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 28, 2014 #61 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Because most of the content is on cable, and a lot of the good stuff is even moving upwards to HBO. At this point, I consider TV to be the second digital package up (XF Preferred on Comcast) plus HBO, as that's where the majority of the good content is.

    It's very hit or miss. Some stuff is and some stuff isn't. So if you want to watch particular shows, you're going to find some that aren't online. Then you add sports and HBO, and cable is very well entrenched.

    Alright, my Season Passes, not including a whole bunch that aren't active right now:

    NOVA- available through PBS online or OTA
    Frontline- available through PBS online or OTA
    Nature- available through PBS online or OTA
    VICE- HBO only
    Silicon Valley- HBO only
    Real Time with Bill Maher- HBO only
    Cosmos- OTA, not available streaming
    Mythbusters- Purchase only through Amazon, iTunes, VUDU
    This Old House- available through PBS online or OTA
    Big Bang Theory- OTA or purchase through Amazon, iTunes, VUDU
    Daily Show- available delayed through web or purchase
    Colbert Report- available delayed through web or purchase
    Last Week Tonight- HBO only
    The Rachel Maddow Show- available delayed through iTunes podcast
    Manual: Monday Night HBO Docs- HBO only
    American Experience- available through PBS online or OTA

    Live (for this past season):
    UConn Men’s basketball- in addition to CBS, requires cable package with ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SNY, CBS SN
    UConn Women’s basketball- requires cable package with ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SNY, BTN, CBS SN
    March Madness- in addition to CBS, requires cable package with TBS, TNT, and TruTV

    So the breakdown is it's mostly HBO and sports, plus some shows that require a purchase or are delayed (or both). Once I move to an area that has AJAM, I will watch some of that as well. I have watched other stuff on Discovery and Animal Planet as well, although those have gone way downhill.

    Now add in the cost of buying some shows a la carte, take away the convenience of TiVo for shows that aren't available OTA, and add in the cost of the Comcast de-bundling fee, and you can see why cord cutting is mostly hype. I also want to get into a few other HBO shows, and I've watched some really good documentaries on HBO GO, so that's more cable tie-in right there.

    No matter where they are getting the feed, they are likely compressing it heavily. MPEG-4 is a lot better with motion, but it tends to get soft quickly as well if it's bitrate starved.
     
  2. Apr 29, 2014 #62 of 119
    jmpage2

    jmpage2 New Member

    1,951
    0
    Jan 20, 2004
    I'm amazed anyone is replying to this thread as the OP never replied from his original post and probably bought a hopper already.

    This thread is officially a drive-by.
     
  3. Apr 29, 2014 #63 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Because it's semi off-topic. Of course it is. It's a forum.
     
  4. Apr 29, 2014 #64 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    So, first of all, you and I watch many of the same shows, minus the sports. The Daily Show and Colbert are also available on Hulu BTW. HBO is the toughest to deal with, especially Maher. Most original programming is available on iTunes, including VICE, but you do have to wait a while for it. Alternately, you can get it on Netflix Blu-Ray in the mail, if you can wait even longer. Sadly, Maher only seems to be available as an audio podcast. This is the same issue I ran into with the Suze Orman show my wife watches.

    As I already have to use an interface other than the DVR to watch lots of TV, doing it more often really isn't an inconvenience in my mind. My cable option (TWC) is so bad, I am already paying for Internet only as I am on Dish. Getting rid of Dish is $100+ per month I can spend on other stuff, including individual seasons of shows.

    About half the people I know locally have cut the cord in some fashion or another (Netflix/Amazon only or some combination of OTA and streaming). People are sick of high prices for the what they are getting, and many will find other ways to get their content for less. I already watch so few things live, or even the next day, and I have so much to choose from, that waiting a year for the new season of some show isn't really a big deal in most cases.

    I think the consensus on Dish MPEG4 is it is fairly bit-starved and we also know it is down-rezed to 1440x1080 for 1080i content.
     
  5. Apr 29, 2014 #65 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    I hijacked it instead of starting a new thread so as to not clog up the forum with redundant topics.
     
  6. Apr 30, 2014 #66 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    So you have good taste in TV. :D

    The purchase delays are long, and you're back to buying individual episodes, and it ends up being as much as cable with way less content. How quickly are Colbert and Stewart up on Hulu? It's just such a mess.

    I like TiVo, where everything is pulled down from cable and available in one nice, clean interface for me to watch, and available throughout the house. The other services are a relative kludge. If I had to go through some other device, there's no way I'd be able to watch the shows that I do.

    I know a few cord nevers, but all of them have access to cabe at some other location, and some have logins for the services as well. Most people I know have some sort of cable service...

    Yeah, it's not technically HD. It's controversial, since it may avoid even worse bit starvation if they used the full resolution at a similar bitrate, but it's still not right.
     
  7. May 1, 2014 #67 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Colbert and Stewart are on Hulu the next day. The April 30 shows are up today.

    Well, the nice thing is Netflix, Hulu, (and hopefully Amazon Prime soon?) are all viewable and searchable on Tivo, which is actually one of the reasons I am interested in the Roamio. :)
     
  8. May 1, 2014 #68 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    That's not bad, but it still doesn't cover everything else...

    That's still not nearly as quick and easy as just playing back a recording... I don't mind searching around for some oddball content or movies, which I already do as a supplement to cable, but for regular usage, it would be a real PITA.
     
  9. May 1, 2014 #69 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    I guess I am already used to it. It is a requirement for us today. Doing it more isn't a big deal.

    -Ted
     
  10. May 11, 2014 #70 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005

    The annoying part is you complain about paying for content you don't watch while forgetting this also means you are paying much less (than you otherwise would) for the content you do watch. Remember others are saying the same thing as you and paying for the channels you watch and they don't.

    And you say this while watching 25-30 hrs a tv per week. The math seems like it works out in your favor. It sounds like a cabletv/satellitetv package is actually a great deal for you. Not sure why you would be complaining.
     
  11. May 12, 2014 #71 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Yeah, that's why cord cutting is so over-hyped. Everything quickly adds up to be the same or more than cable anyways...
     
  12. May 12, 2014 #72 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Sorry you don't see it. It is a simple proposition: pay the same or (most likely) less and still get to watch the things I like while not funding drivel I care nothing for. If that isn't for you, I am not annoyed. Not sure why you care, but you clearly do, so my deepest apologies.
     
  13. May 13, 2014 #73 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    I understand what you want and where you're coming from. But you are ignoring the much higher rates you would pay per channel in an ala carte option. And don't seem to very cognizant of how much your 25-30 hrs of tv watching per week sits in the sweet spot of value derived from a cable or satellite tv package.


    You only mention how your satellite tv package negatively affects you when making your argument.
     
  14. May 13, 2014 #74 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    Exactly.

    I never quite understood it except from the perspective of a person or couple who watches very little tv or doesn't mind watching whatever older content.

    I've lived in 3 quite different parts of the country in the past 5 years and I've had the expanded basic type of cable package and its never been more than $60/month. Right now it's like $40 something maybe $50. It was $30/month for the 1st year. I own all my own equipment.

    But yet when people talk about the price of their cabletv package they always quote $100+/month??!??

    That never made sense and from what I've always seen is people are including their internet cost in there and then making it look like they are going to save that entire $100/month if they cut the cord. Plus of course have no drop in content. It never makes any sense.

    If you want to save, then instead of cord cutting, just switch satellite/cabletv providers every year or two.
     
  15. May 13, 2014 #75 of 119
    atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Active Member

    5,728
    21
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    It really depends on each person/famlies situation. I "cut the cord" years ago, I watch maybe 2-3 hours of TV per day and have plenty of stuff to watch (in fact more than I have time for as I have about 7 TBs of saved shows now). But I live alone and am not to picky when it comes to what I watch and have access to Redbox to rent movies at a very low cost.

    Regarding what Pay TV costs - as everyone knows it is all over the place, my Parents have dish network, 2 receivers no DVRs, SD only, the second tier package with no premiums and it costs $78/mo. For them spending the $78 makes perfect sense, however for me it would be a ridiculous waist of money.
     
  16. May 13, 2014 #76 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,425
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    The TV portion on most providers is in the $70 range plus HBO, and that's with no equipment. Since you move around a lot, I'd imagine that you've had promo deals for a year or two at a time?
     
  17. May 13, 2014 #77 of 119
    mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,734
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    I don't care that I would pay much higher rates _PER CHANNEL_. I only care about the total I would pay _for what I actually watch_.. and I would possibly be willing to pay SLIGHTLY more for the "same" amount of stuff (that I care about) in an a la carte world. Similar to how a half gallon of milk costs more per ounce than a gallon of milk... But if you're wasting a half gallon, it's not really a "waste" to pay more.. (though you can freeze half of it, heh)
     
  18. May 14, 2014 #78 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Dish AT200 plus Hopper and 1 Joey costs me $102/month. TWC whole home DVR with one remote box and the digital tier would cost about $130. I've tried TWC, both with their box and TiVo, and it is not a reasonable option. If I could get DirecTV, which I cannot due to line of sight issues, it would be about $110 for a similar setup. None of those includes internet, which is $55 when I have satellite or $33 when I had cable. I already pay for Netflix and Amazon, so how am I not going to save money by switching to OTA?
     
  19. May 14, 2014 #79 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    What mattack said.
     
  20. May 14, 2014 #80 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005

    If you're watching 25-30 hrs/wk of tv then you are likely to pay more overall by choosing an ala carte option. ONe of the reasons being is because your cost per channel will go up dramatically.

    This all annoys me because I never hear anyone mention how much less they are paying for the channels they do watch when paying for a package.

    It's always only whining abou the paying for channels you don't watch. I guess I should whine that I'm paying for 99% of the movies on Netflix I don't watch too. Maybe I should just be able to pay for only the ones I do watch and get charged $1/month instead.

    That makes as much sense as these ala carte arguments. IT shows a lack of understanding of how the pricing works.

    Hell same thing with channels themselves which use the same business model as the cable company only they sell you a package of shows instead of a package of channels. No one watches all the programming from one channel either.

    The milk analogy doesn't make sense here. A buffet analogy makes more sense. Do you go to a buffet and then cry that you are paying for the foods you don't care to eat? Do you wish you could only pay for the foods you do eat? Did you know if you were to order the foods you do eat ala carte then they would likely cost you more money than the buffet price unless you're eating much less than an average share of food? Same thing here.

    I get annoyed people are so lazy about their argument for ala carte. They just make a broad generalization that they will pay less if they only pay for the channels they watch. It isn't a very informed viewpoint.
     

Share This Page