1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tivo vs. Hopper

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by garyflet, Sep 4, 2013.

  1. Apr 21, 2014 #41 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    What my wife and I are discovering is that we don't watch any sports other than the Olympics, and what we do watch from non-OTA sources, aside from HBO series, is all on streaming within a year or so. If we were to stay with a pay TV provider, Dish is our only real choice. TWC is horrible, and we have no LOS for DirecTV.

    Thanks,
    Ted
     
  2. Apr 22, 2014 #42 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Even the Olympics are partially only on cable. My point is that streaming and OTA can not, and for the forseeable future, will not replace cable. "Cutting the cord" is fine for people who don't watch much, if any, TV in the first place, but it is not a replacement for cable/satellite/telcoTV.

    So if you barely watch TV in the first place, then it would probably not make sense to pay for TV. Streaming doesn't have much to do with that...
     
  3. Apr 22, 2014 #43 of 119
    mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,750
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    Wow, I'm amazed you get all of those AND DISH. (I have Amazon Prime, largely to 'play' with the video, but I use it sporadically.. I have thought of resubscribing to Netflix for a month or so to catch up on their originals and a couple other things they have exclusively that I care about.)


    For the Olympics, the "big events" are on the broadcast network (I think NBC for the foreseeable future).

    I also think that your statement is not true of most people. I watch tons of TV.. I have _two_ Tivos that REQUIRE cable (Premiere 4 and Roamio -- I should sell one since I now have tons of tuners).. But the MAJORITY of the shows I watch, and I think is true for many people, are the broadcast stations. (You may say then why do I have cable? Because I _do_ watch cable shows, and even though I could watch many via other means nowadays, I couldn't watch them as easily _without_ commercials.. Also, while this is less true nowadays, when I originally got cable, the cable signal was generally more reliable than an antenna I had to rotate in different directions for different channels.)
     
  4. Apr 23, 2014 #44 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    We only watch the evening NBC Olympics broadcast (which we almost didn't get to see due to a contract dispute), and even then, we FF through a lot of it. I've considered all that we watch, and the only thing not available on OTA/Streaming/iTunes is the Suze Orman show in CNBC. There used to be a free video podcast on iTunes, but it is audio only now.

    There are a lot of advantages to streaming, including lack of commercials (except Hulu of course), and paying less for more appealing content. With Cable/Satellite, I pay for hundreds of channels with shows I don't care about just so I can get the few I do want to see. I already have to subscribe to Netflix and Amazon to get certain content I want to see, so why not watch more on those services for the same price? I may be paying for a lot of shows I won't watch on streaming services, but I will be paying a lot less in general, so the value proposition is better.

    Also, not paying for Dish frees up money I can spend on cable shows on iTunes that don't have commercials and the money I spend is targeted directly to that show, not some channel I care nothing for. Anyway, I am not looking to "replace cable." I am looking for a solution that fits our content interests and financial needs better than cable.
     
  5. Apr 23, 2014 #45 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Well, we get Amazon mainly for the shipping, but we have watched it a lot more lately. We actually prefer it to Netflix as the apps load more quickly and it seems less likely to suffer buffering issues. Netflix we get for the original series and movies. iTunes is for stuff we can't find elsewhere. Apparently, we are very picky in what we like to watch, so we have to source content from various places.

    Luckily all my stations are in the same direction other than PBS, which is so close, I don't need to point an antenna in that direction to receive it.
     
  6. Apr 23, 2014 #46 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Most people do watch quite a bit of network content, but also watch plenty of cable content. Just HBO and Sports alone, not to mention all the other cable channels are big draws for a lot of people.

    You're missing out on a lot, especially in the summer Olympics. They only put a few sports on the network broadcast. The rest of the stuff is sprawled out on several cable networks at all odd hours of the day. Yay for 4 tuner TiVo!

    That's great if you don't watch much TV in the first place, and everything you want is available streaming. For most people, this is not the case. I could survive without some of the stuff that I watch, although I wouldn't enjoy TV nearly as much. Between sports and HBO, I'm at the point where the high-value content that I want is sprawled out across the higher cable tier (XF Preferred) and HBO.

    There you go. Not paying for a cable TV package is a good idea for people who are willing to give up cable TV. And that's been the case since digital OTA broadcasts started, and you could get a good quality signal on the networks.

    As for me, I'm sticking with my XF Preferred and HBO. Hopefully eventually I'll live somewhere where I can get FIOS Extreme TV and 75/35 internet.
     
  7. Apr 24, 2014 #47 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Not really from our perspective. We barely have time and interest level to watch the stuff on the nightly broadcast. I'm not saying there isn't interesting stuff there, just not for us.

    Yeah, the pay TV industry knows what keeps people subscribing, and it is sports. I expect that to be the last hold out. Even HBO sees the writing on the wall as evidenced by their Amazon deal this week. I wouldn't say we don't watch much TV, but we watch less than we used to. Even so, we have way more we want to watch than we have time to watch it. Moving to OTA and streaming will not change that -- we'd just be paying less.

    I guess we're not "most people," and that is why I asked my original question. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to do what we're contemplating, but I was looking for some guidance from someone who may have already been down that road.

    Thanks for all the responses from everyone.

    Ted
     
  8. Apr 25, 2014 #48 of 119
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,643
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Those two "features" are, of course, for most people, mutually exclusive. If you can record all four networks with one tuner, any time, and since those ARE the OTA channels most people care about recording, why would you need an OTA tuner module? Is the Dish OTA tuner module still only one tuner?

    The Hopper is a 3 tuner, Dish Network only (plus OTA if you add the extra box) DVR with a Slingbox built-in. Dish employs the trick of putting all the 4 major broadcast networks on one satellite frequency so that they can record all 4 at once. It includes no other streaming service apps. The boxes perform well, the user interface is responsive, and visual good (not great).

    The Roamio is a 4 (base) or 6 (Plus and Pro) DVR capable of OTA and cable (Base) or cable only (Plus and Pro) reception. It includes apps for several streaming services. The boxes perform well, the user interface is responsive and visually great.

    Personally, I would look at the cost of Dish network programming for what you want to watch, versus your option with cable and/or OTA and streaming services. If both meet your content requirements, only then would I consider the hardware and DVR service fees. While Dish's HD picture quality isn't quite as good as DirecTV's or FiOS's, it is better than most other services.
     
  9. Apr 25, 2014 #49 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Seems like a classic "doesn't really watch TV case". In that case, you shouldn't pay for TV if you're going to watch it!

    Sports just keeps getting bigger and bigger, now with more and more games televised, especially in NCAA basketball and football. And the amount of money these conferences are getting is getting bigger and bigger, and someone (ESPN, CBS, Turner, FOX, etc) has to pay for that...

    You could probably have both OTA and PTAT if you wanted PTAT for casual viewing and OTA for better quality or sub-channels that DISH doesn't carry...

    DISH's PQ is OK, but it's arguably not even as good as cable...
     
  10. Apr 25, 2014 #50 of 119
    mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,750
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    OTA _or_ cable, not OTA _and_ cable.

    Or rather, it's "capable" of both, but you can only use one of them at a time (and obviously need to rerun guided setup/change what cable is plugged in to switch).
     
  11. Apr 26, 2014 #51 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Sorry, but I think I'm not stating the case well. We do watch a fair bit of TV, probably about 25-30 hours per week BUT we're paying for a lot of TV we don't watch, hundreds of channels worth, much of it sports, which we're forced to pay for if we want AMC, FX, TBS, etc. for their original content.



    Right, just as long as it isn't me



    Comcast must have pretty good PQ, because TWC PQ is far worse than Dish where I live. That said, I am looking forward to better PQ with OTA.
     
  12. Apr 26, 2014 #52 of 119
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,643
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Yup, fingers and brain got out of sync there. :)
     
  13. Apr 26, 2014 #53 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    If you watch much of any TV, I have a real hard time believing that cutting the cord makes any sense, even if you could get the content you want to watch.

    A lot of OTA is heavily compressed too...
     
  14. Apr 26, 2014 #54 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Believe it, my friend. I've done the analysis, and we're only going to miss exactly 1 show, which is available as an audio podcast or in Internet video clips.


    Certainly, but , at worst, it shouldn't look any worse than what I'm getting with Dish now for the same channel, which is received and transcoded to MP4 and back before I see it. I am sure some of the sub-channels will look like hell, but they do now.
     
  15. Apr 27, 2014 #55 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Then you're watching a small amount of TV, and shows that happen to be available online. Many shows are not available online in any meaningful way.

    DISH may be getting a fiber feed, although they may not, so who knows how it will end up comparing...
     
  16. Apr 28, 2014 #56 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    That argument always annoys me. Sure you are paying for tv you don't watch. But you are also paying lower prices than you otherwise would for tv you do watch.

    25-30 hrs/week means you are getting your money's worth at the cable tv buffet.
     
  17. Apr 28, 2014 #57 of 119
    steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    The one that annoys me is the notion that if one does not have cable, they must not watch a lot of TV.

    I must be an outlier. I have nothing to do BUT watch TV. With the amount of time I have on my hands these days, you'd probably think I struggle to find something to watch.
    Nope. My 2TB Tivo capacity is at 90% and I have another 2TB worth of shows sitting on my computer. Way more than I have time to watch. I would just be throwing money away if I subscribed to cable.
     
  18. Apr 28, 2014 #58 of 119
    atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    5,740
    26
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I agree I am OTA and free streaming only and have way more content to watch than I ever will have time for. But I am not very picky about what I watch and care nothing about sports. I do go to the movies a few times per month and rent a few Blu-rays from RedBox so I am guessing I do pay for around 4 movies/mo and do turn Hulu+ back on at times but because of the free 6 months I got from TiVo and bing rewards I have only paid for 3 months over the last 4 years and don't expect to ever pay again as long as bing rewards is around.
     
  19. Apr 28, 2014 #59 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Sorry to annoy you. Perhaps you could describe what exactly is annoying about wanting less of my money to go for things I don't like and more to go to the things I do like?

    Thanks,
    Ted
     
  20. Apr 28, 2014 #60 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Or perhaps you are just unaware of how much is available online? Perhaps you could go through your Season Passes and share some shows which aren't available online, because, as I said, I only found 1 in my list.



    I can say that the HD OTA broadcasts I get now on my TVs are less "soft" and "bright" than the same shows I get from Dish. I am not saying Dish looks bad, but OTA looks better. I am not an expert in what things should look like on a properly calibrated set, so my descriptions are just my personal impressions.
     

Share This Page