Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Mini' started by dave13077, Aug 21, 2012.
Just another reason for companies to always included the "Screen images simulated" disclaimer!!
Well, someone told them whole home was a big thing.
To which, an executive asks: what have we got for that?
The rest is history
Hi- new to these fora, got here looking for a way to extend my current 'main' 4-tuner Tivo into a couple of temporary locations. (Would like to occasionally place a TV out on the patio, etc..). Found the Tivo Mini, and have tried to read up on what I can, but I can't seem to come across any real advantage to what it appears to offer over a 1-into-2 (or 3 or 4) HDMI splitter and a run of CAT6 cable with an HDMI outlet at a couple locations. Based on my luck with Wifi in my home, I would run ethernet to any connected device anyway. I really feel like I am missing something (beyond the obvious chance to fork over more money to Tivo), but am I wrong?
Thanks in advance!
The advantage to a Mini over a simple HDMI splitter is that someone can be watching something on the main TV and something else on the Mini at the same time. With an HDMI splitter you're seeing the same output so you can only watch one show at a time. The other is that the Mini is networked so there is no need to worry about wire length or using some sort of blaun if you need to go more then 25'. (max for HDMI run)
There are a couple potential advantages to the Mini; depending on your usage pattern.
First, a HDMI splitter doesn't get remote control from the alternate TV location back to the TiVo. Now if you're watching live sports while grilling on the patio that's probably irrelivant; tune the TiVo to the game and you don't need the remote for the next couple hours. But for other things it's more of an issue.
Second the Mini can play something other than a clone of what the TiVo is displaying on the main screen. Not a big deal in a single viewer household where you're just moving around the display location of the single show. But if you've got two or more people watching the ability to watch one thing on the primary TV and a seperate thing on the Mini's TV could be very nice. (Or even the same show in both places, but at different point so if one person paused it to use the bathroom the other could keep watching without affecting them)
But it is likely to be more expensive that HMDI. (Although if you already have cable coax running to all the locations you can use the Premiere 4 and Mini's MOCA ability rather than wifi or having to pull ethernet. That would be an advantage over having to pull HDMI.
But ultimately whether the Mini makes sense for you depends on your watching habits and what TiVo ends up charging for it.
Thanks - should have mentioned this would just be a clone of the main TV (for times when we want to watch something in another location, not different programming in each location = and the Ipad/Iphone TIVO remote works anywhere on my network, so IR remote carry is not an issue for me anyway...... I have run up to +/- 70' of HDMI (using good class 1 cable - curious why there is a limitation of 25' off the TIVO(?)) Either way, I would go HDMI->CAT6->HDMI, so the long run(s) would be CAT6 cable, which I already have miles of.....good luck to all on the Mini!
From personal experience as well, I have attempted to use Cat6 over HDMI for a 60' run before unsuccessfully. I am currently running a standard speed 20 meter HDMI from Binary in my Living Room through an AVR. I debated between this & using Cat6 balums. If you plan to use Cat6 I strongly suggest using a balum, but these can be pricy for good ones & also problematic. If I were to do it again I would purchase Red Mere cables from Monoprice, they weren't available a year ago. I've also had mixed results with HDMI splitters. HDMI handshake issues can be fun to diagnose, in my opinion the more simple you keep it the better the results will be.
People still watch TV live? The nice thing about TiVo is if you have wifi coverage you don't need a remote. Put the app on your phone and you are set. I actually prefer the TiVo app to any of my remotes now.
Certainly not me.
I find using the phone as a remote extremely irritating and frustrating. There are no physical keys, which means you have to look at it every time. The launch time is slow. Every time you want to use it, you have to turn the phone back on and unlock it. It is far from anything more than a very occasional-use type thing to me.
The app is nice to use if you have to do complex things like set up a recording or the link, but not using it as a primary remote. Not only do you need to unlock the device as mentioned above, but when you are using the TiVo app, you can't do anything else. I like to use 2nd screen apps or Twitter with TV programs and switching back and forth between those apps and the TiVo app would get annoying really quickly.
What's so hard about switching apps? Either hold the Home button or swipe four fingers to bring up the list.
I prefer not having to look at the "remote" to use it. That's why I like the Slide remote.
I don't see that happening anytime soon. The pay TV providers will fight tooth and nail against having to allow 3rd party devices unfettered access to their cable system.
The only reason cable companies tolerate TiVo now is because the FCC makes them.
This is the bottom line.
[Metallica]Nothing Else Matters[/Metallica]
It is getting interesting.
Verizon, for example, has a limited base since they have to run fiber.
They are already expanding into IPTV since they have the technology to deliver programming.
Change is coming...
Agreed - it's only a matter of time now before we won't need STBs at all. Tivo should see the writing on the wall here and realize that we eventually won't need to 'tune' anything - we'll have IP clients with DVR software on multiple platforms, including some new players that roll their own DVRs once we get past the Cablecard kludge. The only question is whether it will be the cableCos giving up control over the end-user interface by adopting standard IP access or whether it will be new content providers (e.g. Apple) in the market delivering it to us over IP.
For that to happen cable companies will have to believe they will be able to make more money from IP delivery system than they are now. Near term I find that fairly unlikely the vast majority of homes only have one cable going to them and the cable company owns it. So no reason to change.
Exactly, most people depend on cable for internet. Even people that don't have cable tv. That's why cable companies are putting caps on their internet.
They tried that. Look at LiquidPTV:
It was a full tivo on a PC, including guide data. I thought it was pretty cool, but didn't make it
That was put down by MediaCenter and the emergence of CableCARDs. MediaCenter was free, LiquidTV cost up front and per month IIRRC. Plus still to this day MCE is the only software allowed to record from CableCARDs. There were a few other MCE alternatives back in the day that were basically put out of business by CableCARDs.
Also liquidTV was done by Ahead who all but disappeared around that time. It was around the time Nero started sucking.