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. May 14, 2014 #81 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005

    You're doing the same sort of thing I complain about in my post. You say it isn't with internet, but it is still such an apples and oranges comparison.

    Comparing OTA and Netflix to DISH's 3rd cheapest package.

    Not only is the content really different (the amount and timeliness of the content,) but you're not even choosing one of the cheapest DISH packages. And you are including equipment rental fees in your DISH offering that let you time shift while I guess in your OTA alternative you just won't time shift?

    SAme thing with your Time Warner numbers I'm sure.

    Plus no mention of the discounts you can get from any provider during your first year. Nor how you can switch providers every year or two to help keep prices low.

    I just love how everyone cord cutting is paying for way more expensive cable packages than I ever paid for in my life. And I've always had a fairly average package of all the major cable channels.
     
  2. May 14, 2014 #82 of 119
    mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,743
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    You *CAN* do that, NOT THROUGH NETFLIX though.

    You already CAN PPV for movies.. Not $1/month, but pretty darn cheaply through Redbox...

    I admit I'm basically asking for a hybrid of the "all you can eat" and PPV worlds.

    Yes, I think eventually we will get to something closer to utopia, with everything available all the time (but it will only be closer to utopia if it's available WITHOUT COMMERCIALS, for a higher price of course).

    As it is now, I don't mind the channel paradigm. So I can pay for a channel, which you can call a "bundle" of similar programming if you want to (heh).. so with my Tivo, I would get "all I can eat" on the specific channel(s) I paid for.
     
  3. May 15, 2014 #83 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    I respectfully disagree.
     
  4. May 15, 2014 #84 of 119
    atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    5,738
    26
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I think I will make some general comments on the concept of A La Cart video or more specifically video obtained by some method other than a cable/satellite bundle of services.

    First lets be clear, it is here now, most people access some video by one or more of the A La Cart methods now, it can provide nearly unlimited video choices, and with a little restraint can easily costs significantly less than paying for cable or satellite bundled services. Pretty much the only thing that isn't available A La Cart now is the ability to purchase access to individual cable only channel streams (note much of the content is available via some other A La Cart method).

    In the world of video consumption - content is King - when, where, and for how much (dollars and effort) a person can obtain it, is really what this is all about. Some content will be more easily obtain via a cable channel, other content will be more easily obtained via some other A La Cart method, some content will only be available one way or the other and some content via either method.

    The question that each household has to ask itself is if the convenience and specific content available via various cable or satellite packages is worth the cost. For many (most) families that answer will likely be that it is worth the cost, the reality is if you bundle a good DVR with pretty much any cable/satellite package you have easy access to a nearly unlimited supply of content.

    That said anyone who doesn't think you can obtain 30+/- hours of content per week via (legal) A La Cart methods for less than the cost of cable/satellite packages either isn't trying very hard or is having their view clouded by their desire for specific content that they believe is only on cable channels or significantly easier to obtain via cable channels.
     
  5. May 15, 2014 #85 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    Why not just mention the library while we're at it and how you can get movies for free in response to my point? Makes as much sense.

    I never said you can't rent movies today or buy shows ala carte. I said, when referring to Netflix, that some people want to select their 10 shows from Netflix that they watch and be able to pay $1/month instead. I'm saying that's not how things work. It doesn't quite work like milk.



    Ok I guess your point is you want channels ala carte and shows ala carte. Well, via streaming and discs, we have ala carte shows. We don't have channel ala carte. I'm not against channel ala carte at all. And I'm not saying channel ala carte is a(n) utopia. I'm saying the utopia is ...the average tv viewer expecting to order their channels ala carte while paying much less. That's a massive assumption especially if we say average tv household instead of viewer.
     
  6. May 15, 2014 #86 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    Your 2nd paragraph that I quoted doesn't seem to agree with your 1st and 3rd. I got a mixed message at least.

    And this notion you can get 30 hrs cheaper ala carte is way too broad a brushstroke. I mean it depends on what you watch.

    I mean if you watch mostly network tv and can get all those shows OTA then your generalization starts to ring true. But if you watch a healthy dose of cable shows and few network shows then it stops ringing true.

    And not sure if you are thinking a family of 4 typically only watches 30 hrs a week?
     
  7. May 15, 2014 #87 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    It's not about the availability of content in general. There's tons of content out there without cable. The issue is availability of specific content. Look at HBO's lineup, and then sports, and with either one of those, not to mention both combined, you have to have cable.
     
  8. May 15, 2014 #88 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    That's a non-reply.
     
  9. May 16, 2014 #89 of 119
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    791
    0
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    It was the reply I thought your post deserved as I had already made my arguments to the contrary for my specific viewing habits. Your antiquated assertions do not resemble the current landscape, and you do not seem interested in learning that times have changed. It is no longer 1999.

    It is not my job to disabuse you. If you are happy paying what you do for what you have, I would not attempt to convince you otherwise. My purpose here is to focus on improving the value proposition for my wife and myself. Thanks for your feedback in any case.

    Ted
     
  10. May 16, 2014 #90 of 119
    atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    5,738
    26
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I think I will respond to both of your posts together and in a general way. I think it is likely we have generational differences and very likely a different view on the over all value of video consumption.

    When I was a kid all we had was one black & white TV for a family of 5 and it got 4 channels (5 when I was older). There was no cable/satellite and VHS tapes hadn't been dreamed of yet. So you either watched one of the 4-5 channels or went to the movies. With that very limited amount of choice we always had something we wanted to watch and looked forward to watching a few hours of TV every night.

    Well allot has changed since then, one thing is the value I put on spending time consuming video. I still enjoy "watching TV" a few hours a day, but look at it as primarily spending a few hours effectively doing nothing, while being mildly entertained. I actually have as much fun setting up my equipment (DVRs, streaming devices, HTPC, antennas, etc.) and playing with it as I do watching the video they give me access to. So as you can guess I enjoy spending time figuring out ways to access more video content without having cable/satellite as much or more than actually watching the video.

    So based on my personal experience, preferences, and value I place on video consumption, I find it laughable that anyone believes you "need" a cable/satellite sub to have access to enough video content.

    That said I also understand the benefit (and value) of cable/satellite for most households that just want easy access to lots of content.

    On the conversation about having cable/satellite channels available A La Cart, I don't ever see it happen without a Government mandate as none of the companies involved would benefit enough to force the change. On if such an A La Cart system would cost less or not, not likely, but it could if again the Government mandated a full A La Cart only system, no packages, no bundling allow period, and then treated the delivery system as a regulated utility. That would force "channels" to compete on price for their content which might drive prices down.

    There is a good dream - all cable and telephone lines removed and replaced with one very high speed fiber line to every home in the country. The fiber line owners become regulated utilities and not allowed to deliver any services.
     
  11. May 16, 2014 #91 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    Your premesis is entirely wrong. You're just looking at the quantity, or the amount of variety available. That's irrelevant. No one watches even 1 percent of the video available on cable, or even on any of the big streaming services.

    It's about what that content is. There are two main areas where I have to have cable to get the content that I want.

    The first is basketball, where last season I needed ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SNY, CBSSports, BTN, TBS, TNT, TruTV, and of course CBS to follow my teams as well as other teams I was interested in watching. Also, 3 of the 4 Olympics channels were cable channels.

    The second is HBO. More of my weekly TV consumption is now coming from HBO than from anywhere else, and their programming is absolutely second to none.

    I also have roommates, and between all of us, we watch football, NCAA mens and women's basketball, hockey, and baseball, and all of us watch HBO.

    HBO and Sports each have people tied to cable, and the combination is extremely powerful. It is kind of weird though, how we have this big gap in the middle where there are very few good cable channels anymore, with PBS and HBO sort of bookending the lineup, with some sports and news (including Comedy Central for news) sprinkled in the middle.

    I hate the business model, but on a dollar for dollar basis, compared to other sources of video entertainment, cable is a pretty darn good deal if you break out the per-show or per-hour price you're paying.
     
  12. May 17, 2014 #92 of 119
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,190
    25
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    I just wish I didn't have to subsidize those sports channels. Since they cost the most and the majority of people don't watch them.
     
  13. May 17, 2014 #93 of 119
    HarperVision

    HarperVision TiVo's Italian Cuz!

    5,275
    3
    May 14, 2007
    Paradise...
    How do you know that where he lives is "entirely wrong", have you ever been there?
     
  14. May 17, 2014 #94 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    The vast majority of people follow at least one sport, some several, so most people want those channels. Sports have been a major driver for DirecTV for quite some time.

    Whoops. Good catch. His premise is all wrong. :D
     
  15. May 18, 2014 #95 of 119
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,190
    25
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    Sure many people watch a channel or two but the vast majority of people don't come close to even watching all the ESPN channels. Let alone the dozens of other sports networks.
    Of course ESPn is the main offender since their channels cost so much.

    Personally I only on occasion watch the main one. Yet I have no choice but to pay for the rest. I'm not even sure I've met any one that watches all of the ESPN channels. If people could pick and choose the channels they watch, things would change drastically. Especially for the sports channels since they could no longer be subsidized by all the people that don't watch them. They would need to charge a lot more per subscriber to get the same amount of income
     
  16. May 19, 2014 #96 of 119
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,427
    5
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    If you follow a particular team, especially an NCAA basketball team, you get thrown all over the place. This past year, not counting overlap moves to ESPNNews or ESPN Classic, National Champions UConn were on SNY, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, CBSSports, BTN, CBS, and March Madness was on ESPN and ESPN2 for women and TNT, TruTV, TBS, and CBS for the men's. UConn is on ESPN/SNY primarily, since the American's contract is owned by ESPN, although some conferences either have their own channel (like BTN), or are with CBSSports. No matter which network owns your conference's contract, you're on some cable channel.

    Add in the Olympics with NBCSports, MSNBC, and CNBC, in addition to NBC, and you've covered quite a bit.

    ESPN is absurdly overpriced, however, they have the highest standards for the quality of their broadcasts, and they put a ton of money into buying the rights and producing the broadcasts.

    What I hate more are the hundreds of garbage channels. Even formerly good channels like History and Discovery are garbage now. MTV doesn't do much with music, and on down the line. Outside sports and news, there is almost nothing decent left in the middle of the lineup, it's all either PBS or HBO these days...
     
  17. May 19, 2014 #97 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    I haven't read any contrarian arguments from you.

    I'm all for you and everyone else including myself finding the best deal for the content they watch. IF that includes or only includes OTA and streaming then I'm all for it.

    All I did was point out that your (and many others) generalization about cable costing you more because you pay for channels you don't watch is one massive assumption.

    YOur reply is......zzzzz.. Nothing.

    I was at least hoping to hear more about what you watch that add up to 30 hrs a week. And if that includes your wife too or not or ?

    I also pointed how cable/satellite to OTA/streaming comparisons are usually absurd and yours proved to be no exception. I said why.

    I was hoping you would have something to say when I pointed this out, but ....crickets.


    I'm sorry if you think pointing these things out is antiquated thinking. As far I know the math I'm using still works in 2014 even though it was developed many hundreds and thousands of years ago.
     
  18. May 20, 2014 #98 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    No one is making this argument.

    I think customers can help force it to some extent. Write letters to cable and satellite companies. Write letters to the FCC. And with more video available via streaming it will only help pressure cable/content companies. And there does come a point where if, for example, sports programming, becomes too much of one's bill and you aren't watching it all then things will change. Maybe this just means a no sports channel option.

    But realize that ala carte doesn't necessarily mean lower prices. IT depends on your viewing habits.
     
  19. May 20, 2014 #99 of 119
    trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    Yeah but you aren't paying much for the other ESPNs.


    And I'm not sure how you can just say you watch the main one and don't watch ESPN2 at all. Because sometimes events I want to watch are on 2 and sometimes they are 1. I have no idea what is going to be where. That's part of the reason they have 2 main channels.

    I do agree if sports programming is way too much of the cost of your cable bill and you watch no sports then ...something needs to change and something probably will be done eventually.

    And, believe it or not, cable/satellite companies are fighting back on some of these costs. And refusing to carry some sports programming.

    And I've read some are even starting to offer or at least are considering no-sports options.

    Even Dish chairman Charlie Ergen predicted in 2012 that non-sports fans would eventually rebel against the rising costs and “there will be one day an offering out there that doesn’t include sports.”

    Not sure the difference in cost will be mind blowing or not.
     
  20. trip1eX

    trip1eX Active Member

    2,767
    3
    Apr 2, 2005
    Yep there's lots of garbage in my cabletv package. But one man's garbage is another man's treasure and it takes alot of garbage to create a hit sorta speak. So you have a combination of garbage others like and garbage that no one likes and is soon to canceled and replaced by something new.

    And further complicating things is you never know what channel a hit show is going to be on. My family enjoyed Pawn Stars for a few seasons on the otherwise now mostly garbage History Channel.
     

Share This Page