TiVo, a leader in failure?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by DAccardi, Feb 6, 2009.

  1. Feb 19, 2009 #81 of 104
    SteveHC1

    SteveHC1 SteveHC

    157
    0
    Dec 11, 2008
    Florida

    Advertisements

    C'mon now, folks -we're talking about a fri***n TV GADGET and the company that makes it, not the meaning of the universe or whether or not God exists!!! Heck, we're not even arguing Mac vs. PC here!!! It just isn't supposed to be that serious of an issue!

    Whether or not TiVo succeeds in the long run - and I believe they will, because they are NOT stupid and realize the potential of the gadget WELL BEYOND cable tv land - there are other manufacturers GRADUALLY getting into the market. DVRs are here to stay, and if TiVo plays its cards right they'll continue to offer more than the competition does. Sure I begrudge their lack of clear QAM support :thumbsdown: but they've got SO much else going on. And if the CABLE companies have half a brain, once the transition to digital is final and COMPLETE that may no longer be an issue anyway.

    OK, time to get hyped up on some coffee and get p-o'd at somebody... ;)
     
  2. Feb 20, 2009 #82 of 104
    DAccardi

    DAccardi Tivo Special Member

    302
    0
    Oct 26, 2008
    New Jersey
    Oh Zeo, we feel for you. Its ok, TiVo will succeed, I know it pains you to say that they are not making money yet outside of the lawsuit, but hey, I look forward to more 'CEO visionary dream" recaps from you in the future. We truly feel for you kiddo.
     
  3. Feb 20, 2009 #83 of 104
    ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    yep - long term success at TiVo would mean they move beyond the DVR part and become that holy grail aggregating all kinds of content. HuLu recently shutting off acces to Boxee does not forbode well though - content providers are all looking to play in their silos versus turning out for the one box in the living room concept.
     
  4. Feb 20, 2009 #84 of 104
    ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    that's the laugh of this whole thing, I am not distraught over this at all. I was merely calling the posts like I see them. You can keep trying to attach an emotional context to this but it would seem to be on your part and not mine. It is not my thread that failed. :)
     
  5. Feb 21, 2009 #85 of 104
    mixedday1

    mixedday1 New Member

    21
    0
    Feb 19, 2009

    Advertisements

    If I recall correctly wasn't The Dishplayer really considered a Microsoft product (including the DVR functionality, webTV)? I remembered on dbsforums.com reading that when customers had "bugs", Dish had to rely on Microsoft to fix these bugs. The technology and IP , entire DVR functionality was more Microsoft, and it ultimately led to a poor relation between Microsoft and Dish.

    Charlie realized, hey we'll not use a 3rd party and sell our own DVRs.

    They ceased selling DishPlayer then a year later or so, Dish rolled out the 501 which was a fee-free very basic DVR, where the Dishplayer had a rich interface, this one was like Dish's models. Somewhat as if they went back in time with the interface and all. I think it was the intro of this model and the DVR capabilities, that TiVo found infringing not the MS Dishplayer.
     
  6. Feb 21, 2009 #86 of 104
    mixedday1

    mixedday1 New Member

    21
    0
    Feb 19, 2009
    Just wondering, what are the exceptional features of the 922? [I haven't used one]
     
  7. Feb 21, 2009 #87 of 104
    ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    Indeed. The judgement even allowed for a certain number of DVRs to be excluded to adjust for the Microsoft stuff that first came out
     
  8. Feb 21, 2009 #88 of 104
    Puppy76

    Puppy76 Well-Known Member

    1,438
    45
    Oct 6, 2004
    I have to agree with that. And I wasn't aware that somehow TV and movies were no longer popular :laugh:
     
  9. Feb 21, 2009 #89 of 104
    SteveHC1

    SteveHC1 SteveHC

    157
    0
    Dec 11, 2008
    Florida
    - That's too bad, because I'm sure that most consumers will NOT go for the idea of having multiple set-top boxes in their living rooms.
     
  10. Feb 22, 2009 #90 of 104
    samo

    samo New Member

    1,793
    0
    Oct 7, 1999
    Littleton,...
    It is basically 722 with sling-box built it. 722 is the best DVR on a market today. With sling-box it will be even better.
     
  11. Feb 22, 2009 #91 of 104
    Curtis

    Curtis New Member

    534
    0
    Dec 2, 2003
    Judge Folsom in his denial of treble damages:
     
  12. Feb 22, 2009 #92 of 104
    Curtis

    Curtis New Member

    534
    0
    Dec 2, 2003
    No. TiVo was awarded "lost profits" of $32.66 million in lost profits from lost sales/usage of its set-top boxes for the estimated 192,708 DVRs that TiVo would have sold if Dish had not infringed. Since TiVo was given the full amount for these hypothetical DVRs, that number of DVRs was not subject to royalties and not subject to the disable order.
     
  13. Feb 22, 2009 #93 of 104
    berkshires

    berkshires New Member

    463
    0
    Feb 22, 2007
    Always wondered who figured out TiVo would have MADE $32.66M on THOSE 192,708 DVRs even IF TiVo had been ABLE to sell them itself. :confused:
     
  14. Feb 22, 2009 #94 of 104
    Curtis

    Curtis New Member

    534
    0
    Dec 2, 2003
    It was Dr. Ugone of Analysis Group, Inc. (and the jury).
     
  15. Feb 22, 2009 #95 of 104
    berkshires

    berkshires New Member

    463
    0
    Feb 22, 2007
    And how did they come up with this? What did DISH's side argue?

    What era where these theoretical sales? Were they SA devices only or DTiVos also?
     
  16. Feb 22, 2009 #96 of 104
    Curtis

    Curtis New Member

    534
    0
    Dec 2, 2003
    What difference does it make? Dish didn't appeal it. TiVo has the money.
     
  17. Feb 23, 2009 #97 of 104
    berkshires

    berkshires New Member

    463
    0
    Feb 22, 2007
    This thread is about success or failure, not the litigation. It happens there is an element of the litigation that expresses success for TiVo.

    Curious as to the methodology of the calculation that TiVo would have made $$ on those few theoretical units when they didn't make money overall on the actual ones.

    Too bad those folks weren't running TiVo all these years.
     
  18. Feb 23, 2009 #98 of 104
    Puppy76

    Puppy76 Well-Known Member

    1,438
    45
    Oct 6, 2004
    Doesn't matter if they would have made money or not, they were ripped off. And they can't be doing THAT badly given they're still with us. I mean they're a little company, and this is a tough business (especially since it's hard for a lot of people to understand the product)...
     
  19. Feb 23, 2009 #99 of 104
    ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    I think they just did a straight up cost of hardware versus revenue in the form of a sub. No idea if they mixed in lifetimes and MSD and so forth or not. I guess they figured the other costs, like R&D, were incurred by TiVo anyway.
     
  20. ZeoTiVo

    ZeoTiVo I can't explain

    25,527
    2
    Jan 2, 2004
    right and those would have been the Microsoft DVRs they were working on. TiVo elected to not appeal the treble damages because that is indeed hard to prove in court and TiVo had no smoking gun for a judge to hang his hat on but the circumstantial evidence is pretty good. TiVo had better things to do with the court time and legal fees and that was to strengthen its IP portfolio and not so much to get DISH for every penny TiVo could.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements