TiVO Elite - Another gutless wonder

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by dcooper2025, Sep 7, 2011.

  1. Sep 12, 2011 #81 of 172
    tivogurl

    tivogurl New Member

    1,169
    0
    Dec 15, 2004

    Advertisements

    Let's say a subscriber is worth $100. 5000 is $500k a year. Two full-time engineers doing nothing but streaming is ~$300k. My point is that under a wide range of assumptions, excellence is accretive to profits even for such "minor" features.

    Since TiVo can't even fix long-standing non-showstopper bugs or finish important features (the UI being the most emblematic of this flaw) they can hardly be expected to be forward-thinking about things like streaming.

    Then there's my "favorite" reason not to upgrade: TiVo hasn't managed to come up with any kind of automated migration in the 11 years I've been a TiVo customer. I have 61 season passes and auto-recording wishlists. My channel list is finely honed to delete the many channels I don't get or don't watch. Recreating that on a new TiVo is many hours of unnecessary pain.
     
  2. Sep 12, 2011 #82 of 172
    Chris Gerhard

    Chris Gerhard Well-Known Member

    6,239
    60
    Apr 27, 2002
    AR
    I owned both ReplayTV and TiVo during the DVR format war and although I liked ReplayTV, I liked TiVo better and I believe that placed me with the majority opinion. My opinion is that Beta was slightly better than VHS based on owning both but not so much that it mattered.

    I sure hope that TiVo service won't end until there is no need for the service. I don't think anything will cause TiVo to become obsolete for many years but I do see the financial condition is deteriorating and there may be some consequences as a result.
     
  3. Sep 12, 2011 #83 of 172
    aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    Actually, season passes can easily be "transferred" to a new box using tivo.com.
     
  4. Sep 12, 2011 #84 of 172
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    the number of people that are OTA only is ~15%- or it was when the switch from analog to digital occured. It could be lower now because people gave up with converter boxes and got cable or it could be higher now because people see that digital with sub channels is a decent high quality 'basic' cable package. In any event it's still not likely in any way to be larger than cable.

    As far as how many have cable or fios- that's more nebulous and so I left it at "around half" because of the 85% that pay for TV, Directv, Dish, and ATT have decent counts. (Directv if i recall correctly is about the size of comcast as an example).

    Not including OTA might be a sever shortcoming but the limits of the chipsets is what it is- 4 tuners - period. So tivo offers people that want cable+OTA the 2+2 configuration of the S3/THD/premiers.

    the other alternative for more OTA tuners is 4 OTA ONLY and as above considering that's only 15% of the population and tivo is already a niche it doesn't make much business sense. If Tivo was rolling in the dough and could increase their world domination some more by coming out with an 4 OTA only model then so be it. But at the moment with their cable centric offerings they are drowning. So the reality is they choose the alternative that hits the biggests market share. Maybe the 4 tuners is all that is needed for tivo to take off and next year they can do a 4 tuner OTA only- but i wouldn't hold my breath.

    If you read my whole post- I'm no tivo apologist and i think they have messed up big time. But picking cable over OTA isn't a crazy decision to me based on the realities of their options.
     
  5. Sep 12, 2011 #85 of 172
    mr.unnatural

    mr.unnatural Well-Known Member

    4,836
    174
    Feb 2, 2006
    Ellicott...

    Advertisements

    I'm also a big fan of ReplayTV. They were far ahead of Tivo in so many areas. I think they got too aggressive with their innovations and it did them in in the end. I also liked Beta better than VHS, but the lack of a 6-hour recording mode was their ultimate undoing. Even at the best recording speed they could only get 1.5 hours of recording on a tape. Ironically, when Sony decided to start making VHS VCRs they did it better than anyone else.
     
  6. Sep 12, 2011 #86 of 172
    camera2000

    camera2000 New Member

    5
    0
    Sep 12, 2011
    I think TiVo DVRs are still the best and still rock solid. All of the internet access options that can be handled better by something else, I would just use something else for that purpose.
     
  7. Sep 12, 2011 #87 of 172
    shadowplay0918

    shadowplay0918 Member

    44
    2
    May 16, 2011
    I read this often in forums and though I agree at some point it will be true but we are at least 5 years away (probably more) from this happening.

    Download caps aren't going away anytime soon and the battle is just beginning....
     
  8. Sep 12, 2011 #88 of 172
    mr.unnatural

    mr.unnatural Well-Known Member

    4,836
    174
    Feb 2, 2006
    Ellicott...
    Unless some new format is introduced that will supplant Blu-Ray as the highest definition format for distributing movies, it's not going away anytime soon. I suspect it will at some point, but probably not for at least a decade, if not longer.

    We already have methods of distributing music via iTunes and mp3's, yet music stores are still selling huge quantities of CD's. The demise of that format has been predicted countless times, yet it still perseveres. Heck, you can still find music being distributed on vinyl if you look hard enough. Formats will last as long as there is still a demand for them.
     
  9. Sep 13, 2011 #89 of 172
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,959
    750
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    Then why the huge emphasis in TiVo ads on the "one box" concept?
     
  10. Sep 13, 2011 #90 of 172
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,959
    750
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    I too would like to know where you got this number. Sorry if I missed it in a previous post.
     
  11. Sep 13, 2011 #91 of 172
    Unix_Beard

    Unix_Beard New Member

    566
    0
    Dec 22, 2003
    I'm a long time Tivo user and own 4 of them. They perform their functions beautifully.
     
  12. Sep 13, 2011 #92 of 172
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Yesterday's technology is often superior to today's. As an example, despite all the hype and hoopla, no modern frying pan can from an overall perspective compete with the cast-iron frying pan, developed more than 150 years ago. Despite all the extra features, no keyboard of which I know has yet to match or exceed the feel of the IBM 101 keyboard which was bundled with the IBM XT. For small farms, modern tractors are not as efficient or effective as a draft horse, used by farmers for more than 3000 years. The design of industrial diesel engines for use in generators, pumps, and other fixed installations has not changed significantly in more than 70 years, a number of the original units manufactured at that time still being in use.

    I for one am totally unimpressed, even put off by glitz, and I offer no credits to a shiny new toy simply because it is shiny or new. Quite the contrary, whenver looking at a tool, implement, or toy, I am impressed if it shows signficant signs of extensive wear. It speaks of something that gets used a lot. To the same point, I am not impressed by individuals who parade around with bright, shiny, hardly used toys, whether new or not. Give me a 30 year old pickup truck, beaten and battered, over a pampered show car with a gleaming finish and glossy wheels any day.

    It's not my first consideration, by any means. Certainly I do not want to pay more than I have to for any given set of requirements, but I am more than willing to pay a premium for a superior feature set, provided the additional features are ones I consider important. I do not wish to pay more for features for which I have little use. Prime example: multiple tuners. I have no wish to pay for more than 2 tuners in a box. Better example: HDUI. I would be willing to pay extra to NOT have what most manufacturers are calling an HDUI. The best UI is one that does not exist at all. Any requirement for the user to interact with a box represents a failure on the part of the box. Relativiely few units meet this ideal, but diverging further from the ideal is not acceptable, let alone a good idea. WRT a DVR, I want to watch TV, not spend any time setting up recording or fiddling with the DVR in any way at all. Any time spent searching for videos to record or managing the DVR is a waste. I surely don't want to look at any guide or endless lists of 10s of thousands of titles in which I have no interest.

    What wound? With the exception of network performance and a stable alternative to a TA, there is nothing offered by any new proposals from TiVo or anyone else that interests me in the least. I am NOT going to dump my 2002 Camaro Convertible just because some newer automobile has a better sound system or a fresh car smell, and I certianly am not going to get rid of my TiVo to move to a system that offers me nothing I want and fails to offer me what I do.

    I have six tuners. It is very rare that three of the six are active recording non-duplicate programming. Nonetheless, they typically are recording more than 14 hours a day in unique programming, seven days a week. It is not possible for any human being to watch that much programming while maintaining anything even remotely resembling a normal or useful life. On the very rare occasion that one of the TiVos has an irreconcilable conflict, I simply go to one of the other TiVos to record the third program. It would be somewhat nice to be able to handle such conflicts from a single location (preferrably not on the TiVo, actually), but getting up from the recliner and walking into the other room to set a recording every four or five months is just not a big deal. If it really were, a $20 video capture card installed in the PC next to each TiVo would handle it nicely enough.

    YOU DO NOT GET IT FOR FREE!!!! It costs you upwards of $500 a month to receive those channels, and everry time you change channels to one of them, the price goes up. The utterly lousy content broadcast on those channels aside, if you want to save some money, stop watching OTA, and convince three other people to also stop watching OTA and convince three of their friends, etc. As a bonus, you will no longer be bombarding yourself with nearly as much mind-numbing, morally reprehensible, socially unredeeming crap.

    Good for them. If this were anything like a reasonable or ethical society, the local broadcast channels would have been shut down decades ago. That said, it is a good thing their market share is dwindling fast.

    Geez. Network TV. Windows. Have you also removed your front door and put up a sign on the curb saying, "Please come steal everything I have."? So much for your getting any bang for your buck, at all. From what I can tell, you prefer to have evreythihng cost 10 - 100x as much as it reasonably should.

    As far as the HTPC "doing everything I need", that's not a terribly difficult proposition as long as one doesn't need much. An HTPC cannot handle the top 10 things I demand of my TiVos, five of which are deal breakers.
     
  13. Sep 13, 2011 #93 of 172
    mr.unnatural

    mr.unnatural Well-Known Member

    4,836
    174
    Feb 2, 2006
    Ellicott...
    Just can't refrain from wasting bandwidth by bashing everything you don't agree with, can you? You say you only want two tuners and then proclaim you have six. The entire world already knows you don't like network TV or Microsoft so give it a rest already, willya? :rolleyes:

    Your claim that TV costs us upwards of $500 per month is complete BS, unless of course you buy every product advertised on TV. I rarely, if ever, watch commercials and even more rarely do I buy any of the products that I do see advertised. I've never bought a car or brand of beer based on an advertisement, regardless of the media it was presented in.
     
  14. Sep 13, 2011 #94 of 172
    slowbiscuit

    slowbiscuit FUBAR

    4,546
    559
    Sep 19, 2006
    In the ATL
    Because marketing is completely disconnected from the technical reality, as usual.
     
  15. Sep 13, 2011 #95 of 172
    atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,945
    610
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Take a look at the thread of thought that was being talked about instead of pulling words out. The thought process was why TiVo couldn't sell stand alone HD DVRs. First 25 million + house holds are gone because they use satellite or AT&T U-verse, second was the limitations, cost, and problems associated with cable cards, third was the problems with tuning adapters. If the Premiere were a perfect streaming device it still has those issues which end up making Joe six pack go with their provider's DVR and if they really want streaming media add it with a low cost device like a Roku.

    Ask yourself is streaming media selling more "smart" TVs or "Smart" blu-ray players? Look around the web and it appears the answer is no. So why would it sell more "smart" DVRs?

    Thanks,
     
  16. Sep 13, 2011 #96 of 172
    johnf@home

    johnf@home New Member

    260
    0
    Dec 1, 2007
    San Jose, CA
    The biggest speedup you get from multi-threading is responsiveness; with a well-written systen the UI is never held up waiting for a background task.

    But adding that later (if you didn't design it in from day one) is difficult.
     
  17. Sep 13, 2011 #97 of 172
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,959
    750
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    I appreciate your clarification and have no strong disagreement with it. However the point of my post was the inconsistency between that picture and TiVo's marketing approach.
    This reply addresses my point. I would like to hear TiVo's rationale before deciding whether it's just bad market analysis or perhaps TiVo knows something that atmuscarella doesn't, although my gut leans toward the former. (Of course we'll never hear TiVo's rationale!)
     
  18. Sep 13, 2011 #98 of 172
    b_scott

    b_scott TiVo Fan

    1,757
    39
    Nov 27, 2006
    chicago, il
    agree with original post.
     
  19. Sep 13, 2011 #99 of 172
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,959
    750
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    You've said this more than once on this forum and I haven't seen your breakdown to justify that figure, which seems very high. Sorry if I missed it.

    Are you talking about the advertising cost built into every product? And if so, how do you come up with that figure?
     
  20. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,945
    610
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I do agree with you that TiVo's marketing hype for the Premiere was way out of line. They might just as well have said it cured cancer. It was also released with unacceptably buggy software. What we have know should have been what it was day one and it still needs improving.

    I have less problem with TiVo's current marketing where they call it a "smart" DVR. It falls in line with "smart" TVs and "smart" blu-ray players.

    Thanks,
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements