Speculation

[Walter Lambert]

Is Tivo Dead? http://www.tvpredictions.com/tivodead022106.htm

[Spiff]

Reports of its death are greatly exaggerated.

[Dan203]

TiVo didn't get enough press at their light hearted Valentines Day event?!?!?! They must be dead! :eek:

:rolleyes:

Dan

[Guindalf]

Oh no! I'd better burn my TiVo and rush out and get......what?

The San Fransisco gig was "end of the news lighthearted spot" at best, and obviously not many thought even that highly of it. Look at the lack of coverage it got on these boards - and the people here are mostly TiVo fanatics!

It must have been a slow news day for the idiot who wrote this piece. As a journalist myself, I know what it's like to have to find something in time for a deadline and that is all this was. I would put as much faith in this as someone on one of these boards starting a rumor.

[davezatz]

Motley Fool also ran a 'TiVo is Dead' story today... TiVo may or may not die, but it surely won't happen in 2006. It will likely never happen - worse case scenario they'd be acquired.

[JYoung]

Oh no! I'd better burn my TiVo and rush out and get......what?

The San Fransisco gig was "end of the news lighthearted spot" at best, and obviously not many thought even that highly of it. Look at the lack of coverage it got on these boards - and the people here are mostly TiVo fanatics!

It must have been a slow news day for the idiot who wrote this piece. As a journalist myself, I know what it's like to have to find something in time for a deadline and that is all this was. I would put as much faith in this as someone on one of these boards starting a rumor.


Actually, the author of that piece has a reputation around here and it's not particularly good.

[jmoak]

Tivo is dead again?!??!?!??!:confused:

He has declared this how many times over the last few years? Just how many times can wolf be cried before someone get's to call shenanigans?

[rhuntington3]

No.

[ChuckyBox]

Actually, the author of that piece has a reputation around here and it's not particularly good.
You are very kind in your wording. Yes, he has a reputation in a number of places that isn't very good. Fortunately, he seems to be increasingly ignored by the media at large. He makes sure to mention TiVo as often as possible because he knows it will drive traffic to his site and possibly get him quoted. He's known to spam various TiVo forums when he writes something about TiVo in order to get attention. It's kind of pathetic.

The Motley Fool does the same, because whether they love the stock or hate it, a lot of individual investors pay attention to TiVo. The Fool (as opposed to the "fool") mentions TiVo no less than twice a week in their columns. It is best, of course, to say something controversial as that gets more traffic.

[HDTiVo]

It is best, of course, to say something controversial as that gets more traffic.
And if there is something controversial to be said about you, can you truly be dead?

[d_anders]

TiVo didn't get enough press at their light hearted Valentines Day event?!?!?! They must be dead! :eek:

:rolleyes:

Dan

Lighthearted yes. An appropriate usage of TiVo's staff time and energy at this given time, probably not.

[dmdeane]

You are very kind in your wording. Yes, he has a reputation in a number of places that isn't very good. Fortunately, he seems to be increasingly ignored by the media at large. He makes sure to mention TiVo as often as possible because he knows it will drive traffic to his site and possibly get him quoted. He's known to spam various TiVo forums when he writes something about TiVo in order to get attention. It's kind of pathetic.

The Motley Fool does the same, because whether they love the stock or hate it, a lot of individual investors pay attention to TiVo. The Fool (as opposed to the "fool") mentions TiVo no less than twice a week in their columns. It is best, of course, to say something controversial as that gets more traffic.The Motley Fool = "The Fool" (Trademark)
Phillip Swann = "the fool" (Patent Pending)

[davezatz]

Out of curiosity, I emailed Swann and asked if he owns or trades TiVo stock. ;) He said he owns "zero stock" which I'm not in a position to question. Assuming that's accurate, he either believes TiVo will fail and/or as Chucky said his dramatic proclamations (which I've also been known to use) are good for traffic.

[ZeoTiVo]

Is Tivo Dead? http://www.idiot.com/

I will say it out loud

Philip Swann is an idiot

I think his URL should be parsed out of posts just because of the mind numbing lack of logic.

basically he has predicted the demise of TiVo for 5 years and if it ever happened then he can say how smart he was to analyze the industry so well.

[Wood in Virginia]

My SAT-T60 died yesterday, Got the "Welcome. Powering On" screen on a Tivo that was made Nov 2002 & I put in new A drive 120hr WD Feb 2004. Now dead, I called D* Tech support, they said no problem they will send me new refurb Tivo for $14.95 shipping by Fed Ex all I have to do is swap Access Card. The even say the model I will get will have 2 Tuners like my old SAT T-60. In fact they told me I could toss it away ! Now I am wondering whether they sent me a bug in the software to deliberately KILL my Tivo? When I researched the "Welcome Powering On issue"
I see a lot of posters in Jan 2006 & Feb 2006 timeframe with this same issue.

I did keep my old 40 hour Tivo drive & stuck it in Tivo this morning; unit power supply worked & modem worked & it made a 2 hour call to D*. However now old drive & screen are now a B/W screen that display an out of focus D* image & you can't see anything clearly on the original Tivo HD. Can't even see enough to make changes with the remote!

What would cause that? Boot sector on old drive wasn't destroyed prior to now but it failed to work too; after conecting to D*. Wonder if Tivo I am getting from D* will force me to watch their commercials & prevent me from FF on playback through commercials? Wonder if I will be chaged the old 5,99 rate or something else . Will keep you posted. Not sure what is going on.

[Solver]

The current TiVo is as dead as a gen 2 iPod!

We all know how dead iPods are.

[samo]

I will say it out loud

Philip Swann is an idiot

I think his URL should be parsed out of posts just because of the mind numbing lack of logic.

basically he has predicted the demise of TiVo for 5 years and if it ever happened then he can say how smart he was to analyze the industry so well.
Philip Swann has been critical of TiVo on number of issues, but he hasn't been predicting demise of Tivo for 5 years (he has been writing about TiVo for less than 4 years to begin with) and he certainly is not an idiot. I don't like the name calling in a first place, but generally idiot is the one who ignores the facts. The same facts as ones presented by Swann have been presented by another "fool" - Motley Fools in this article (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06022139.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y). I also happen to agree that matchmaking event was cheap publicity stunt organized by the same incompetent marketing people that are behind all the other TiVo marketing gems. Does that make me an idiot? Just say it out loud. And don't forget to explain why do you think that this matchmaking event is not a desperate attempt to generate publicity around TiVo while they have nothing else to create a buzz with.

[williadv]

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06022305.htm

[ZeoTiVo]

Philip Swann has been critical of TiVo on number of issues, but he hasn't been predicting demise of Tivo for 5 years (he has been writing about TiVo for less than 4 years to begin with) and he certainly is not an idiot. I don't like the name calling in a first place, but generally idiot is the one who ignores the facts. The same facts as ones presented by Swann have been presented by another "fool" - Motley Fools in this article (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06022139.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y). I also happen to agree that matchmaking event was cheap publicity stunt organized by the same incompetent marketing people that are behind all the other TiVo marketing gems. Does that make me an idiot? Just say it out loud. And don't forget to explain why do you think that this matchmaking event is not a desperate attempt to generate publicity around TiVo while they have nothing else to create a buzz with.

ah Samo, when the true colors come out. ;)

anyhow I did not think him an idiot for pointing out that the marketing stunt was just that , a simple marketing stunt without much impact for the press. You can call it cheap if you want but I just saw it as fluff and meant as fun for some subscribers.

I decided Philip Swan was an idiot because he then went on to say that because the press did not do much coverage of this fluff piece of marketing that TiVo must be dying. It was Buzz worthy and now it is not. That line of reasoning was , well.. idiotic.

so you can try and yet again bend my post into some zealot spin and try and make out that I was defending the marketing stunt when I was simply calling Swann an idiot and you would be wrong yet again and the lame "Oh you are just a zealot of TiVo" reply still holds no weight.


PS - sorry I was wrong about the 5 years and it was only 4 years.

Also I did not want to register at the Motley fool but I imagine pros and cons in their duel were a lot more well reasoned then "the press coverage of a fluff marketing event was so bad TiVo must be dying

[samo]

I decided Philip Swan was an idiot because he then went on to say that because the press did not do much coverage of this fluff piece of marketing that TiVo must be dying. It was Buzz worthy and now it is not. That line of reasoning was , well.. idiotic.

so you can try and yet again bend my post into some zealot spin and try and make out that I was defending the marketing stunt when I was simply calling Swann an idiot and you would be wrong yet again and the lame "Oh you are just a zealot of TiVo" reply still holds no weight.

And this is exactly what zealots do. You "simply called guy an idiot" just because you didn't agree to his line of logic. I could make a stronger case for TiVo dying, but for a sake of argument I'll use just the fact in Swanns article.
1.Fact- Tivo does not make profit and depends on selling stock certificates for continuos operations.
2. Fact - In a past TiVo was very successful in obtaining Wall Street support because of the Buzz they generated about their product.
3. Fact - In a past any TiVo buzz was a front page news with several legit publications printing and re-printing this buzz.
4. Fact - Latest stunt did not generate much response and TiVo hasn't been in headlines for any other reason except perhaps Dish law suit.
5. Speculation - perhaps TiVo is not as attractive of the subject as it used to be.
6. Speculation - perhaps Tivo will not be able to generate enough hype for the next round of financing they going to need to continue operations.
7. Speculation - Tivo will not survive if they don't get additional money.

Explain why this line of reasoning is idiotic? And I purposely left out all the other problems that TiVo has. Is it possible that Swann assumes that reader already knows about all other problems and uses matchmaking stunt as reinforcement to his previous predictions? Again, my problem is not with you disagreeing with Swann. My problem is that you and other TiVo zealots can call person an idiot for no reason (which is against the rules on this board) and don't even make an attempt to apologize.

[jmoak]

The tune's a little different, but the lyrics sound the same.
There may be different players, but it's still the same old game.
Some enjoy the dance, to some it's just a pain.
Despite five years of dirges, here we still remain.

from May 18th, 2001 - ">>> Swann strikes again! <<<" (http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=636)

when human respect is disintegratin',
this whole crazy world is just too frustratin',
and you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
ah, you still believe we're on the eve of destruction.

It's all been said before, hasn't it?
archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/
archive.org

[dfreybur]

Is Tivo Dead? http://www.tvpredictions.com/tivodead022106.htm

I tried to extract blood from mine and it didn't work. It's dead alright. Doesn't even look like it's ever been alive. Painted metal and plastic and stuff.

It runs just fine, though. :)

[ChuckyBox]

And this is exactly what zealots do. You "simply called guy an idiot" just because you didn't agree to his line of logic. I could make a stronger case for TiVo dying, but for a sake of argument I'll use just the fact in Swanns article.
1.Fact- Tivo does not make profit and depends on selling stock certificates for continuos operations.
Wow, your very first "fact" from Sawnn's article isn't in Swann's article. And it is wrong. TiVo doesn't sell stock to finance operations -- the company is more or less at cash flow breakeven and has no problem with operations.


2. Fact - In a past TiVo was very successful in obtaining Wall Street support because of the Buzz they generated about their product.
Nonsense. No money manager is going to finance a company because it made the cover of Time. If you find one who will, then you truly have found an idiot.

3. Fact - In a past any TiVo buzz was a front page news with several legit publications printing and re-printing this buzz.
4. Fact - Latest stunt did not generate much response and TiVo hasn't been in headlines for any other reason except perhaps Dish law suit.
Um, it was a huge story, reprinted endlessly, that TiVo didn't announce anything big at CES this year. The Yahoo partnership news had more the 200 Google hits. The Fool still mentions TiVo at least a couple of times a week. There is still a TiVo-spotting thread in this forum listing mentions on The Daily Show, Ellen, etc. The company still generates more press for a company of its size than any I've ever seen.

5. Speculation - perhaps TiVo is not as attractive of the subject as it used to be.
6. Speculation - perhaps Tivo will not be able to generate enough hype for the next round of financing they going to need to continue operations.

They don't need financing to continue operations, and they don't need "hype." They need to demonstrate that they can continue to add customers who have a net positive value to the company. The company has the low valuation it does not because it isn't getting enough press, or because it isn't making money (look at SIRI), but because analysts doubt its ability to continue to grow.

7. Speculation - Tivo will not survive if they don't get additional money.

Speculate all you want. If TiVo gets additional financing, it will be to fund growth, not operations. But getting back to the original point, you have fabricated an argument here that Swann didn't even hint at. He never mentioned the capital markets, TiVo's finances, or operational expenditures.

Again, my problem is not with you disagreeing with Swann. My problem is that you and other TiVo zealots can call person an idiot for no reason (which is against the rules on this board) and don't even make an attempt to apologize.
So it is within the rules of the board to call a person an idiot for good reason? :D

Swann is an idiot because he writes things like this:
However, over the last year, there have been three major developments that have diminished TiVo's stature in the media.
...
2. With the exception of Comcast, other cable and satellite TV operators have decided to use non-TiVo DVR services.
Over the last year? Where has he been? This has been going on for years. (And why is the word "other" even in #2, above? Given the structure of the sentence, it shouldn't be. It is there because Swann is an idiot.)
Without cable and satellite's help, the media has been hard pressed to see how TiVo can survive in the long term.
WTF difference could it possibly make that "the media" are hard pressed to see how TiVo can survive? Either TiVo can survive or it can't. How does the media's perception affect the reality in any way?

And again:
Apple and Google now look like winners while TiVo looks like a loser.
Apple and Google don't look like winners, they are winners. What does that have to do with TiVo? Are all companies that that got less gushing press than Google losers? Poor Exxon. Poor Microsoft. Poor GE. Losers all.

Swann's thesis is that TiVo may be dead because it has lost stature in the media. Not dead for any business or financial reasons, but simply because the company is not the media darling it once was. It is a preposterous argument, made by a fool.

[samo]

At risk of turning this thread into “stock talk” (moderators, please feel free to remove or edit my post if you think I crossed the line) I would respond to some confusion here.
1. “TiVo doesn't sell stock to finance operations”. TiVo delutes its stock at a rate of about 14% a year. They do sell stock from time to time to compensate for loses. Last reported quarter they show loss from operations of about $15 mil (far cry from break even on total revenue of $49 mil). The total loss is about $800 mil so far.
2. “Nonsense. No money manager is going to finance a company because it made the cover of Time. If you find one who will, then you truly have found an idiot.”
Money managers do not finance companies – venture capitalists do. All the original venture capitalists (including Paul Allen) already cashed out their holdings years ago.
Institutional investors (or money managers you as call them) keep reducing their holdings – last quarter they reduced their holdings by another 2.5 mil shares. That means that suckers (individual investors) are picking up the slack and buy additional 14% per year. Individual investors are ones that make decisions based on a cover of Time.
3. “Um, it was a huge story, reprinted endlessly, that TiVo didn't announce anything big at CES this year. The Yahoo partnership news had more the 200 Google hits. The Fool still mentions TiVo at least a couple of times a week. There is still a TiVo-spotting thread in this forum listing mentions on The Daily Show, Ellen, etc. The company still generates more press for a company of its size than any I've ever seen.”
And still it doesn’t compare to what buzz TiVo had just a year ago. Not to mention that even Motley Fool is critical of TiVo now days. Of course there is no such a thing as bad publicity, but positive and optimistic articles are always preferred.
4. “They don't need financing to continue operations, and they don't need "hype." They need to demonstrate that they can continue to add customers who have a net positive value to the company. The company has the low valuation it does not because it isn't getting enough press, or because it isn't making money (look at SIRI), but because analysts doubt its ability to continue to grow.”
As I showed above they do need financing because they continue to show loss from operations and they do need hype to do so. They also need to show that they continue to add customers who have net positive value to the company, but they don’t do that either. Net additions to SA business are half of what they had a year ago. Analysts have a legitimate reason to doubt ability of the company to grow.
5. “Speculate all you want. If TiVo gets additional financing, it will be to fund growth, not operations. But getting back to the original point, you have fabricated an argument here that Swann didn't even hint at. He never mentioned the capital markets, TiVo's finances, or operational expenditures.”
Do I need to mention again that TiVo reports loss from operations? True Swann never mentioned any of that in his article. Complete speculation on my part that he could have used this logic to connect reduced hype to death of TiVo. The purpose of my speculation is illustrate that his conclusions are not idiotic and could have been derived from facts. Very possible that he used different logic to come up with his conclusion. For example he could consider that starting March 1st DTV will switch to lease only model and will no longer sell or lease DtiVos. He could have considered that after 2007 TiVo will not get any payments from DTV for even installed TiVo base. He could have considered whole bunch of different factors, I don’t care how he got from point A to point B. All I know that his conclusions are not idiotic and could have been derived from his observation of facts.
And it is against forum rules to call anybody an idiot even if you have a good reason.
Besides, people making factual errors not necessarily are idiots. You keep insisting on TiVo not losing on operations while TiVo filings are public information and contradict your statements. It doesn’t make you an idiot – you just didn’t investigate all the facts before you made your post. By no means Swann is right on everything he writes. But it doesn’t make him an idiot – just a mediocre journalist like many others.

[ChuckyBox]

1. “TiVo doesn't sell stock to finance operations”. TiVo delutes its stock at a rate of about 14% a year. They do sell stock from time to time to compensate for loses. Last reported quarter they show loss from operations of about $15 mil (far cry from break even on total revenue of $49 mil). The total loss is about $800 mil so far.
You pretty clearly don't understand the difference between earnings and cash flow. Until you understand the difference, further discussion on this topic is pointless.


Money managers do not finance companies – venture capitalists do.

Nor, apparently do you understand what the capital markets are for. Again, that makes further discussion pointless.


And still it doesn’t compare to what buzz TiVo had just a year ago.

Do you have any kind of objective, statistical evidence to back this statement up? TiVo's "buzz" a year ago included Engadget starting a "TiVo Deathwatch." Make sure to include that.

Do I need to mention again that TiVo reports loss from operations? True Swann never mentioned any of that in his article. Complete speculation on my part that he could have used this logic to connect reduced hype to death of TiVo. The purpose of my speculation is illustrate that his conclusions are not idiotic and could have been derived from facts.

And it could have derived from little fairies he saw dancing in his desk drawer. The bottom line is that his conclusion wasn't derived from either his stated assumptions or his stated argument. The article was a complete non sequitur. The guy made an observation, whether accurate or not, about the amount of publicity from the recent event. Had he stopped there, it would have been fine. But he then tacked on a sensationalistic headline and conclusion -- most likely to generate attention. But the conslusion didn't follow and the headline was unwarranted. That, in my book (plus his general cluelessness, bad writing, and self-importance) earns him the "idiot" classification. You think that is too strong, fine, we disagree.

[lajohn27]

Points to Chucky on this argument. Swann's argument *could* have been based on anything.. including the price of TIVO's in China.. but we'll never know because his argument was 'unfounded' in a literary sense.

His article was as Chucky correctly points out - sensationalist and his arguments were beyond non-linear... they were non-sequitur.

[samo]

You pretty clearly don't understand the difference between earnings and cash flow. Until you understand the difference, further discussion on this topic is pointless.
Let's do a little exercise in reading comprehension. You said that "TiVo doesn't sell stock to finance operations -- the company is more or less at cash flow breakeven and has no problem with operations.". Not true on all accounts. Last quarter TiVo sold $6 mils worth of stock, had negative cash flow of $12 mils and had loss from operations of $15 mils. Loss from operations is a major factor that drives TiVo to sell stock on a open market.I pointed it out to you and now you are bringing earnings and cash flow - neither of them is a same as income or loss from operations. Cash flow is a least relevant factor of all 3. For example if your life span is short, your credit line is large and you have a sugar daddy - you could live all your life and never earn the dime.
Cash flow is important only if your credit line drys out or your sugar daddy dies. Then you'll deplete your cash resources unless you earn some money or find another sugar daddy. But back to situation with TiVo. TiVo has been reporting negative cash flow for years. They have been very successful in replacing lost money with financial activities (borrowing money on a line of credit and selling stock certificates). For that to continue they have to generate positive buzz. If you don't understand this basic principle, you may want to do some reading.

[jmoak]

Let's do a little exercise ......Isn't this entire subject just an exercise? One that's been done over and over?:confused:

But, what the heay. As long as you're enjoying yourself.....

[rainwater]

Crap. It's all over.

[samo]

Isn't this entire subject just an exercise? One that's been done over and over?:confused:

But, what the heay. As long as you're enjoying yourself.....
Absolutely correct. If any of us could read a future, we wouldn't have to work for a living. And "TiVo is dead" subject is no longer even funny. I could just as easy use the "exercise" techniques to draw the conclusion based on facts that TiVo will prosper for years to come. I probably should do it just for fun. But "exercise" in this thread was to object to name calling, not to "prove" that Tivo is dead. In my honest opinion rumors of TiVo being dead are grossly exaggerated.

[ChuckyBox]

Last quarter TiVo sold $6 mils worth of stock,
Nope.

had negative cash flow of $12 mils

Less than half of that. And quarterly cash flow for a company as seasonal as TiVo is irrelevant anyway. TiVo's FY06 (just ended Jan 31) cash flow will probably be about break-even, plus or minus $5 million. (Though there are a number of factors that are hard to guess at -- e.g., if the company is stockpiling a bunch of inventory for some reason.)

and had loss from operations of $15 mils.

Closer to $14 million, but I'm going to give this one to you.

Loss from operations is a major factor that drives TiVo to sell stock on a open market.

As far as I know, TiVo has not sold stock on the open market in at least a couple of years. Certainly not this year.

I pointed it out to you and now you are bringing earnings and cash flow - neither of them is a same as income or loss from operations. Cash flow is a least relevant factor of all 3.
Wrong again. Look, I don't want to insult you, but you clearly do not understand corporate accounting and finance, and until you do, this discussion isn't going anywhere.

For example if your life span is short, your credit line is large and you have a sugar daddy - you could live all your life and never earn the dime. Cash flow is important only if your credit line drys out or your sugar daddy dies. Then you'll deplete your cash resources unless you earn some money or find another sugar daddy.

And this just further illustrates that you don't understand the subject.

[ZeoTiVo]

Absolutely correct. If any of us could read a future, we wouldn't have to work for a living. And "TiVo is dead" subject is no longer even funny. I could just as easy use the "exercise" techniques to draw the conclusion based on facts that TiVo will prosper for years to come. I probably should do it just for fun. But "exercise" in this thread was to object to name calling, not to "prove" that Tivo is dead. In my honest opinion rumors of TiVo being dead are grossly exaggerated.


so you try and focus on "name calling"
then you try and concoct the story for Swann so it made sense and acted in the first post as if Swann did indeed include all that in the article
then you try and back out of it while chucky brings reality along and pokes you with it
then you just say the whole thing makes no sense anyway when you have nothing else to say

and you say I'm the zealot :rolleyes:

[dmdeane]

so you try and focus on "name calling"
then you try and concoct the story for Swann so it made sense and acted in the first post as if Swann did indeed include all that in the articleMaybe Samo should write Swanni's articles for him. They would certainly make more sense than the scatterbrained stuff that Swanni writes.
then you try and back out of it while chucky brings reality along and pokes you with it
then you just say the whole thing makes no sense anyway when you have nothing else to say

and you say I'm the zealot :rolleyes:I could understand how someone stumbling into this conversation for the very first time might think that we were being "zealots" for calling Phillip Swann an idiot; however, that excuse is not available to anyone who has been following Swann's "career" for the past four or five years or however long he has been posing as a future TV "expert". Swann's only concern is to drive traffic to his site. The things he actually writes are extremely flimsy flame-bait; if he really believes what he writes, he's an idiot. If he does not, then he is an extremely cynical conman or shill of some kind. But not a very good one, since most of us here could write more convincing "TiVo is dead" articles than Swann can. So Swann's either an idiot or a shill who is so bad at shilling he is idiotic.

It's not an ad hominem attack if you can back up what you are saying, and if what you are saying is relevent to the topic under discussion. Ergo, calling Swann an "idiot" may be impolite, but it is not inaccurate nor is it, in context, ad hominem.

[samo]

so you try and focus on "name calling"
then you try and concoct the story for Swann so it made sense and acted in the first post as if Swann did indeed include all that in the article
then you try and back out of it while chucky brings reality along and pokes you with it
then you just say the whole thing makes no sense anyway when you have nothing else to say

and you say I'm the zealot :rolleyes:
I was going to drop this thread since Chucky can't read (not in general but he can't read numbers on Consolidated Cash Flow statement from Q-10)nor use his calculator and acts as he is some kind of professor of economics or at least major TiVo stockholder.I don't know if Chucky already graduated from the high school, but I have been aerospace engineer for 25 years before I decided to make a living trading stocks and I'm not about to continue arguing with a kid who can't read financial statements. Although I haven't followed TiVo in years (I only follow stocks that I trade), I still can tell you more about most probable TiVo future than Swann, Chucky and most of the members on this board combined. When stock talk was allowed on this board and I was trading TiVo I called all the highs and lows for TiVo for about 2 years and not once I was wrong. So don't tell me I have nothing to say, I just chose not to argue with people who don't listen. I don't care what Swann included or not included in a article. I just demonstrated chain of logic that he could use to connect the dots. His conclusion being it right or wrong is not idiotic and makes sense if you fill the blanks. His predictions in a past at least sometimes were 100% correct, like his prediction about combo units taking over the market from SA when combo units were just introduced. I'm not his fan, but he is not an idiot either. I don't know how many times you or Chucky have been quoted by major publication, but I know he was quoted several times. Your writing on this board doesn't earn you a dime, but his writing makes him money. Are you going to tell me that you are so much smarter than him that it makes him an idiot compare to you? Then write something that makes sense instead of calling people names and see if somebody pays you a dime for it.

[gonzotek]

...His predictions in a past at least sometimes were 100% correct...This is a pretty flimsy argument. They were sometimes 100% correct? That's approximately like saying if you keep throwing darts at a dartboard long enough, eventually you'll hit the bullseye.

[ZeoTiVo]

I was going to drop this thread since Chucky can't read (not in general but he can't read numbers on Consolidated Cash Flow statement from Q-10)nor use his calculator and acts as he is some kind of professor of economics or at least major TiVo stockholder.I don't know if Chucky already graduated from the high school, but I have been aerospace engineer for 25 years before I decided to make a living trading stocks and I'm not about to continue arguing with a kid who can't read financial statements. now who is name calling - and specifically another memeber of the forum. You really should try and live by the rules you lay down in your posts.

Although I haven't followed TiVo in years (I only follow stocks that I trade), I still can tell you more about most probable TiVo future than Swann, Chucky and most of the members on this board combined. When stock talk was allowed on this board and I was trading TiVo I called all the highs and lows for TiVo for about 2 years and not once I was wrong. So don't tell me I have nothing to say, I just chose not to argue with people who don't listen. well would you please listen then and recall I was calling Philip Swann an idiot. I do not recall saying anything about you at all nor was I saying anything about the future of TiVo in my first Post. You have since tried to turn the debate around on to other topics and obscure the intial point entirely. Why are you such a Philip Swamm zealot ;)


I don't care what Swann included or not included in a article. I just demonstrated chain of logic that he could use to connect the dots. His conclusion being it right or wrong is not idiotic and makes sense if you fill the blanks. Well since I was calling Phillip Swann an idiot and that is what you replied about, then it is rather germaine what PHILIP SWANN included in his article and it is not germaine what you tried to imply was in his article
Really samo, every time you try to defend something it becomes more and more obvious you have an agenda and are very willing to spin things to suit your agenda. Talk about poor shill work.

His predictions in a past at least sometimes were 100% correct, like his prediction about combo units taking over the market from SA when combo units were just introduced. yah , I play darts as well and hit the bull's eye enough times myself as well. And Please - the fact that DirectTV had one DVR brand available and the great prediciton was that it would sell well :p
I'm not his fan, but he is not an idiot either. I don't know how many times you or Chucky have been quoted by major publication, but I know he was quoted several times. I was quoted in the New York Times business section on TiVoToGo :) and I am not even holding myself out as an expert trying to make a living at it.
Your writing on this board doesn't earn you a dime, maybe you would like to come clean and let us know your motivation for writing on this board
but his writing makes him money. Are you going to tell me that you are so much smarter than him that it makes him an idiot compare to you? Then write something that makes sense instead of calling people names and see if somebody pays you a dime for it. what does making money have to do with being smart. I have a career on a totally different path and do quite well at it. My motivation for writing on this board is I like the technical inovation of TiVo and I am impressed that they have fared as well as they have in a very tough market where the competition is large companies with deep pockets and that TiVo has outlasted a very good direct competitor in ReplayTV.

and Philip Swann being an idiot has nothing to do with how smart anyone else is, it has to do with his shill writing style that has become so obvious that no matter if Swann beleives what he writes or not, few take him seriously as trying to predict the future so much as trying to change the future for his own motives. My speculation is that is exactly why you jumped to his defense.

[ChuckyBox]

Samo, you are such a moving target that I'm sure this this is a waste of time, because you will just move on to something else, but here it is anyway:

Here is TiVo's 10-Q from Q2 (http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001193125%2D05%2D183149%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2005%5C09%5C09%5C&CoName=TIVO+INC&FormType=10%2DQ&RcvdDate=9%2F9%2F2005&pdf=). About halfway down page 6 is "Net cash used in operating activities": $6,577,000 through Q2.

Here is TiVo's 10-Q from Q3 (http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001193125%2D05%2D240039%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2005%5C12%5C09%5C&CoName=TIVO+INC&FormType=10%2DQ&RcvdDate=12%2F9%2F2005&pdf=). About halfway down page 7 is "Net cash used in operating activities": $12,262,000 through Q3.

That means TiVo used about $5.7 million on operations in Q3. Not $12 million.

Last Q4 had positive cash flow from operations of nearly $18 million. It won't be that much this year, but it will be substantially positive (unless, as I said before, something extraordinary is going on), meaning cash flow from operations for the year will be within a few million of breakeven. The company has about $90 million in cash and short-term investments. That means they can operate for years at this rate without additional financing.

Now, tell me, where is that $6 million TiVo sold on the open market last quarter?

[samo]

Samo, you are such a moving target that I'm sure this this is a waste of time, because you will just move on to something else, but here it is anyway:

Here is TiVo's 10-Q from Q2 (http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001193125%2D05%2D183149%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2005%5C09%5C09%5C&CoName=TIVO+INC&FormType=10%2DQ&RcvdDate=9%2F9%2F2005&pdf=). About halfway down page 6 is "Net cash used in operating activities": $6,577,000 through Q2.

Here is TiVo's 10-Q from Q3 (http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001193125%2D05%2D240039%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2005%5C12%5C09%5C&CoName=TIVO+INC&FormType=10%2DQ&RcvdDate=12%2F9%2F2005&pdf=). About halfway down page 7 is "Net cash used in operating activities": $12,262,000 through Q3.

That means TiVo used about $5.7 million on operations in Q3. Not $12 million.

Last Q4 had positive cash flow from operations of nearly $18 million. It won't be that much this year, but it will be substantially positive (unless, as I said before, something extraordinary is going on), meaning cash flow from operations for the year will be within a few million of breakeven. The company has about $90 million in cash and short-term investments. That means they can operate for years at this rate without additional financing.

Now, tell me, where is that $6 million TiVo sold on the open market last quarter?
OK Chucky, I apologize. I should buy myself new reading glasses. Numbers I used are for 9 month ending 3rd quarter, not for 3rd quarter. And indeed historically for TiVo 4th quarter results are more important than all 3 previous quarters combined. But I still insist that conclusion that buzz factor has major influence on TiVo ability to rase money and stay in business is not idiotic and can be logically justified. Prediction that TiVo is dead may or may not be correct, but it could be defended based on multitude of reasons and you don't have to agree with it nor use name calling to defend opposing argument.

[HDTiVo]

Now that that's settled...

Look how much buzz TiVo is NOT getting about

1. the "anti-DVR" KFC ad...look at "all" the threads started here about it...yeah, the one I was able to start a day and a half latter that has like thirteen replies many days latter. Not long ago there would have been 12 identical threads started on that within 47 minutes of each other before the news media attention.

2. The Top 10 Olympic Moments PR - which no one got around to yet.

No, the buzz is not the same as it was.

[ZeoTiVo]

But I still insist that conclusion that buzz factor has major influence on TiVo ability to rase money and stay in business is not idiotic and can be logically justified.

well I think Stand Alone susbcription numbers and how well the pending Comcast roll out does will be a much larger factor than buzz.

and if that was the first article I ever read by Swann like that, I would have discussed the article. As it is, Swann has a well known history and it is not about how well he covers anything but how much buzz Swann can create about Swann.

[davezatz]

Here's an interesting nugget to chew on... In his video interview today, Rogers say 85% of TiVo revenue is generated from sources other than DirecTV.