isn't a natural point of comparison for Google Fiber TV's UI.) Seems like I've read similar takes from others re the Fiber TV DVR -- it gets the job done and looks fine but doesn't knock anyone's socks off.

I thought it seemed fairly clear from my original comments that I hadn't myself used Google Fiber TV -- relatively few people have (particularly here on TCF, I'd imagine). Anyhow, no need to get worked up. Glad to hear that you think Fiber TV is great. It's rolling out now here in Nashville. Maybe I'll end up getting it, although I doubt it. I'll probably just go with their internet service...


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

HarperVision said:


> Get Google Fiber and then just throw PS Vue on top of it!


 That is not a dumb idea. Do it with a fire tv and you would own the equipment.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

rainwater said:


> So you are basing that off an old article that is somehow comparing a TV UI to a mobile operating system? The Fiber UI is quite well done. I've used it a few times myself and I would be more than satisfied using it full time. Google is constantly rolling out updates (much more regularly than TiVo) and unlike cable company boxes the whole Fiber system is using modern hardware.


 Till Google gets bored, if they are not that excited about their TV service, I'd be wary and just get the high speed internet.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tenthplanet said:


> Till Google gets bored, if they are not that excited about their TV service, I'd be wary and just get the high speed internet.


If Google's TV service fits someones desire today, not having it because it might someday not meet your desires is foolishness.

I would be jumping for joy if Google or my local telco (Frontier) wanted to put fiber to my house, heck I would be happy if the local cable company (TWC) would just run COAX to my house. People who live where they have multiple good high speed Internet providers and multiple wired pay TV providers should just be very very happy about it.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I would cord cut today but I cannot get Texas Rangers games on MLB because of blackout rules. That is the reason I pay $100 for DirecTV now.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tenthplanet said:


> That is not a dumb idea. Do it with a fire tv and you would own the equipment.


It wasn't intended to be. If they do, definitely use the FireTV box via ethernet. Much more enjoyable experience than the stick or Gen 1 FTV.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

I was going to ask the same question today as Google actually ran fiber interduct through my front yard yesterday. I am happy with my OTA Roamio setup, but I am pessimistic about how long that will serve me with the coming spectrum auction. I prefer to be ahead of the curve, so I don't get stuck with a bunch of obsolete equipment. Plus, my setup has already paid for itself with what I have saved over Cable/Satellite.

My question is how good is the Google Fiber DVR? It is actually hard to find a recent review or current features and specs, as the OP stated. Can it stream programming out of the home, like I can with my Tivo setup? I'll have a gig pipe, so I don't see why it shouldn't be possible.


----------



## theking02 (Jun 5, 2015)

Here are some links to the Android and iOS apps (I do not have Google Fiber, but I too was curious):

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.fiber

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fiber-tv/id613278395


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ncted said:


> Can it stream programming out of the home, like I can with my Tivo setup? I'll have a gig pipe, so I don't see why it shouldn't be possible.


Unless this has changed recently, I don't think you can stream recordings while out-of-home based on what I've read, although you can stream to an unlimited number of devices in-home. I don't think you can even use the Fiber TV app while out-of-home to remotely set up recordings on your DVR at home, which is kind of shocking.

http://www.pcmech.com/article/google-fiber-worth-hype/

For out-of-home TV viewing, Google Fiber seems to be pushing "TV Everywhere" streaming apps.

https://support.google.com/fiber/answer/3399766?hl=en

Here's some info on what I think is still the current-gen hardware for Fiber TV.

https://www.engadget.com/2014/12/03/google-fibers-new-gear-lets-you-watch-more-shows-on-more-tvs/


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> If Google's TV service fits someones desire today, not having it because it might someday not meet your desires is foolishness.


Rather depends how big of a backlog of recordings you build up. Switching services/DVRs is pretty big event for my family, and one of the reasons I made the switch to TiVo was its support for transferring (at least some) of the shows and/or the potential to swap cable cards and switch service providers.

It's hard to judge Google's attention span for any venture beyond their core search engine and Android OS. Those of us who bought in to "Google TV" were simply abandoned when Google decided it was easier for them to move forward with new ideas on new hardware then support an old idea on old hardware.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

jonw747 said:


> Rather depends how big of a backlog of recordings you build up. Switching services/DVRs is pretty big event for my family, and one of the reasons I made the switch to TiVo was its support for transferring (at least some) of the shows and/or the potential to swap cable cards and switch service providers.


Yes being able to switch providers and retain your content is certainly important and another reason to support the FCC in opening up all Pay TV services to third party STBs/DVRs



jonw747 said:


> It's hard to judge Google's attention span for any venture beyond their core search engine and Android OS. Those of us who bought in to "Google TV" were simply abandoned when Google decided it was easier for them to move forward with new ideas on new hardware then support an old idea on old hardware.


Yes I had/have one of those Logitech Revue Google TV boxes, never really did much for me and ended up being pretty worthless.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Google is the only provider in the US that doesn't re-compress the video. Even DirecTV and FIOS, which are considered the best in the industry, re-compress and transcode channels to work with their systems. Google Fiber also offers a whole-home wifi system that uses an Ethernet or MoCA backbone shared with their TV service to function.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Google is the only provider in the US that doesn't re-compress the video. Even DirecTV and FIOS, which are considered the best in the industry, re-compress and transcode channels to work with their systems. Google Fiber also offers a whole-home wifi system that uses an Ethernet or MoCA backbone shared with their TV service to function.


The lack of re-compression definitely is a prime factor for me as I have gotten used to OTA PQ. The wi-fi piece is less important as I already have a good 802.11ac system which provides excellent reception throughout my house, but for many people I can see that being a huge selling point.


----------



## tMcDiddy (Feb 24, 2012)

I have had Google Fiber/TV for a year now and my primary TV viewing is with my Tivo and cable. Yes I still pay for cable along with Google TV. One reason is because of the number of TVs in my house, they now all have a DVR attached to them. 

If it wasn't for sports, I would probably just go OTA on Tivo. Because with the fiber speed and pyTivo I find a lot of my content online and feed it to the Tivo.

The Google DVR is slow to respond to the remote. But it is configurable to adjust both the skip back and skip forward buttons to a variety of seconds. Plus the buffer seems alot more than Tivo's 30 minutes.

The guide and navigation bar on Google is just awful, they are way to small to easily see from across the room.

Couple of pluses for Google would be recording of 8 shows. All of the shows are stored on the storage box and therefore available to any/all of the TV boxes in the house. And the latest software update allows for casting your Android or desktop to the TV.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

tMcDiddy said:


> I have had Google Fiber/TV for a year now and my primary TV viewing is with my Tivo and cable. Yes I still pay for cable along with Google TV. One reason is because of the number of TVs in my house, they now all have a DVR attached to them.
> 
> If it wasn't for sports, I would probably just go OTA on Tivo. Because with the fiber speed and pyTivo I find a lot of my content online and feed it to the Tivo.
> 
> ...


Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but thanks for the info. I suspect my best bet will be to stick with Tivo until the OTA shakeup means I'd have to replace equipment or lose channels (which seems more likely). Perhaps at that point GF TV will have improved enough to be worth it, or I could do PS Vue or something similar.

Worst case, I could switch back to Dish. At least they have commercial skipping and offline viewing on a mobile device, which these days are the killer features for my wife and me with Tivo.


----------



## tMcDiddy (Feb 24, 2012)

ncted said:


> Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but thanks for the info. .


It's just that Tivo has set the bar to high for any/all other DVRs out there. We have all been spoiled over the years with Tivo.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Yes being able to switch providers and retain your content is certainly important and another reason to support the FCC in opening up all Pay TV services to third party STBs/DVRs
> 
> Yes I had/have one of those Logitech Revue Google TV boxes, never really did much for me and ended up being pretty worthless.


 And even with software, how long before Android TV is set to the Google TV scrap heap. I give it 3 to 5 five years then gone.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

tenthplanet said:


> And even with software, how long before Android TV is set to the Google TV scrap heap. I give it 3 to 5 five years then gone.


Highly unlikely given how many tvs are now running Android TV including all Sony smart tvs.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

rainwater said:


> Highly unlikely given how many tvs are now running Android TV including all Sony smart tvs.


Yep. The CEO of Roku recently said in an interview that he thinks smart TVs will pretty much all eventually be running either Roku or Android TV. And given that Android TV is nothing more than Android (the world's most popular mobile OS by far) with a leanback UI, it would seem to be a far better bet for staying power than Google TV was.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

tMcDiddy said:


> It's just that Tivo has set the bar to high for any/all other DVRs out there. We have all been spoiled over the years with Tivo.


So true. I have TiVos, and a DirecTV Genie. The Genie is actually a very good DVR, but when I use the TiVo I realize how much better it is. The trickplay features are in a different league.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

After reading the Google Fiber TV support forums, I do not believe their DVR is a suitable replacement for a Roamio or a Bolt. It still sounds very much like a work in progress. Maybe they will get there eventually, but it sounds like there are still a lot of bugs, and it is missing a lot of features I rely on.

I'd be more inclined to try something like PS Vue.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Yep. The CEO of Roku recently said in an interview that he thinks smart TVs will pretty much all eventually be running either Roku or Android TV. And given that Android TV is nothing more than Android (the world's most popular mobile OS by far) with a leanback UI, it would seem to be a far better bet for staying power than Google TV was.


 What happens when they don't update the software, like on the phones. I will not root a TV. Roku will outlive Android TV, software in a TV is dead-end.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tenthplanet said:


> What happens when they don't update the software, like on the phones. I will not root a TV. Roku will outlive Android TV, software in a TV is dead-end.


I agree. I expect my TVs to last 10+ years, I am glad my current TV is a dumb - less to go wrong. Streaming devices are the best way to go as they can cheaply be replaced ever few years.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> What happens when they don't update the software, like on the phones. I will not root a TV. Roku will outlive Android TV, software in a TV is dead-end.


Android TV IS Android. It's the same codebase. They're not two different OSes in the way that iOS and tvOS are.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> Android TV IS Android. It's the same codebase. They're not two different OSes in the way that iOS and tvOS are.


 Same problem as the phones, pushing out updates to the OS. Substitute TV manufacturer in place of phone maker same problem. If Google had total control
of the situation we would be OK, but that horse left the chute long ago.


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

I don't know how much of the SageTV dvr is evident in Google Fibre (I hear it's called SageTV 8 I think), but I'm still using SageTV 7, which stopped getting support in 2010 when Google bought them, and it's still my most elaborate, functional DVR.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

Asking how good another DVR is on a Tivo enthusiast forum is like asking about the new Chevys on a Ford board. You answers are all going to be "Not nearly good enough for me!"


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tenthplanet said:


> Same problem as the phones, pushing out updates to the OS. Substitute TV manufacturer in place of phone maker same problem. If Google had total control
> of the situation we would be OK, but that horse left the chute long ago.


Except with Nexus devices, like my Nexus 5X phone or the Nexus Player Android TV box. Those are Google-branded devices and Google pushes out the software updates for them directly.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Android TV IS Android. It's the same codebase. They're not two different OSes in the way that iOS and tvOS are.





NashGuy said:


> Except with Nexus devices, like my Nexus 5X phone or the Nexus Player Android TV box. Those are Google-branded devices and Google pushes out the software updates for them directly.


Unless people are planning on replacing their TV ever few years Android based TVs will live a large portion of their life without updates. My guess is the hardware may be up-gradable for a max of 3-5 years if the manufacture chooses to push out updates but that is about it. My further guess is that most TVs will not get updates beyond a few years and some will not even get any. People will be much better off just buying a new stick/box every 3+/- years and will end up doing that anyway at some point in the life of most TVs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> I agree. I expect my TVs to last 10+ years, I am glad my current TV is a dumb - less to go wrong. Streaming devices are the best way to go as they can cheaply be replaced ever few years.


That's a nonsense argument. If Samsung doesn't update my Smart TV, I can always get a Roku or FireTV or something else external later. At least I have something for now, it will always be an HDMI display that can take a 2160p signal and throw it up on the screen.



mschnebly said:


> Asking how good another DVR is on a Tivo enthusiast forum is like asking about the new Chevys on a Ford board. You answers are all going to be "Not nearly good enough for me!"


To a certain extent. A lot of cable companies are extremely lacking in the content and picture quality departments. DirecTV has the most content and very good picture quality, Google Fiber has the best picture quality you can have, since they don't re-compress. Therefore, a discussion of whether TiVo is worth it over those DVRs with better TV services behind them is a valid discussion. Of course Google Fiber is only available in a few places, DirecTV is pretty much the same nationwide except for local channels and RSNs, and cable varies all over the place from crappy systems with limited HD lineups and very bad compression to Verizon FIOS.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Unless people are planning on replacing their TV ever few years Android based TVs will live a large portion of their life without updates.


Perhaps but for now they are all still getting updates for now. And currently there is a grand total of ZERO set top boxes that do HDR on Netflix (the Shield TV is getting it soon). The same is true for several other 4K services (features are missing on set top boxes). So for now if you want 4K content, using a Smart TV (especially one with Android TV) is still a better option. Nothing is stopping you from getting a set top box later if support slacks.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Thanks! I think you covered the big questions.

My biggest concerns are sluggishness, timer reliability, and random reboots, both of which are common in the support forums. I can get that from TWC!

Based on your description of the PQ, I think I might be better off never experiencing it. I am happy with OTA and streaming for now -- until the FCC screws it up anyway.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

That's a tough call. It's like the better your DVR, the worse your TV service. TiVo is the best, but cable sucks, DirecTV is pretty good with both, but not the best, and GF has an insanely awesome TV service with a sucky DVR.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Bigg said:


> That's a tough call. It's like the better your DVR, the worse your TV service. TiVo is the best, but cable sucks, DirecTV is pretty good with both, but not the best, and GF has an insanely awesome TV service with a sucky DVR.


It does seem like the two are mutually exclusive. Another issue is price. Cable and GFTV (and Dish for that matter) are much less expensive than DirecTV for the same programming, but D* seems like it is the sweet spot otherwise.

I am tempted to try PS Vue, just to see what it is like. I probably wouldn't actually switch yet as my locals are not available yet, so only ABC, NBC, FOX on-demand.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncted said:


> It does seem like the two are mutually exclusive. Another issue is price. Cable and GFTV (and Dish for that matter) are much less expensive than DirecTV for the same programming, but D* seems like it is the sweet spot otherwise.
> 
> I am tempted to try PS Vue, just to see what it is like. I probably wouldn't actually switch yet as my locals are not available yet, so only ABC, NBC, FOX on-demand.


Yeah, DirecTV might be price competitive if you're in an area where you can bundle AT&T VDSL. If not, it's way more expensive. D* also has more channels, and more HD than most cable systems. Not sure how it compares to GFTV though.

DISH can't bundle with anyone for internet, they don't have the premium service that DirecTV does, and they are missing tons of channels, at least here in the greater NYC area. I don't understand what the value proposition for DISH is unless you don't have cable, which is a small percentage of the US population.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nirvanayoda said:


> I agree with you on Dish. Not only is it missing channels, it also has poor quality HD as well.
> 
> GFTV is pretty close to DTV in number of channels and it actually beats DTV in number of HD channels (although, to be fair, most of the edge comes from the "West" premium channels that DTV carries in SD). GF is missing a few sports channels but carries a few that DTV doesn't, including P12 network and ESPN Goal Line.
> 
> ...


Yeah, DISH's HD is as bad as Comcast. At least Comcast is cheap with a bundle and you get a TiVo.

Wow, I didn't realize they had that good of a lineup. Pac12 is an oddball, otherwise, DirecTV is very focused on sports, and has most sports completely covered in HD, unlike many cable systems.

Yeah, DirecTV has really been the leader on 4k, but they also have a nationwide footprint, so they can reach out to early adopters across the county.

Where I am we have two awful cable companies and Frontier VDSL/IPTV. I have Comcast, but when I settle down somewhere and buy a house, my TiVo will probably get retired in favor of a DirecTV Genie and maybe a Roamio or Bolt for OTA. HD picture quality and getting all my basketball games in HD is more important than TiVo for me, even though I love TiVo.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Hmm, I didn't find DISH's HD PQ to be bad at all when I was a subscriber a few years ago. I had it at the same time my parents had Comcast (both of us using ~50 inch TVs) and DISH definitely looked superior to me. On both DISH and DirecTV, I noticed that some HD channels/shows looked better/less compressed than others on both services, although the quality range extended higher on DirecTV. I'd give the edge in average HD PQ to DirecTV but the difference is fairly subtle, IMO, not a big leap like the difference between cable and Blu-ray.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

Not sure about Comcast, but Dish had better PQ than TWC for me, but not close to Directv. I could bundle Dish with Frontier VDSL2, but I definitely want GF Internet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

nirvanayoda said:


> That may actually be the case -- Dish may look great. I'll admit I've never actually seen it running on a reference display, much less on a reference display back to back with another provider. My comments were based on reports that Dish streams 1440x1080(i) instead of 1920x1080(i). It's possible, though, that their algorithms provide enough detail to look very good.
> 
> That brings up a very good point here, though. Comparisons between providers should really only be done after viewing them on a reference display. The reality is that an awesome TV (such as an OLED) can make terrible feeds look better than otherwise just as a poor quality TV can make them look worse.
> 
> In light of that, for the record, my reference display for DirecTV, Google Fiber, and TWC comparisons is a Sony 85x950b (http://www.sony.com/electronics/televisions/xbr-x950b-series). My reference display for DirecTV, Google Fiber, and Comcast comparisons is a Pioneer Kuro 6020FD (http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Plasma/PDP-6020FD).


I had Dish with a professionally calibrated Samsung PN64E7000 (2012 Plasma). There were aspects of the PQ that were quite good. However, compression artifacts were evident in fast motion, and it looked a bit soft, like a lens effect from Star Trek:TOS.

TWC in comparison just generally stank. I also had TWC with the same Samsung as well as a calibrated Samsung LN55C750 (2010 CCFL LCD), which is what I had with DirecTV.

My Roamio OTA used to be connected to the Sammy Plasma before it died. Now it is connected to a calibrated Sony XBR70X850B (2015 LED LCD). OTA clearly looks the best. That said, my wife is going to care more about how easy the GF DVR is to use than how accurate the picture is.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Well, I should say that my opinions on PQ are merely my impressions, or recollections. I certainly didn't do any rigorous testing and I never had DISH and DirecTV at the same time. In fact, I had U-verse for one year in between. (U-verse easily had the worst/most compressed PQ of any providers I've ever used.) Also, it's been over three years since I last had DISH, so maybe PQ has degraded a bit since then? Anyhow, I concur with the general online consensus that DirecTV has better PQ but, if I were thinking about going back to satellite, I don't think the difference is great enough that it would be a deciding factor for me in choosing between the two services. I'd be more swayed by channel line-ups, pricing and DVR quality/features.

I may have to stop in the newly-opened local Google Fiber store just to lay eyes on their TV service. From everything I've read about it, I'm sure HD PQ doesn't get any better for live pay TV service.


----------



## ncted (May 13, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Well, I should say that my opinions on PQ are merely my impressions, or recollections. I certainly didn't do any rigorous testing and I never had DISH and DirecTV at the same time. In fact, I had U-verse for one year in between. (U-verse easily had the worst/most compressed PQ of any providers I've ever used.) Also, it's been over three years since I last had DISH, so maybe PQ has degraded a bit since then? Anyhow, I concur with the general online consensus that DirecTV has better PQ but, if I were thinking about going back to satellite, I don't think the difference is great enough that it would be a deciding factor for me in choosing between the two services. I'd be more swayed by channel line-ups, pricing and DVR quality/features.
> 
> I may have to stop in the newly-opened local Google Fiber store just to lay eyes on their TV service. From everything I've read about it, I'm sure HD PQ doesn't get any better for live pay TV service.


I haven't seen GFTV yet, but I agree with your assessment of Uverse. I suspect Frontier IPTV will be as bad or worse. I doubt Dish has gotten any worse, I think some people just notice the issues more than others.


----------



## mattyro7878 (Nov 27, 2014)

I live in central Connecticut and have Cox cable. The picture quality is excellent, especially after they came out and wired my Bolt and Premiere and tuning adapters correctly...for free. No pixels or breakups, and of course cable internet is fast as anything. My folks have Vantage and even though it was Uverse, the box has a lot less lag time than Uverse had. Bottom line, between Cox and TiVo I am a happy viewer.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Hmm, I didn't find DISH's HD PQ to be bad at all when I was a subscriber a few years ago. I had it at the same time my parents had Comcast (both of us using ~50 inch TVs) and DISH definitely looked superior to me. On both DISH and DirecTV, I noticed that some HD channels/shows looked better/less compressed than others on both services, although the quality range extended higher on DirecTV. I'd give the edge in average HD PQ to DirecTV but the difference is fairly subtle, IMO, not a big leap like the difference between cable and Blu-ray.


DISH is not good. It might be less bad than Comcast though.



nirvanayoda said:


> That may actually be the case -- Dish may look great. I'll admit I've never actually seen it running on a reference display, much less on a reference display back to back with another provider. My comments were based on reports that Dish streams 1440x1080(i) instead of 1920x1080(i). It's possible, though, that their algorithms provide enough detail to look very good.


DISH is known for having bad picture quality, although some of the cable providers may be worse, as I know Comcast is really bad. It's like a race to the bottom in some cases, since they are all bandwidth starved. DISH's 1080i isn't HD, you're correct in that, as it is only 1440 wide, not the 1920 required for 1080i to actually be HD. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if it looks the same as or better than some cable providers, as the overall picture quality is more dependent on compression than small differences in resolution.



ncted said:


> I haven't seen GFTV yet, but I agree with your assessment of Uverse.


GFTV is as good as it gets since they don't re-compress anything.



mattyro7878 said:


> I live in central Connecticut and have Cox cable. The picture quality is excellent, especially after they came out and wired my Bolt and Premiere and tuning adapters correctly...for free. No pixels or breakups, and of course cable internet is fast as anything. My folks have Vantage and even though it was Uverse, the box has a lot less lag time than Uverse had. Bottom line, between Cox and TiVo I am a happy viewer.


Do you know how it compares to DirecTV? I'm on Comcast-Groton right now, and it sucks. Poor PQ and limited channel selection. Branford, Hartford, New Haven, and Norwich have been rebuilt so they have decent channel selection but still have poor PQ. Middletown and Clinton are in the same boat as Groton.

For Cox, I haven't seen it for a while, so I can't judge for myself, but I'm not sure if I would settle for Cox with TiVo or still go with DirecTV if I move to a Cox town on the Meriden or Manchester systems. They do have an excellent channel lineup due to their use of SDV. The only thing that would make me give up TiVo is DirecTV.


----------



## watchntv (Jun 6, 2011)

ncted said:


> I was going to ask the same question today as Google actually ran fiber interduct through my front yard yesterday. I am happy with my OTA Roamio setup, but I am pessimistic about how long that will serve me with the coming spectrum auction. I prefer to be ahead of the curve, so I don't get stuck with a bunch of obsolete equipment. Plus, my setup has already paid for itself with what I have saved over Cable/Satellite.
> 
> My question is how good is the Google Fiber DVR? It is actually hard to find a recent review or current features and specs, as the OP stated. Can it stream programming out of the home, like I can with my Tivo setup? I'll have a gig pipe, so I don't see why it shouldn't be possible.


google dvr sucks

you cant wishlist stuff and then prevent it recording all the time
2Tb SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF MEMORY,BUT THATS for everyone in your home, you alll share the same network box, that stores the shows, tv have their own TV box, but all share the 2 tbs and you must keep at least keep 30% (600GIGs) free, so 5 people 
2 tbs=2048 GB(600 freee) means1448gigs or289gigs per person=fights
cos you cant get more memory and the UI(user interface as they call it) sucks
TIVO software is the best dvr, so why didnt they emulate it?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

watchntv said:


> google dvr sucks
> 
> you cant wishlist stuff and then prevent it recording all the time
> 2Tb SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF MEMORY,BUT THATS for everyone in your home, you alll share the same network box, that stores the shows, tv have their own TV box, but all share the 2 tbs and you must keep at least keep 30% (600GIGs) free, so 5 people
> ...


Also, 2TB isn't 2TB. While Google Fiber has the best picture quality, with the bitrates that they're using, a Comcast DVR with a 500GB hard drive in an MPEG-4 market may be able to record more hours of shows than Google's 2TB box. I'd rather have the picture quality, but it's something to think about. Comcast's picture quality sucks, and it's about to get even worse, but at the same time, my 2TB Premiere is going to more than double in effective size next month when they convert my market to MPEG-4, and depending on the channel, it could have upwards of 5x the recording capacity of Google Fiber's 2TB DVR.


----------



## ToddGsell (Mar 7, 2011)

I'll add my experience. I recently moved from a TWC area (where I used my Tivo boxes) to an area with Google Fiber. After about 2 months experience using Google Fiber, I'm not happy with the TV interface. It feels like an unpolished afterthought.

Previously, I was largely satisfied with TWC. (TWC internet was reliable. GF has been reliable as well, but clearly much faster.) TWC picture quality was ok but not great. GF picture quality is better, but it depends on the feeds--the local PBS HD feed looks fuzzy too me; I'm curious what it would look like on an antenna.

The interface is abysmal compared to Tivo or DirecTv (we have family with DirecTV, so I've used it a bit). GF feels clunky. Searching isn't as easy as it should be. Setting up the equivalent of a Season Pass never works quite how I intend. I'm never entirely confident that the right episodes on the right channels will get recorded. 

I realize there's a learning curve, but I feel like I've moved past that point now. I also miss the tuners recording on other channels and being able to turn on the TV and rewind it right there if something interesting happens to be on.

As of now, I'm debating whether to switch to Comcast/Xfinity. I've heard bad things about the PQ with Comcast, which is important to me, but I really want a better user interface. I'd go to OTA, but I want ESPN for me and Disney for kids.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I'd take an abysmal DVR for HD signals that are straight off of C-band with no recompression! Too bad that's not an option here! Heck, I'd probably buy a C-band dish if you could still subscribe to much of anything on them, but you can't. Now with DirecTV's rapidly soaring prices, I'm re-thinking DirecTV or even having pay TV at all. I have Comcast for now, we'll see where I end up moving and what options are there for TV.

Comcast PQ is horrible, with the MPEG-4 transition it is one of the worst in the industry, other than maybe U-Verse/Vantage, although it might be worse than that now. GF is the best in the industry. Something to think about. With FiOS you kind of get the best of both worlds. The PQ isn't quite as good as GF, but it's on par with DirecTV, and you can have a TiVo.


----------

