# What is there to look forward to?



## PHL (Jul 15, 2004)

So I'm coming up on my 10-year anniversary of being a DirecTV subscriber. Over the years, there has always been something that I was lusting after, and would entice me to re-commit.

Multiple DVR's. Dish wanted a fortune. Signed up with D* with 4 Samsung (Tivo SW) DVR's from Solid Signal at a great price.
MRV (tempted to hack my Tivo's but never did it). Would have switched to Fios TV if their DVR's didn't suck.
Faster Tivo SW (Version 6.2 made Tivo so much more bearable while I waited for HD)
High Def DVR (finally got a HDTV in 2009
MRV/Whole Home DVR, 2010
HR34/Genie (2012)
So now, I've got 4 months left on my latest commitment, and I can't find anything compelling to look forward to.

GenieGo: Don't really need it. Would rather have Slingbox-type functionality instead
On-Demand: Used it, but it is painfully slow and limited. Rather go with Netflix.
Wireless Clients: Non-factor, as I already have cabling to everywhere I need TV.
RVU: Don't know whatever happened to this. Don't really see any new TV's offering this as an option (but I may be mistaken).

Am I missing anything? I'm generally satisfied with D*, but is there anything really interesting in the future that compels me to stick around? Otherwise, I should start looking at other providers.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

PHL said:


> RVU: Don't know whatever happened to this. Don't really see any new TV's offering this as an option (but I may be mistaken).


Yep, mistaken.  all new Samsung and Sony (some) are DirecTV ready (or RVU compatible)

But not sure what you are really looking for. at the end of the day TV is TV. perhaps you may call to get some discounts since you already have all the features.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

PHL said:


> I'm generally satisfied with D*, but is there anything really interesting in the future that compels me to stick around? Otherwise, I should start looking at other providers.


You are familiar with the equipment and user interface and how everything operates. You are generally satisfied. So you have arguments that suggest remaining with DirecTV. However, most likely you will be able to get a new customer promo with another provider that will give you lower cost for a year or two. What you need to determine is:
1. Is the competitors equipment and user experience acceptable?
2. Is there enough cost savings potential to justify change, especially of some type of bundling option is available? Make sure you compare apples to apples, examine cost for multi-tuner DVR service, and equipment for all viewing locations.
3. Is the channel lineup for the competitor acceptable?


----------



## Riverpilot (Aug 13, 2010)

I haven't been around that long, just 3 years for me... I've been waiting for multiple genies to be finally authorized, or a new genie with 8-10+ tuners. Neither looks like it's happening anytime soon.

Dish is my only other option, (local cable company is horrid)... I'm personally starting to lean towards DIsh, just for the heavy discounts. :shrug:

I think you have the same problem I do.. hardware upgradis... lol.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think we are a year out if a new wave of equipment and maybe new GUI too. 

I don't see why you should look for a new provider just because your out of commitment. If they satisfy everything you want what's the difference if something new is coming next week or not. To kind if repeats what Carl said the real question is does anyone else offer something do doesn't have that you not only want but would also actually use.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Yep, mistaken. all new Samsung and Sony (some) are DirecTV ready (or RVU compatible)
> .


Not all Samsungs, only Smart tv Samsungs.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Riverpilot said:


> I think you have the same problem I do.. hardware upgradis... lol.


When one has been with a provider for so long, and have perfected the set up throughout that time, it tends to get expensive replicating the exact same set up with another provider. I know for a fact that dish or CableVision would not be able to replicate my set up at no cost.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

When we had cable, we paid zero upfront , and I had 5 HD/DVRs.
I can switch to cable today and not pay a cent.
I would have to pay directv though , again for leaving early.

I PAID directv $295 for the setup in my signature as a new customer. 

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm currently dual-subbing just for the hell of it, but have switched back and forth over the years quite a few times.

Switching can be financially beneficial, but in multi-room setups, the more equipment and tuners you actually need can eat up the discounts pretty quickly with upfront hardware costs. Currently both providers are pushing the client/server route for new and upgrades. That saves the company money and saves the customer some upfront costs too, but at the loss of some tuners all too often. In my case there was never more than 2 tvs, so it wasn't too bad and switching did save me some money.

Right now, I only really have one TV that is used though I have another in my tech room that I use as a computer monitor mostly. 5 actual tuners on each service with the way I'm configured now. The only negative besides the cost <G>, is switching between the Genie and Hopper.

Plusses :
Dish Hopper with Sling/Super Joey : Dish Anywhere, Copying recordings to my iPad to either view on it, or cast it to the big screen via AppleTV, more modern UI that I prefer, external HD for archiving tied to account and not receiver.

DirecTV Genie : More of the premiums in HD and more sports in HD.

To the OP, if you are pretty happy with the service you are getting, and it does seem you are, then stick with it. Looking at your hardware setup with D* and having 9 total tuners, it would take some upfront money for either a Hopper+SuperJoey (5 total shared tuners), or 2 Hoppers (6 total tuners) and with PTAT if you watch much broadcast to pad out the tuner needs, which would eat up some of the 1st years discounts.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I wouldn't switch because of the amount of programs recorded that I'd lose, learning a new remote (still use 65s but have some 71s) , learning a new channel lineup and just generally ripping out and replacing the boxes, switches, dish that I've done mostly myself and works fine.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I wouldn't argue any of your position except for losing recordings. just one little glitch with D* and a HDDVR swap and that happens anyway!! 

That is one BIG plus for Dish and their use of EHD that is not tied to the receiver. I may still lose some recordings on a swapout, but not any I have on my EHD. I've never understood D*'s position/support (or lack of) on doing it the way they do.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> When we had cable, we paid zero upfront , and I had 5 HD/DVRs.


cable does seems not to charge for hardware upfront, but they get you on the monthly fees. My sister pays $14.95 per DVR (she has two) on top of her programming package. so DirecTV still has a better deal there on multiple DVRs. The same does not apply to dish, however


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> cable does seems not to charge for hardware upfront, but they get you on the monthly fees. My sister pays $14.95 per DVR (she has two) on top of her programming package. so DirecTV still has a better deal there on multiple DVRs. The same does not apply to dish, however


So did I but that included HD and DVR services as well as free protection and trouble shooting.
I paid $60 per month on Receiver fees, HD and DVR Protection plan.
I pay $57 per month with Directv MRV.

Directv isn't that cheap!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> So did I but that included HD and DVR services as well as free protection and trouble shooting.
> I paid $60 per month on Receiver fees, HD and DVR Protection plan.
> I pay $57 per month with Directv MRV.
> 
> Directv isn't that cheap!


something is not adding up there. if you paid $14.95 per DVR that would be $74.75. The same with DirecTV would be $49

DirecTV 
5 DVRs @ $6.00 = $24 (one is included)
MRV, HD, DVR fee = $25
Total Cost in fees = $49.00

Cable
5 DVRs @14.95 = $74.75


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> something is not adding up there. if you paid $14.95 per DVR that would be $74.75. The same with DirecTV would be $49
> 
> DirecTV
> 5 DVRs @ $6.00 = $24 (one is included)
> ...


They don't charge $14.95 for the first receiver. Atleast not here.

$14.95 x 4 = $59.80
No commitment

Directv 
$25 HD DVR service
$24 5 rooms
$7.99 Protection plan. Which is included with cable.
$56.99
$295 upfront and 24 month commitment.

Anything I would have saved monthy over 2 years would be a wash.
Directv again , is not that cheap.

Add in internet, and things get even more tighter.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

I have had Satellite TV since 1997. First with Dish, now DirecTV since 2003. The technology used to be exciting. Just the thrill of telling the cable company to shove it and being able to install the equipment yourself. Superstations, East and West coast networks and content no one else had.Then the Dishplayer DVR. Then DirecTIVO's, HD, the HR series and now Genie and wireless Genie.

But along the way the satellite providers just became cable in the sky. Very little difference in programming or hardware features. Cable finally caught up but it all looks the same now. Prices keep increasing! I have 500 channels but can't find anything I want to watch.

Life situations change and TV is not a priority any longer.

I find myself helping and advising friends on how to cut the cord. Roku, OTA, Apple TV all cost a lot less and more and more is available to watch on the internet.

I wonder if in 10 years satellite will still be a player in the TV realm? If Dish and DirecTV can make all their content available over the internet do we really need satellite TV?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I think we are a year out if a new wave of equipment and maybe new GUI too.
> 
> I don't see why you should look for a new provider just because your out of commitment. If they satisfy everything you want what's the difference if something new is coming next week or not. To kind if repeats what Carl said the real question is does anyone else offer something do doesn't have that you not only want but would also actually use.


That's the same position I'm in. Out of commitment and nothing I want. I'm pretty satisfied with everything as it is now.

Rich


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Rich said:


> That's the same position I'm in. Out of commitment and nothing I want. I'm pretty satisfied with everything as it is now.
> 
> Rich


I want better TV content first.

TV anymore sucks IMO!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> They don't charge $14.95 for the first receiver. Atleast not here.


I guess it matters where you live, here they charge you for all them, including the first one. but the point I was trying to make was that most of the time, at least in my case, it will cost me more money to replicate my exact set up with another provider.

I have 16 recordable tuners in 5 receivers. that would be that I would need 8 DVRs from my cable company, or a few Hoppas and some Juwhos from the other guys. DirecTV wins here by a mile!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> I want better TV content first.
> 
> TV anymore sucks IMO!


then you are barking at the wrong tree


----------



## RBA (Apr 14, 2013)

It's good you have 4 months till end of contract AT&T's announcement may change your mind.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

peds48 said:


> I have 16 recordable tuners in 5 receivers. that would be that I would need 8 DVRs from my cable company, or a few Hoppas and some Juwhos from the other guys. DirecTV wins here by a mile!


Just as a point of comparison, Cablevision's Multiroom DVR offers 15 recording tuners per account for a $13/month charge (VS. DIRECTV's HD, DVR and MRV charges). On top of that, they charge $7/month per STB. Recordings and prefs are stored in the cloud, and you get between 90 and 100 hours of HD storage. The 15 tuners, playlist and TDL can be remotely managed from any STB, your browser, Android or iOS device.

Depending on the deal you get, that $13/month is waived the first 12 or 24 months for new customers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I want better TV content first.
> 
> TV anymore sucks IMO!


How about consolidate the shows to fewer channels. Like kill of fx2 and such. Ugh. Less channels would be easier for everyone but hollywoods wallets.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Steve said:


> Just as a point of comparison, Cablevision's Multiroom DVR offers 15 recording tuners per account for a $13/month charge (VS. DIRECTV's HD, DVR and MRV charges). On top of that, they charge $7/month per STB. Recordings and prefs are stored in the cloud, and you get between 90 and 100 hours of HD storage. The 15 tuners, playlist and TDL can be remotely managed from any STB, your browser, Android or iOS device.
> 
> Depending on the deal you get, that $13/month is waived the first 12 or 24 months for new customers.


How I knew you will be comment to post this..... but the weak point in "your" system is the 100 hours of storage. I have 700 hours worth of storage all in stock hard drives, no externals.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The type of setups that people here have are not the norm. Normal people do not need 16 recordable tuners and 700 hours of storage 

For most, the standard config Directv pushes of a Genie plus a few clients will more than meet their needs. I have a dual tuner Tivo on one TV. There's a second TV in my bedroom but I haven't had it hooked up to anything since the old Tivo Series 2 it had died a few years back. I could count on one hand the number of times I've had a recording conflict arise due to two tuners.

Granted I live alone, but I just cannot fathom how anyone would ever need 16 recordable tuners. If I had a wife and five kids, and everyone wanted to record two things at the same time I did, surely there would be some overlap, but even if there weren't it would be only 14 tuners! :eek2:

I know, I know, part of this is having everyone with their own little DVR fiefdom, so you end up with 16 tuners even though you probably never use even half that many at once. Seems to me the way to solve that is for Directv to make a multiuser Genie. Each person can have their own playlist, with the possibility to set a password, so playlists can be kept private if desired. If 8 shared tuners isn't enough, make a deluxe model with two sat inputs so it can go to 16. If they had that, I doubt there would be anyone asking about two Genies on an account.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I have 400 recordable hours and in 2 years time, I may have 100 hours used currently. We don't have library's of movies. If we like it that much we buy the blu ray or dvd.
My main reason for tuners is so there are no conflicts. 
I could care less about having massive storage.
I would rather have a good VOD service. And most cable companies do , so they don't need massive storage.
You don't even need dvr service for on demand .

Directv has good selection of on demand, but their delivery is piss poor.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> The type of setups that people here have are not the norm. Normal people do not need 16 recordable tuners and 700 hours of storage
> 
> For most, the standard config Directv pushes of a Genie plus a few clients will more than meet their needs. I have a dual tuner Tivo on one TV. There's a second TV in my bedroom but I haven't had it hooked up to anything since the old Tivo Series 2 it had died a few years back. I could count on one hand the number of times I've had a recording conflict arise due to two tuners.
> 
> ...


IIRC, there was one primetime hour in the 2012-2013 TV season that I actually wanted to record 5 things at once on my Genie. That's the most ever, tho. I'm thinking it was 9PM on Thursday night that I wanted to record ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and PBS all at the same time, but I don't remember the shows.

I think Cablevision upped the cloud DVR from 10 to 15 tuners simply as a marketing ploy, because they fight tooth and nail with FiOS for customers in this area. FiOS is about to offer an option for 12 tuners, by pairing two of their new, 6-tuner VMS 1100 boxes. It's their version of Genie/Roamio client server.

I probably get close to 100 hours of storage at times, but there's just two of us here and we rarely watch more than 25 hours of recordings per week, so a lot of the stuff we record goes unwatched.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> The type of setups that people here have are not the norm. Normal people do not need 16 recordable tuners and 700 hours of storage


No, my set up is very normal. two Genies plus 3 HDDVRs, 16 tuners on 5 boxes. nothing out of this world. you are making it seem like I have 16 boxes :rotfl:


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> No, my set up is very normal. two Genies plus 3 HDDVRs, 16 tuners on 5 boxes. nothing out of this world. you are making it seem like I have 16 boxes :rotfl:


Come on now Peds, your setup is extremely unusual.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Come on now Peds, your setup is extremely unusual.


well in that regard, I digress


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

peds48 said:


> No, my set up is very normal. two Genies plus 3 HDDVRs, 16 tuners on 5 boxes. nothing out of this world. you are making it seem like I have 16 boxes :rotfl:


Might not be out of the world, but it's five boxes and two DVR's more than I have. There's only two of us here. I have had a DVR for over six years -- Adelphia cable, DirecTV, and FiOS. Perhaps twice during that time I have had to watch a TV show with my OTA antenna because I wanted to watch something while two other programs were being recorded.


----------



## shuye (Oct 20, 2008)

damondlt said:


> I have 400 recordable hours and in 2 years time, I may have 100 hours used currently. We don't have library's of movies. If we like it that much we buy the blu ray or dvd.
> My main reason for tuners is so there are no conflicts.
> I could care less about having massive storage.
> I would rather have a good VOD service. And most cable companies do , so they don't need massive storage.
> ...


I agree about Directv's on demand delivery. I use it more by watching shows on my ipad through the Directv app.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

damondlt said:


> They don't charge $14.95 for the first receiver. Atleast not here.
> 
> $14.95 x 4 = $59.80
> No commitment
> ...


Comcast and other cable systems have a added cost Service Protection Plan

and on Comcast some deals need a 2 year commitment.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Steve said:


> Just as a point of comparison, Cablevision's Multiroom DVR offers 15 recording tuners per account for a $13/month charge (VS. DIRECTV's HD, DVR and MRV charges). On top of that, they charge $7/month per STB. Recordings and prefs are stored in the cloud, and you get between 90 and 100 hours of HD storage. The 15 tuners, playlist and TDL can be remotely managed from any STB, your browser, Android or iOS device.
> 
> Depending on the deal you get, that $13/month is waived the first 12 or 24 months for new customers.


Late last year year, my best friend converted from a combination of providers (with DirecTV as his TV provider) to Cablevision's Triple play with Multiroom DVR service (when it only included 10 recording tuners). He describes it at "The most expensive $100 per month savings there ever was." Both his wife and son are furious with him over this move. The cloud DVR is excruciatingly slow and unresponsive when it comes to trick play. It's a lot like doing trickplay on Netflix (except slower to respond). Menu response is no better. Cablevision's cloud service makes my "retired" HR21's look like speed demons in comparison.

Conceptually, this service is a good idea. But, in practice, it still has a long way to go before it can be compared to any DirecTV multi-room DVR system.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> Late last year year, my best friend converted from a combination of providers (with DirecTV as his TV provider) to Cablevision's Triple play with Multiroom DVR service (when it only included 10 recording tuners). He describes it at "The most expensive $100 per month savings there ever was." Both his wife and son are furious with him over this move. The cloud DVR is excruciatingly slow and unresponsive when it comes to trick play. It's a lot like doing trickplay on Netflix (except slower to respond). Menu response is no better. Cablevision's cloud service makes my "retired" HR21's look like speed demons in comparison.
> 
> Conceptually, this service is a good idea. But, in practice, it still has a long way to go before it can be compared to any DirecTV multi-room DVR system.


I think it depends on where you're located for the new DVR service that CV is putting out. Yeah the trick play is an issue, but I wouldn't touch anything from CV here. Where _*Steve*_ lives is another story.

Rich


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Rich said:


> I think it depends on where you're located for the new DVR service that CV is putting out. Yeah the trick play is an issue, but I wouldn't touch anything from CV here. Where _*Steve*_ lives is another story.
> 
> Rich


Maybe. But you'd think that someone living less than 10 miles from Cablevision's corporate headquarters (and even closer to the main technical facility) would be receiving the best quality available.

I agree with you. I wouldn't touch anything from CV either. But, unlike my friend, I'm not paying $50K per year in tuition for my oldest kid either. So, quality trumps cost.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

> I want better TV content first.
> 
> TV anymore sucks IMO!


Bingo!

You can have the hottest set up in the world, Content is the same across the board.

The provider that figures this out is the winner. Period.


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

Phil T said:


> I wonder if in 10 years satellite will still be a player in the TV realm? If Dish and DirecTV can make all their content available over the internet do we really need satellite TV?


I think you're forgetting the main demographic of satellite TV: Rural areas. There are large parts of the US that are rural and don't have a cable TV provider. A lot of these rural areas also do not have DSL, cable, or other broadband internet access. I have friends that live in parts of Alabama that have to rely on Satellite for both TV and internet. With the data caps that satellite internet providers have (HugesNet is 10GB a month!!) there's no feasible way for those subscribers in those rural areas to "cut the cord" and stream the majority of their TV programming.

I believe that within 10 years we will see a huge shift away from linear TV channels and more programming will be available streaming or on demand, but there will still be people that live in rural areas that will need a linear TV service due to lack of available broadband internet in their area. Unless the satellite internet providers move into the 21st century and allow more than 10GB a month of data, if they increase their data caps then it would be possible for those in rural areas to go to a streaming-only TV service, but they would still require the satellite dish for internet access.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> The cloud DVR is excruciatingly slow and unresponsive when it comes to trick play. It's a lot like doing trickplay on Netflix (except slower to respond). Menu response is no better. Cablevision's cloud service makes my "retired" HR21's look like speed demons in comparison.


Completely opposite experience here in Westchester County. Not sure if it's location, or the fact they've had a half a year or more to further work the kinks out. GUI response is comparable to a Genie client, IMHO, except channel changes are instantaneous. What is missing is 30SKIP, however. You can only use FFX3 to skip past commercials, which took me a few shows to master, because I used 30SKIP exclusively with DIRECTV. FFX4 overshoots too much (on either platform, IMO). FFX2 is fine, just takes longer.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Seems to me the way to solve that is for Directv to make a multiuser Genie. Each person can have their own playlist, with the possibility to set a password, so playlists can be kept private if desired.


Thats too obviously useful. If they ever do that you can bet there will be an additional charge...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> Maybe. But you'd think that someone living less than 10 miles from Cablevision's corporate headquarters (and even closer to the main technical facility) would be receiving the best quality available.
> 
> I agree with you. I wouldn't touch anything from CV either. But, unlike my friend, I'm not paying $50K per year in tuition for my oldest kid either. So, quality trumps cost.


I've had so many problems with cable since 1977 when our cable provider was something or other. Over the years we never changed carriers but the company kept merging and finally ended up being bought up by CV. Nothing much changed over the years and, luckily for me, Jim Dolan went mildly berserk and shut YES off in 2002. I quickly switched to D* and have never regretted it. I still have CV for my Net provider and haven't had any problems for years with that.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Rich said:


> I've had so many problems with cable since 1977 when our cable provider was something or other. Over the years we never changed carriers but the company kept merging and finally ended up being bought up by CV. Nothing much changed over the years and, luckily for me, Jim Dolan went mildly berserk and shut YES off in 2002. I quickly switched to D* and have never regretted it. I still have CV for my Net provider and haven't had any problems for years with that.


I had Cablevision internet for years, and it wasn't so hot. Depending on the time of the day, service would really suffer. I switched to FiOS, which was awesome. Switched back to Cablevision 15/5 a couple of years ago, got them to put in a Docsis 3 cable modem, and it was rock solid. I get 50/25 with the triple play now, and it rocks. Much faster than I need, but nice to have.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Steve said:


> I had Cablevision internet for years, and it wasn't so hot. Depending on the time of the day, service would really suffer. I switched to FiOS, which was awesome. Switched back to Cablevision 15/5 a couple of years ago, got them to put in a Docsis 3 cable modem, and it was rock solid. I get 50/25 with the triple play now, and it rocks. Much faster than I need, but nice to have.


That's where my friend's son is ticked off at him. They had FiOS as their Internet provider (they switched from CV a couple of years ago because of his son's complaints). His son is no happier with CV Internet now than he was when they left it. Although that may just be because he got spoiled by FiOS, which, with the exception of not being able to get Netflix in 1080p, is really good here.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> That's where my friend's son is ticked off at him. They had FiOS as their Internet provider (they switched from CV a couple of years ago because of his son's complaints). His son is no happier with CV Internet now than he was when they left it. Although that may just be because he got spoiled by FiOS, which, with the exception of not being able to get Netflix in 1080p, is really good here.


Wondering if your friend complained to Cablevision. I was told that now that they're "fiber to the pole" here, my home gets provisioned directly for TV and internet. So unlike the "old" Cablevision, it doesn't make any difference how many people in my neighborhood may also be online and downloading.

If it's wireless he's having issues with, I sent you a PM about a new wifi router they just started rolling out.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> I have 16 recordable tuners in 5 receivers. that would be that I would need 8 DVRs from my cable company, or a few Hoppas and some Juwhos from the other guys. DirecTV wins here by a mile!


Depending on where you live, tuners may play a much smaller part of enjoying television with cable and broadband. If you can get 80% of what you watch via VOD or IPTV, you probably wouldn't need 16 tuners. You might be able to get it done with six or less. You can do a lot of watching with just a broadband connection, Netflix (or similar) and maybe Hulu Plus (or similar) for under the average price of a DISH subscription and you can back $40-70 out of that number for the broadband connection that you'd want anyway.

The mistake many seem to make in justifying their setup is that they get all wadded up in the hardware and how many tuners it has or how much storage. It should be based on how well the carrier does at allowing you to watch the programming you want to watch, when you want to watch it and with the features that you want to watch it with.

Cable style VOD and IPTV cover a lot of ground that many tuners and a lot of storage are required to duplicate with DBS.

The ability to keep saved programming through generations of equipment must not be ignored. If there's a valid reason for you keeping it, why choose a carrier that makes you throw it away to replace a defective piece of hardware, much less an upgrade?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Wondering if your friend complained to Cablevision. _*I was told that now that they're "fiber to the pole" here, my home gets provisioned directly for TV and internet. So unlike the "old" Cablevision, it doesn't make any difference how many people in my neighborhood may also be online and downloading.*_
> 
> If it's wireless he's having issues with, I sent you a PM about a new wifi router they just started rolling out.


That's what I meant by location. We haven't had our CV upgraded in a very long time. After Sandy hit, a couple of CV guys from Montana showed up to fix my cable drop and said they were shocked by how backward our CV system is compared to theirs.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Depending on where you live, tuners may play a much smaller part of enjoying television with cable and broadband. If you can get 80% of what you watch via VOD or IPTV, you probably wouldn't need 16 tuners. You might be able to get it done with six or less.


Nope. I don't like any of those streaming services. I record what I watch and watch it when I want.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> The ability to keep saved programming through generations of equipment must not be ignored. If there's a valid reason for you keeping it, why choose a carrier that makes you throw it away to replace a defective piece of hardware, much less an upgrade?


Tuners does not equate storage. I ma of the believe that DVRs are not for storage but rather place shifting. Once I watch something in my DVR, is gone.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Nope. I don't like any of those streaming services. I record what I watch and watch it when I want.





peds48 said:


> Tuners does not equate storage. I ma of the believe that DVRs are not for storage but rather place shifting. Once I watch something in my DVR, is gone.


If the world was populated with your like-minded clones, this would make sense.

I keep lots of stuff. I still have the opening and closing ceremonies from Bejing that I can hook up when I'm feeling like seeing a demonstration of raw people power. Of course if all you watch is stuff that isn't engrossing for more than a few days, it doesn't matter. Sporting events, news and weather tend to fall in this category.

My point is that much is made about access to lots of tuners and great gobs of storage but they are just one means to an end and in the case of DIRECTV, great gobs of storage isn't all it would appear in the long term.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Diff strokes. I may be somewhat in the middle, as I keep a dozen movies on hand, some series, and some specials such as Nat. Geo's America by air. I've read of those who keep baseball games, football, whatever, but that doesn't happen in my house.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Diff strokes. I may be somewhat in the middle, as I keep a dozen movies on hand, some series, and some specials such as Nat. Geo's America by air. I've read of those who keep baseball games, football, whatever, but that doesn't happen in my house.


i used to keep a few recordings as well, but there's so much available via Netflix, free On Demand, including HBO Go and SHO Anytime, I gave up archiving anything except cooking shows with recipes I want to try and haven't made yet.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> i used to keep a few recordings as well, but there's so much available via Netflix, free On Demand, including HBO Go and SHO Anytime, I gave up archiving anything except cooking shows with recipes I want to try and haven't made yet.


Yup, I finally get to the point where I could archive content and be reasonably sure of keeping it and now there's no point to it.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> If the world was populated with your like-minded clones, this would make sense.
> 
> I keep lots of stuff.


but what is the point of keeping lots of stuff if that same stuff is gone the same day your hard drive takes a dump or your DVR gets updated? Because of this uncertainly, I don't save anything

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Diff strokes!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

peds48 said:


> but what is the point of keeping lots of stuff if that same stuff is gone the same day your hard drive takes a dump or your DVR gets updated?


Another reason I like the idea of a "cloud DVR". I assume Cablevision provides fault-tolerant storage. And no worries about sat fade, which has been a real problem here in the northeast the past 2-3 years. The cloud DVR records directly from the source network feeds. Your house could have no power, but as long as CV's data center does, your recordings _should _take place as scheduled, AFAIK.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

For those of us who directly have access to, use, or offer cloud services...we understand the risks with that technology as well.

Some folks would prefer to have the ability to directly have local storage and/or duplication (backup) in contrast to the risks introduced through cloud storage sitting on a service in an unknown location with unknown disaster recovery support and security limitations (for example). Different strokes.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Steve said:


> Another reason I like the idea of a "cloud DVR".


there are cons and pros to each approach.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Some folks would prefer to have the ability to directly have local storage and/or duplication (backup) in contrast to the risks introduced through cloud storage sitting on a service in an unknown location with unknown disaster recovery support and security limitations (for example). Different strokes.


Can't speak for others, but I haven't lost any of the gigabytes of music, video and photos I have stored in the Google/Apple/Microsoft clouds over the past several years. I can say that in the past 3 years I've missed at least 20-30 prime-time recordings due to sat fade (not counting Sandy), had at least one hard drive full of recordings fail, and in order to fix other issues, I've had to do a couple of "reset everythings", each time wiping my DVR of all it's recordings. As unlikely as it is, even if a "cloud" DVR failed once in the next 3 years, I'd still be way ahead of the game.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

peds48 said:


> there are cons and pros to each approach.


No doubt, with trickplay being harder to tune due to 10-15ms latency vs. 2-4ms latency. Some folks are not as fanatical about skipping commercials as me, tho, so for them, not a big deal.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I keep a lot of content - concerts, movies, documentaries and a few episodes of series that are worth watching occasionally across my DVRs. Same as I did when I had 2 tivos a decade ago.

In fact, my iPad says I've got 25+ GB just in the DAFI app, not counting other movies / music in other apps, ready for an upcoming trip that I can't possibly watch / listen to everything.

While cloud storage and VOD / Netflix, et al. reduce the need for local storage, I'll bet I couldn't find 10% of what I have on DAFI or my DVRs.

It's crazy, but that's why I have a lot of DVRs. A lot of tuners also helps.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> my feeling as well..
> 
> It's crazy, but that's why I have a lot of DVRs. A lot of tuners also helps.


my feeling as well. I always like to watch something that I set to record myself. searching VOD for things to watch is not the same as watching the shows you set to record


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I keep too much. Extra tuners just give me the ability to add to my collection of shows.

It is nice to reduce/eliminate timer conflicts to get what I want recorded and not miss anything BUT finding the time to watch everything can take the enjoyment out of watching the shows. So I've cut back on some shows.

Most of my "kept too long" pile is stuff I think I'll watch again and don't want to download (on demand) or re-record from the guide. No Netflix or other subscriptions.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

It's going to take a paradigm shift to change from the series / channels / networks but as things stand now, I can not envision a good experience with the fragmented streaming sources that we currently have (NF, Hulu, AppleTV) to find what we want to watch. Plus, I don't want to pay per episode or even per season.

We have plenty recorded that as the seasons lull, we have plenty to watch.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> We have plenty recorded that as the seasons lull, we have plenty to watch.


We still have the latest complete seasons of _The Newsroom, Boardwalk Empire, Homeland, House of Cards, Orange is The New Black, Veep_ and all 5 _Breaking Bad_ seasons to get through over the summer!


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Steve said:


> We still have the latest complete seasons of _The Newsroom, Boardwalk Empire, Homeland, House of Cards, Orange is The New Black, Veep_ and all 5 _Breaking Bad_ seasons to get through over the summer!


And we've watched all of those except Veep and the new season of Orange already -- what have you been doing??!!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> And we've watched all of those except Veep and the new season of Orange already -- what have you been doing??!!


I was thinking the same thing when I saw this chart recently that shows that my wife and I, who are in the 50-64 age group, are supposedly watching almost 44 hours per week of TV!  On a good week, I don't think we average more than 3 shows per day together. My wife probably watches an hour or two more per day then me, but still less than 35 hours. I spend a lot of time surfing on my PC and iPad, and I read about 2 books a month.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Steve said:


> I was thinking the same thing when I saw this chart recently that shows that my wife and I, who are in the 50-64 age group, are supposedly watching almost 44 hours per week of TV!  On a good week, I don't think we average more than 3 shows per day together. My wife probably watches an hour or two more per day then me, but still less than 35 hours. I spend a lot of time surfing on my PC and iPad, and I read about 2 books a month.


Good table! We're right in there . . .6+ hours a day each. I start my day with 2 hours of CBS this Morning / surfing, switch to NPR, ride a couple of hours on the bike, watch an hour or so of John Stewart / Colbert, more NPR / reading / surfing, and hour of Judge Judy, local news / CBS News and a couple of hours of catching up on series. And possibly an hour or so in the middle of the night.

Wifey works most of the day and watches iPad while I watch the evening news and then catching up on series from 7-11 pm. Weekends, cooking shows while she enjoys the kitchen.

And I left out other details.

Some days I have to cut the grass or do other manly duties.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> No doubt, with trickplay being harder to tune due to 10-15ms latency vs. 2-4ms latency. Some folks are not as fanatical about skipping commercials as me, tho, so for them, not a big deal.


If it was really only 10ms greater latency it wouldn't matter, that's below the range of human perception. It's 1/100th of a second - less than one frame of a 720p program.

Although the network latency to the cloud DVR should be no more than that, I suspect the actual latency is a lot higher (since the processing and storage isn't infinitely fast) which accounts for the complaints about the responsiveness of such solutions.

Since most of the time people are using trick play to move backward/forward within a few minutes of where they're watching, if 5-10 minutes on either side of the point where you are was buffered locally, you would be immune to delay in most cases. That's about a gigabyte for very high quality MPEG4, which would cost only a few dollars to provide.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> I keep too much. Extra tuners just give me the ability to add to my collection of shows.
> 
> It is nice to reduce/eliminate timer conflicts to get what I want recorded and not miss anything BUT finding the time to watch everything can take the enjoyment out of watching the shows. So I've cut back on some shows.
> 
> Most of my "kept too long" pile is stuff I think I'll watch again and don't want to download (on demand) or re-record from the guide. No Netflix or other subscriptions.


James, I'm not trying to start an argument, but I gotta ask you about *The Game of Thrones* and why you were so adamant about not watching it? I think, and I think most members would agree with me, that it's one of the very best shows ever. Just curious.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> It's going to take a paradigm shift to change from the series / channels / networks but as things stand now, I can not envision a good experience with the fragmented streaming sources that we currently have (NF, Hulu, AppleTV) to find what we want to watch. Plus, I don't want to pay per episode or even per season.
> 
> We have plenty recorded that as the seasons lull, we have plenty to watch.


I don't pay for any other content than NF. I was on YouTube yesterday, just browsing the site, when I found lots of shows and movies. Then, I noticed they all had price tags on them. We just never run out of good shows to watch. Started watching _*Resurrection *_last night and was hooked in the first few minutes. We record just about every show that gets decent reviews and are never without something interesting to watch.

Rich


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

I can't answer for James but for me I'm just not into "Fantasy" and don't watch any shows in that genre.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> And we've watched all of those except Veep and the new season of Orange already -- what have you been doing??!!


We should be envious. I'd like to watch _*Breaking Bad*_ for the first time.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Good table! We're right in there . . .6+ hours a day each. I start my day with 2 hours of CBS this Morning / surfing, switch to NPR, ride a couple of hours on the bike, watch an hour or so of John Stewart / Colbert, more NPR / reading / surfing, and hour of Judge Judy, local news / CBS News and a couple of hours of catching up on series. And possibly an hour or so in the middle of the night.
> 
> Wifey works most of the day and watches iPad while I watch the evening news and then catching up on series from 7-11 pm. Weekends, cooking shows while she enjoys the kitchen.
> 
> ...


Don't have to work Dennis?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

joed32 said:


> I can't answer for James but for me I'm just not into "Fantasy" and don't watch any shows in that genre.


It's such a well made show it's kinda like a good author. Take Robert Parker for instance. He could have written a book about someone stealing petrified dog feces and I'd have read it. Some things are too good to put in a category and ignored, I think. I haven't read the books that GoT's is based on, I'm not that big on fantasy either, but if the show's this good, I'm gonna give those books a shot.

Rich


----------



## inf0z (Oct 16, 2011)

peds48 said:


> No, my set up is very normal. two Genies plus 3 HDDVRs, 16 tuners on 5 boxes. nothing out of this world. you are making it seem like I have 16 boxes :rotfl:


2 Genies? Good luck getting that activated if one fails.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> James, I'm not trying to start an argument, but I gotta ask you about *The Game of Thrones* and why you were so adamant about not watching it? I think, and I think most members would agree with me, that it's one of the very best shows ever. Just curious.


Huh? I've made one post about GoT more than a week ago in another thread. You call that adamant? The post defended the show:


James Long said:


> > I wouldn't even consider watching _Game of Thrones_
> >
> > Period
> 
> ...


I'm just one of the ~300 million people in the US that does not watch. Is it a sin to mention in context that I don't watch? Do you watch The Big Bang Theory, a much more popular show with 23.4 million viewers or are you one of the ~290 million that don't watch TBBT?

Not adamant ... just not a viewer. And there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

It seems pretty obvious we can all look forward to:

disabled fast forward during commercials (see Unbundling in the Air? - Page 5 - DIRECTV Programming - DBSTalk)
more channels (with no added value - just more duplication)
declining content quality
continued price increases 2X or more above inflation rate (see Intel to Offer A La Cart? - Page 17 - DIRECTV Programming - DBSTalk)
The industry has done an excellent job of building a fort that can't be cracked. Probably someday be the model of successful business practice.

We consumers are almost like crackheads needing our fix. We are hooked on our entertainment. The system is rigged so that once we are hooked there isn't much for alternatives. If we cut the cord then we get greatly delayed availability and reduced content technical quality.

The companies that provide internet to most of us also provide TV. Its clear that if we continue to cut the cord that they are simply going to shift those profits to the data side. Thats part of the reason why internet speeds haven't increased much - hold back on investment to delay the shift away from TV and to provide price "headroom" for future internet that is a lot faster.

Streaming or "cloud DVR" isn't going to be a solution for a very long time. The infrastructure just can't handle it and they won't invest in it until they are ready to roll over - and then the cost to the consumer will skyrocket. Many people (myself included) simply won't tolerate the lower quality being delivered this way today.

In the past I've posted about how the internet - or a mix of sat and internet - could be acceptable given the tech available today. Even todays hardware is perfectly capable. But I don't see an incentive for the providers - unless they are able to charge a lot more for it!
How to get >2Tb storage?? - Page 9 - DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion - DBSTalk
Why the $3.00 charge for mrv - Page 2 - DIRECTV Connected Home - DBSTalk

So given that there isn't really any competition I don't expect anything significant in terms of hardware or software. Although I'm sure they will figure out a way to charge more.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

James Long said:



> I'm just one of the ~300 million people in the US that does not watch. Is it a sin to mention in context that I don't watch? Do you watch The Big Bang Theory, a much more popular show with 23.4 million viewers or are you one of the ~290 million that don't watch TBBT?


Not a true comparison though since GOT on hbo is only in about 1/3 the homes as TBBT on cbs.

So in available homes the % watching GOT is actually way higher than TBBT.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dcowboy7 said:


> Not a true comparison though since GOT on hbo is only in about 1/3 the homes as TBBT on cbs.


If you are going to spin numbers to puff up the ratings why not use the 28.7 million estimated subscriber number for HBO? 
(Of course that number would be out of 115.6 million TV homes. HBO is in about 24% of television homes.)

GoT was only 7.2 million viewers (not homes) the week of May 12th vs 16.7 for TBBT and 16.9 for NCIS. Might as well use a normal week and not peak viewership. Puff away with those numbers if you want to keep spinning.

But remember, in the 28.7 million homes that get HBO - GoT got 7.2 million viewers. Assuming the minimum 1 viewer per home 21 million people didn't watch. Assuming the overall ratio of 3 potential viewers per home 78 million did not watch. Either way there are a lot more non-viewers than viewers.

Perhaps GoT fans should be over in the TV forum explaining why they watch the show instead of calling out people who don't watch. There is a lot of stuff on TV ... not everyone watches the same stuff. Most of the US doesn't watch the most popular shows on broadcast TV ... let alone the most popular shows on pay TV or premium TV. That is normal.


----------



## nuspieds (Aug 9, 2008)

peds48 said:


> peds48, on 23 May 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:
> 
> but what is the point of keeping lots of stuff if that same stuff is gone the same day your hard drive takes a dump or your DVR gets updated? Because of this uncertainly, I don't save anything
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The point is that from the time of recording to the unknown time of Hard Disk crash/DVR replacement, it allows one to re-watch content that one really enjoys watching. Odds are that it will take years before you have a Hard Disk crash or replace your DVR; thus, for several years, you can watch your favorite content over and over again.

There are several classic Sitcoms that I record and I specifically "keep" several episodes--the ones I really, really enjoy and end up re-watching from time-to-time. But to your point, it is unfortunate that DirecTV doesn't allow us to download or even transfer recordings from one DVR to another. Earlier this year, my HR20 started to die and I had to replace it; this meant that all of its kept shows were also gone when I got rid of it.

But I still continue to keep shows that I want to re-watch at any time. Unfortunately, until DirecTV implements functionality that will allow me to offload/transfer recordings, then I will always be at the mercy of the DVR unit. In the meantime, however, I won't let this DirecTV feature-limitation stop me from saving and re-watching my favorite content because I really enjoy watching them! 

I am like you, though, in that I record what I watch and I watch when I want. I record/watch several popular shows and I always have to avoid certain online sites/TV coverage so as not to encounter any spoilers. For example, tonight I will be watching last week's Game of Thrones. Sure I "miss out" on the public first-run broadcast and network special features (e.g., AMC's Story Sync), but I much prefer to watch my content at my convenience, especially having the ability to skip through commercials!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

There are a few flaws in your post.


nuspieds said:


> Odds are that it will take years before you have a Hard Disk crash or replace your DVR; thus, for several years, you can watch your favorite content over and over again.


Odds are odds. I have had brand new hard drives "crash" in a week as as well as hard drives that have lasted more than 5 years. for this uncertainty I don't grow feelings for any of the shows.



nuspieds said:


> There are several classic Sitcoms that I record and I specifically "keep" several episodes--


If I really like a show and or movie I but the DVD/BR disk. As a great fan on the show Survivor, I buy every season which I have never "re-watch" I do it more for the memorabilia factor



nuspieds said:


> But I still continue to keep shows that I want to re-watch at any time.


You can move them all you want, they day you part ways with DirecTV that the end of the road for all your shows.



nuspieds said:


> I record/watch several popular shows and I always have to avoid certain online sites/TV coverage so as not to encounter any spoilers. For example, tonight I will be watching last week's Game of Thrones. Sure I "miss out" on the public first-run broadcast and network special features (e.g., AMC's Story Sync), but I much prefer to watch my content at my convenience, especially having the ability to skip through commercials!


I don't let this kind of gimmicks forced me to watch commercials, and I don't do social media anyways


----------



## nuspieds (Aug 9, 2008)

Steve said:


> Another reason I like the idea of a "cloud DVR". I assume Cablevision provides fault-tolerant storage. And no worries about sat fade, which has been a real problem here in the northeast the past 2-3 years. The cloud DVR records directly from the source network feeds. Your house could have no power, but as long as CV's data center does, your recordings _should _take place as scheduled, AFAIK.


I like the concept in that it decouples my device from my content; however, until Internet service becomes as reliable as regular landline phone service, I'm not ready to depend on the Internet in order to watch my recorded content.


----------



## nuspieds (Aug 9, 2008)

peds48 said:


> peds48, on 24 May 2014 - 8:08 PM, said:
> 
> There are a few flaws in your post.
> 
> ...


*Flaws? *Really?! :scratch:

One can die in one's very first ever flight, but odds are that one won't. The bottom line is that flying is very safe and the very vast majority of Hard Disks (or planes, for that matter) do not crash in one week or two or three or four. One cannot simply just dismiss or throw such factual statistics out the window.

I've been watching TV for a long time--before they had DVRs--and you know what? Technology has never influenced my liking or disliking a show. If I like a show, I like a show; it has nothing to do with whether or not I can permanently record it and re-watch it again as I please.

I know you don't keep recorded content--and there's nothing wrong with that; to each his/her own. However, there are those of us who _do_--again, nothing wrong with that; to each his/her own. I have two DVRs and the reason I'd like to have the ability to move content from one to the other is the same reason I have a second backup system for my PC: Redundancy. That is, if I were to replace one DVR, it would be great if I could copy selected content onto the other DVR, then move that content back on the new DVR once it has been installed and is up and running.

I perfectly understand that such a scenario is not applicable to your use case, but you should also understand that it _is _applicable to others.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

nuspieds said:


> I like the concept in that it decouples my device from my content; however, until Internet service becomes as reliable as regular landline phone service, I'm not ready to depend on the Internet in order to watch my recorded content.


Not sure about other parts of the country, but internet service here in NY has become about as reliable as any other utility. Knock on wood, I've only suffered two internet outages here in recent memory. A few years ago, a very tall truck came barreling thorough our block and tore down the wires from the pole to 6 homes in a row. Fortunately crews came out and got us back up and working in 4-5 hours, IIRC. Other time was hurricane Sandy. Not sure to what exent I lost my internet, tho, because we had no power for almost 2 weeks, so I couldn't check! 

As far as the quality of internet service i'm getting, it's fiber to the pole, and from there, about a 50'-75' run of copper to the cable modem.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I've had about 1 outage on average per year with our cable Internet that we've had since 2008.
Longest was a week from hurricane Sandy. 
Couple times from Ice/snow storms.
And 3 times this year for bad equipment and cabling outside , beyond my control. 

But overall, I would say it's fairly reliable. 


Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I've had about 1 outage on average per year with our cable Internet that we've had since 2008.
> Longest was a week from hurricane Sandy.
> Couple times from Ice/snow storms.
> And 3 times this year for bad equipment and cabling outside , beyond my control.
> ...


Curious with changing weather patterns if you've experienced more sat outages in PA recently than before. It's been pretty rough here in NY the past 2-3 years. More so than in the previous 10, IIRC.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve said:


> Curious with changing weather patterns if you've experienced more sat outages in PA recently than before. It's been pretty rough here in NY the past 2-3 years. More so than in the previous 10, IIRC.


First they replaced the Wire from the pole to the House and changed a filter.
Second Trip out they had to replace a part in the Amp at the pole.
3rd they had to replace the giant splitter that in my Cable box bolted to the outside of my house.

This winter was really cold and snowy, and windy.

We had over a month where it never got out of the 20's for Highs, and one morning a - 22F.

I have more issues with Directvs equipment using the internet then the actual internet.
The On demand is just so up and down! Watch it Now??, might as well not even have that option.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

damondlt said:


> First they replaced the Wire from the pole to the House and changed a filter.
> Second Trip out they had to replace a part in the Amp at the pole.
> 3rd they had to replace the giant splitter that in my Cable box bolted to the outside of my house.
> 
> ...


Sat's been OK, tho? My issue north east of you has been frequent instances of heavy cloud cover the past 2-3 years killing my sat signal. What saved me was the OTA antenna in the attic.

When skies were clear, I was all 90s-100s, so it's not like my dish was misaligned.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Steve said:


> Sat's been OK, tho? My issue north east of you has been frequent instances of heavy cloud cover the past 2-3 years killing my sat signal. What saved me was the OTA antenna in the attic.
> 
> When skies were clear, I was all 90s-100s, so it's not like my dish was misaligned.


Signal issues have been good I've had no issues that are abnormal.
Rain fade hasn't been bad. Past week was very stormy. but outages have only been a minute or 2 and the 101 only went out once.
That was when the Hail was falling LOL!

I've changes parts,( _"from some worry's from some members about the 103 CA TP 10 reading in the 80's" when it fact, was totally normal for this area!"_ :hair: ) from Splitters, Wires to LNB's Even the Swim 16 was swapped for a quick check. All changed nothing. So I decided to call a few Friends and family and has been confirmed low to mid 80's sure enough. 
But I'm 92-97 Across the board on 103 and 99.
Not a fan of the Eagle Aspen 3 LNBs , we put 3 different ones on , and all three dropped signal down 5-10%
We put up our old Directv SL5K model LNB and went back up 5-10%.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

nuspieds said:


> I perfectly understand that such a scenario is not applicable to your use case, but you should also understand that it _is _applicable to others.


and that is fine with me, and I am not chastising those who do, I was just stating why "me" don't engage in such "dangerous" practices.. :rotfl:


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

James Long said:


> If you are going to spin numbers to puff up the ratings why not use the 28.7 million estimated subscriber number for HBO?
> (Of course that number would be out of 115.6 million TV homes. HBO is in about 24% of television homes.)
> 
> GoT was only 7.2 million viewers (not homes) the week of May 12th vs 16.7 for TBBT and 16.9 for NCIS. Might as well use a normal week and not peak viewership. Puff away with those numbers if you want to keep spinning.
> ...


GOT though has multiple airings sunday nights getting viewers spread around so that 7m is only for the 1st while TBBT only shows their orig ep once.

+ thats total viewers but in the demo that really matters 18-49 TBBT did 4.9 & GOT 4.6 for combined sunday showings almost a tie.

+ may 5 week GOT 4.1 actually beat TBBT 3.8.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> Sat's been OK, tho? My issue north east of you has been frequent instances of heavy cloud cover the past 2-3 years killing my sat signal. What saved me was the OTA antenna in the attic.
> 
> When skies were clear, I was all 90s-100s, so it's not like my dish was misaligned.


Cloud cover should not kill your signal, unless they are the kind of storm clouds capable of dumping a lot of rain. When its heavily overcast, I lose maybe 3 points of signal.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Cloud cover should not kill your signal, unless they are *the kind of storm clouds capable of dumping a lot of rain*.


That's what they've been. Precipitation in this area has been off the charts the past 2-3 years.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Huh? I've made one post about GoT more than a week ago in another thread. You call that adamant? The post defended the show:
> 
> I'm just one of the ~300 million people in the US that does not watch. Is it a sin to mention in context that I don't watch? Do you watch The Big Bang Theory, a much more popular show with 23.4 million viewers or are you one of the ~290 million that don't watch TBBT?
> 
> Not adamant ... just not a viewer. And there is nothing wrong with that.


You don't think saying you wouldn't even think about watching GoT isn't adamant? I said I wasn't trying to argue, I was just curious. No, I've never watched TBBT. I didn't think it had a chance to be renewed and missed the first season. I could watch it now, but I have no urge to.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> If you are going to spin numbers to puff up the ratings why not use the 28.7 million estimated subscriber number for HBO?
> (Of course that number would be out of 115.6 million TV homes. HBO is in about 24% of television homes.)
> 
> GoT was only 7.2 million viewers (not homes) the week of May 12th vs 16.7 for TBBT and 16.9 for NCIS. Might as well use a normal week and not peak viewership. Puff away with those numbers if you want to keep spinning.
> ...


I really didn't want to start an argument. Sorry I brought it up.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

nuspieds said:


> *Flaws? *Really?! :scratch:
> 
> One can die in one's very first ever flight, but odds are that one won't. The bottom line is that flying is very safe and the very vast majority of Hard Disks (or planes, for that matter) do not crash in one week or two or three or four. One cannot simply just dismiss or throw such factual statistics out the window.
> 
> ...


Ahh, we've been fighting that battle for years and D* just refuses to listen. We should be able to use any HDD on any HR WITHIN AN ACCOUNT! Damn, I'm tired of saying that. Been saying it for years and nobody listens. All I get is "not enough people care."

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Not sure about other parts of the country, but internet service here in NY has become about as reliable as any other utility. Knock on wood, I've only suffered two internet outages here in recent memory. A few years ago, a very tall truck came barreling thorough our block and tore down the wires from the pole to 6 homes in a row. Fortunately crews came out and got us back up and working in 4-5 hours, IIRC. Other time was hurricane Sandy. Not sure to what exent I lost my internet, tho, because we had no power for almost 2 weeks, so I couldn't check!
> 
> _*As far as the quality of internet service i'm getting, it's fiber to the pole, and from there, about a 50'-75' run of copper to the cable modem.*_


And we live what? 60 miles apart? We don't have fiber to the poles. We've got the same equipment we've had for years. And yet the Internet stays stable.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Curious with changing weather patterns if you've experienced more sat outages in PA recently than before. It's been pretty rough here in NY the past 2-3 years. More so than in the previous 10, IIRC.


Yeah, that surprised me too. Sandy had no effect on our cable. The only thing that happened was my drop was attached (not the brightest installer) to a tree that fell over. I just cut the eye-bolt the guy had screwed into the tree and the drop was fine until the guys from Montana came and fixed it properly.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Sat's been OK, tho? My issue north east of you has been frequent instances of heavy cloud cover the past 2-3 years killing my sat signal. What saved me was the OTA antenna in the attic.
> 
> When skies were clear, I was all 90s-100s, so it's not like my dish was misaligned.


Again, location. We rarely are bothered by rain fade. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's usually just momentary.

Rich


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Rich said:


> You don't think saying you wouldn't even think about watching GoT isn't adamant?


James didn't say that he wouldn't even think about watching GoT. James responded to a post from "SayWhat?", who did make that statement and said that though he doesn't watch GoT, many other do.


----------



## nuspieds (Aug 9, 2008)

Steve said:


> Not sure about other parts of the country, but internet service here in NY has become about as reliable as any other utility. Knock on wood, I've only suffered two internet outages here in recent memory. A few years ago, a very tall truck came barreling thorough our block and tore down the wires from the pole to 6 homes in a row. Fortunately crews came out and got us back up and working in 4-5 hours, IIRC. Other time was hurricane Sandy. Not sure to what exent I lost my internet, tho, because we had no power for almost 2 weeks, so I couldn't check!
> 
> As far as the quality of internet service i'm getting, it's fiber to the pole, and from there, about a 50'-75' run of copper to the cable modem.


Good grief! What a story about that truck! 

Lucky you have fiber...I'm still stuck with cable. Prior to that I had DSL and a few weeks after switching to cable, throughput went into the toilet. They had me do so many modem and router resets and/or swaps, but never resolved. Finally, they decided to come out and, sure enough, it was bad cabling to begin with, so they replaced it and things got back to normal.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

nuspieds said:


> Good grief! What a story about that truck!


I remember sitting in my office and hearing the cable being ripped away from the side of my home. I was so PO'd! I can laugh about it now. :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dcowboy7 said:


> GOT though has multiple airings sunday nights getting viewers spread around so that 7m is only for the 1st while TBBT only shows their orig ep once.


You're not reading my posts: THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE NOT WATCHING THAN WATCHING.
Yet somehow the superfans DEMAND an answer from those not watching the show.
The majority of people who have the show available to them do not watch. That is normal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> You don't think saying you wouldn't even think about watching GoT isn't adamant?


*I* did not say I wouldn't even think about watching GoT. You're just dead wrong on who you're attributing that statement to, Absolutely dead wrong. I said I don't watch. Period. Not that I would never consider watching or have never considered watching or hate people who watch or think the creators of the show should be executed in public. I said "I don't watch". Anyone reading more into the statement than those three words is causing their own personal issues.



Bill Broderick said:


> James didn't say that he wouldn't even think about watching GoT. James responded to a post from "SayWhat?", who did make that statement and said that though he doesn't watch GoT, many other do.


Thank you.



Rich said:


> I said I wasn't trying to argue, I was just curious. No, I've never watched TBBT. I didn't think it had a chance to be renewed and missed the first season. I could watch it now, but I have no urge to.


There is nothing wrong with not watching any show. There is too much on TV to watch it all. That is normal.


----------



## Jodean (Jul 17, 2010)

Plenty to look forward to!!

HR44, way faster, your HR34 is junk

You didnt mention if you have clients or not but also makes a differnce, i thought i was ok by not having live pause in my kitchen with an HD, at that time a had a HR34. After i got a client in the kitchen i would never go back.

I had my 34 switched out it was so slow when i added the client, made me furious.

I have had to reboot my 44 one time since it was installed a year ago.


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

Jodean said:


> Plenty to look forward to!!
> 
> HR44, way faster, your HR34 is junk
> 
> ...


I completely agree with this! I moved from a 34 to a 44 a few months ago and there is a HUGE difference!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Jodean said:


> Plenty to look forward to!!
> 
> HR44, way faster, your HR34 is junk
> 
> ...


So in what way would one with an HR34 be looking forward to an HR 44?

Directv going to give us all one?
We should look forward to paying for one?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

James Long said:


> You're not reading my posts: THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE NOT WATCHING THAN WATCHING.
> Yet somehow the superfans DEMAND an answer from those not watching the show.
> The majority of people who have the show available to them do not watch. That is normal.


Yea you posted TBBT is a much more popular show.

I was just saying that going by the real demo 18-49 is really isnt much more popular.

Alls i knows is GOT has beheadings, dragons & hot naked chix so im looking forward to the final 3 eps of the season which should be totally awesome


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dcowboy7 said:


> Yea you posted TBBT is a much more popular show.


Which is NOT the point. The point is no matter how popular a show is there are more people not watching. So superfans should not rudely demand answers from those who do not watch.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Which is NOT the point. The point is no matter how popular a show is there are more people not watching. So superfans should not rudely demand answers from those who do not watch.


I made an extreme effort not to be rude. I told you I was just curious. I don't understand why you took offense and responded in this manner.

Rich


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

James Long said:


> So superfans should not rudely demand answers from those who do not watch.


Arent superfans Bill Swerski & crew from the SNL skit so wouldnt they want everyone to watch da bears....Da Bears !! 

Wait i got one....what about the super bowl ?

164.1 million watched at least some of SBXLVII thats more than half the USA pop & even that 164 doesnt account for bars, restaurants so its really even higher.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Rich said:


> I made an extreme effort not to be rude. I told you I was just curious. I don't understand why you took offense and responded in this manner.
> 
> Rich


James was responding to dcowboy7.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah. I dot think you where rude rich. I thought you where just trying to understand why he didn't care for it. It sounded like he tried it and didn't like it. Seems very much the curios post not the what's wrong with you for not liking it kind of post to me. Others didn't seem to have the same tone I think.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

All I said in the other thread was "I don't watch". I defended the show in the other thread by mentioning that although I don't watch 17+ million people do. And somehow I got jumped on in this thread for saying "I don't watch" in the other thread. My simple words "I don't watch" got turned into "saying you wouldn't even think about watching". Not what I said.

I'm just one of the hundreds of millions of people who don't watch that particular show. No explanation needed.


As far as this thread ... we were talking about DVR storage - some people who keep shows for as long as they can (pending ending their subscription or hard drive failure) and others that don't keep anything. I noted that I keep too much. There is no way that I'm going to watch all of that content again. But I like having the option to keep stuff.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Rich said:


> It's such a well made show it's kinda like a good author. Take Robert Parker for instance. He could have written a book about someone stealing petrified dog feces and I'd have read it. Some things are too good to put in a category and ignored, I think. I haven't read the books that GoT's is based on, I'm not that big on fantasy either, but if the show's this good, I'm gonna give those books a shot.
> 
> Rich


My son who is 47 loves the show.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

damondlt said:


> So in what way would one with an HR34 be looking forward to an HR 44?
> 
> Directv going to give us all one?
> We should look forward to paying for one?


I wonder the same. At least in the past we could add something newer and then later (very soon) remove something old - god forbid that a true upgrade would be available. Now we can't have 2 of these at once so that path is dead too.

At least my commitment is over. I suppose some would advocate the "i'm gonna leave" dance.

I'll repeat what I've said in the past - forget the follow-on to the HR44 (and HR24) and put the money into improving the software! When everything is fast and reliably works as its suppose to...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> I wonder the same. At least in the past we could add something newer and then later (very soon) remove something old - god forbid that a true upgrade would be available. Now we can't have 2 of these at once so that path is dead too.
> 
> At least my commitment is over. I suppose some would advocate the "i'm gonna leave" dance.
> 
> I'll repeat what I've said in the past - forget the follow-on to the HR44 (and HR24) and put the money into improving the software! When everything is fast and reliably works as its suppose to...


Don't think I've ever disagreed with you and I certainly agree with your post. In an ideal world...

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well we know they are working on a major new GUI.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Does an HR44 Genie qualify as an every two-year _"upgrade to the latest equipment"_ upgrade over an HR34 Genie under the protection plan? Or do they consider a Genie "latest tech", whether HR34 or HR44?

http://www.directv.com/technology/protection_plan


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> All I said in the other thread was "I don't watch". I defended the show in the other thread by mentioning that although I don't watch 17+ million people do. And somehow I got jumped on in this thread for saying "I don't watch" in the other thread. My simple words "I don't watch" got turned into "saying you wouldn't even think about watching". Not what I said.
> 
> I'm just one of the hundreds of millions of people who don't watch that particular show. No explanation needed.


For some reason GoT viewers are more hardcore in their belief that people who don't watch are "wrong" than people who think that others are wrong for choosing the wrong phone :rolling:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Well we know they are working on a major new GUI.


They are?

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Im looking forward to the $$ details on the new ST deal if/when it happens.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Steve said:


> Does an HR44 Genie qualify as an every two-year _"upgrade to the latest equipment"_ upgrade over an HR34 Genie under the protection plan? Or do they consider a Genie "latest tech", whether HR34 or HR44?
> 
> http://www.directv.com/technology/protection_plan


I believe they consider the HR34 and HR44 equivalent technology, so the 44 would not be available as an upgrade to a 34.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

carl6 said:


> I believe they consider the HR34 and HR44 equivalent technology, so the 44 would not be available as an upgrade to a 34.


I'll bet you're right. Too bad, though, because by that same logic an HR23 is probably equivalent tech to an HR24, and there's even a bigger performance gap there, IMO.

Probably the only upgrade available is HR2x to Genie.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Steve said:


> I'll bet you're right. Too bad, though, because by that same logic an HR23 is probably equivalent tech to an HR24, and there's even a bigger performance gap there, IMO.
> 
> *Probably the only upgrade available is HR2x to Genie.*


Correct


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Well we know they are working on a major new GUI.


Gee, the last GUI NR went so well...

Rich


----------



## pappasbike (Sep 19, 2006)

Well I noticed today that the new stream from the beginning of a show feature is now working. Kinda neat. I thought we'd need another software update for this but I've been trying it out and also watching the little counterclockwise arrow show up on more and more program guide listings.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

carl6 said:


> I believe they consider the HR34 and HR44 equivalent technology, so the 44 would not be available as an upgrade to a 34.


It is;

Tried a few weeks ago just for the heck of it to "upgrade" from my -34 to a -44 while talking to Retention originally about another matter. But the system wouldn't accept it as qualifying for an upgrade as the two models are classified as the same.

Both are simply viewed as "Genies" without discrimination ...


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

pappasbike said:


> Well I noticed today that the new stream from the beginning of a show feature is now working. Kinda neat. I thought we'd need another software update for this but I've been trying it out and also watching the little counterclockwise arrow show up on more and more program guide listings.


Which exact feature is this? Do you mean the "Play Now" feature for VOD? Or are you talking about the "Start programs at the beginning if you tune in late" feature? If you mean the latter, where if you tune to a channel you get the message "Press << to watch from the beginning," I agree with you. This functionality seems to be improving. At first, I only noticed it for shows that were recording on the Genie already, shows that I set to record. However, recently I have noticed more and more shows being available and it seems to be shows that "Genie Recommends" is recording on the DTV side of the hard drive. Last night I tuned into "Alaskan Bush People" about 15 minutes into the show and it asked if I wanted to watch from the beginning. I did, watched the entire show, and then the Genie asked if I liked the show and wanted more, or if I didn't like it and wanted to ignore. I said I liked it and wanted more, and it instantly added the 3 episodes that have already aired to my DVR list.

Not a bad feature if you ask me.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Gee, the last GUI NR went so well...
> 
> Rich


If I had to guess this will be genie only and maybe even not till the next gen of hardware who knows. Sounded like its a ways off. But it's development has begun evidently so that's good news.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mrdobolina said:


> Which exact feature is this? Do you mean the "Play Now" feature for VOD? Or are you talking about the "Start programs at the beginning if you tune in late" feature? If you mean the latter, where if you tune to a channel you get the message "Press << to watch from the beginning," I agree with you. This functionality seems to be improving. At first, I only noticed it for shows that were recording on the Genie already, shows that I set to record. However, recently I have noticed more and more shows being available and it seems to be shows that "Genie Recommends" is recording on the DTV side of the hard drive. Last night I tuned into "Alaskan Bush People" about 15 minutes into the show and it asked if I wanted to watch from the beginning. I did, watched the entire show, and then the Genie asked if I liked the show and wanted more, or if I didn't like it and wanted to ignore. I said I liked it and wanted more, and it instantly added the 3 episodes that have already aired to my DVR list.
> 
> Not a bad feature if you ask me.


is a new feature that is supposed to be coming soon

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pappasbike (Sep 19, 2006)

mrdobolina said:


> Which exact feature is this? Do you mean the "Play Now" feature for VOD? Or are you talking about the "Start programs at the beginning if you tune in late" feature? If you mean the latter, where if you tune to a channel you get the message "Press << to watch from the beginning," I agree with you. This functionality seems to be improving. At first, I only noticed it for shows that were recording on the Genie already, shows that I set to record. However, recently I have noticed more and more shows being available and it seems to be shows that "Genie Recommends" is recording on the DTV side of the hard drive. Last night I tuned into "Alaskan Bush People" about 15 minutes into the show and it asked if I wanted to watch from the beginning. I did, watched the entire show, and then the Genie asked if I liked the show and wanted more, or if I didn't like it and wanted to ignore. I said I liked it and wanted more, and it instantly added the 3 episodes that have already aired to my DVR list.
> 
> Not a bad feature if you ask me.


The start programs at the beginning feature. Just saw it for the first time this morning on my HR 34. At first it was only showing on one channel now more and more are popping up with the counterclockwise arrow. None of these shows were set to record. I don't have Genie Recommends enabled. Again you'll see the counterclockwise arrow on the program listing in the guide. As I said, more and more are currently populating with this.


----------



## pappasbike (Sep 19, 2006)

Actually I guess it's a clockwise arrow, anyway it is just to the right of the program name.


----------



## Riverpilot (Aug 13, 2010)

I see verizon FIOS is rolling out new 6 tuner boxes with 1 terabyte capacity, and households are allowed to have 2 of these boxes.

I really hope directv starts allowing 2 genies in the same household, and VERY soon.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

peds48 said:


> is a new feature that is supposed to be coming soon
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I really like DirecTV's new meaning of the word "soon", considering I used this feature last night!!!

But I think you mean something else? Enhancements to this feature that has supposedly existed for awhile now? I know I've used the "watch from the beginning" feature before, but only on shows that I had already setup to record myself. For instance, if "Agents of Shield" was recording and I tuned to channel 7 (ABC in my neck of the woods), I would be given the choice to "press << to watch from the beginning." The show I saw it on last night was not a show I have ever watched before, let alone set up to be recorded. I found it pleasing to be able to watch it, enjoy it, and instantly have old episodes on my DVR and have future recordings set up! :righton:

I'll add that the previous episodes that I added don't appear to be "On Demand" recordings either. They are available for me to download via GenieGo/GG app and the episode I watched last night had all of the commercials that the channel (Discover Channel? TLC? Travel? Not sure which). Also, when I was done watching, it was as if I never left the channel. I was able to FF to catch up to live.


----------



## pappasbike (Sep 19, 2006)

I had seen the option to watch from the start on a show that was recording. We've had that for a while but this new one "coming soon" I just saw this morning. Apparently from what others say you can't FF the show to get past commercials, but if you had been watching live you couldn't either so I'm not so bothered by that.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

Hmmm...I was able to FF through commercials last night. 

I feel like this might be a part of the "Genie Recommends" feature. As i understand it, GR (when turned on as I have it) uses available tuners to record shows that I might like to the DTV portion of my Genie's hard drive. 

But like I said, perhaps what Peds is talking about is something different than what I saw last night.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

mrdobolina said:


> Hmmm...I was able to FF through commercials last night.
> 
> I feel like this might be a part of the "Genie Recommends" feature. As i understand it, GR (when turned on as I have it) uses available tuners to record shows that I might like to the DTV portion of my Genie's hard drive.
> 
> But like I said, perhaps what Peds is talking about is something different than what I saw last night.


It's not part of GR, it's a separate feature.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> It's not part of GR, it's a separate feature.


Ya. I think this feature syncs the GUIDE with whatever new On Demand titles are available and requires an internet connection. Genie Recommends prospectively downloads recordings to your hard disk via satellite.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Steve said:


> Ya. I think this feature syncs the GUIDE with whatever On Demand titles are available.


I don't think it using on demand as the source since all the commercials are there plus the end of the prior program.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## pappasbike (Sep 19, 2006)

mrdobolina said:


> I feel like this might be a part of the "Genie Recommends" feature.


I've never had that enabled and you can't FF through the program.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

RAD said:


> I don't think it using on demand as the source since all the commercials are there plus the end of the prior program.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Ahh. Didn't know that, about the end of the prior program. So probably not On Demand. I do recall that some On Demand episodes had the original commercials, tho. Usually the most recent one.

But if not On Demand, why no FF?


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

I thought that part of the feature set of Genie Recommends is that, if turned on, it searches out shows that I might like based on my viewing habits. It finds those shows and records them if/when tuners are available to use. This is why I believed what I experienced last night was part of that. My DVR was not recording anything that I had set to record at that time (~10 PM MDT). I don't believe we have watched anything on whatever channel "Alaskan Bush People" is on recently. As a matter of fact, we had not watched or recorded anything on the Genie for the 5 days prior since we were out of town and have no shows set up to record on that channel. I tuned to the channel, was asked if I wanted to watch from the beginning, and chose to do just that. Throughout the show I FF'd through the commercials. When the show was over, it asked me if I wanted to 1. Like the show and add additional episodes 2. Not like the show 3. Do nothing. I chose option 1. and instantly the 3 episodes of the show were on my DVR, including last night's show. I deleted last nights show. Today, I looked in my GenieGo app at work, and the other 2 episodes of "Alaskan Bush People" are available to me to watch out of home. This tells me that these episodes ARE NOT Video on Demand, since those are not supposed to be available via GG. 

I'll have to watch the other episodes and let you know if they have the commercials in them as if I had just recorded the show off whatever channel it airs on. 

In my mind, this feature is a good one, and if there are enhancements coming for it or some other new feature that is similar but even better, that is something to look forward to!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mrdobolina said:


> Hmmm...I was able to FF through commercials last night.
> 
> I feel like this might be a part of the "Genie Recommends" feature. As i understand it, GR (when turned on as I have it) uses available tuners to record shows that I might like to the DTV portion of my Genie's hard drive.
> 
> But like I said, perhaps what Peds is talking about is something different than what I saw last night.


What you saw was something that's actually been working for more than six months.

If you change to a channel another tuner is already on and is buffering you get that option. The other tuner could be tuned to that channel and buffering because a client is using it, genie recommends is using it, it's recording the program, anything of that nature. Genies share tuners or the same channel which enables this to happen. It's actually quite great.

Peds is talking about something that with the exception of ffwd right now evidently will present you with the exact same kind of thing and ability and you won't really in theory realize it's any different. But the genie doesn't have to have had a tuner tuned to that station previously. That's the big key. Very big key.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mrdobolina said:


> I thought that part of the feature set of Genie Recommends is that, if turned on, it searches out shows that I might like based on my viewing habits. It finds those shows and records them if/when tuners are available to use. This is why I believed what I experienced last night was part of that. My DVR was not recording anything that I had set to record at that time (~10 PM MDT). I don't believe we have watched anything on whatever channel "Alaskan Bush People" is on recently. As a matter of fact, we had not watched or recorded anything on the Genie for the 5 days prior since we were out of town and have no shows set up to record on that channel. I tuned to the channel, was asked if I wanted to watch from the beginning, and chose to do just that. Throughout the show I FF'd through the commercials. When the show was over, it asked me if I wanted to 1. Like the show and add additional episodes 2. Not like the show 3. Do nothing. I chose option 1. and instantly the 3 episodes of the show were on my DVR, including last night's show. I deleted last nights show. Today, I looked in my GenieGo app at work, and the other 2 episodes of "Alaskan Bush People" are available to me to watch out of home. This tells me that these episodes ARE NOT Video on Demand, since those are not supposed to be available via GG.
> 
> I'll have to watch the other episodes and let you know if they have the commercials in them as if I had just recorded the show off whatever channel it airs on.
> 
> In my mind, this feature is a good one, and if there are enhancements coming for it or some other new feature that is similar but even better, that is something to look forward to!


You are pretty much right. Genie recommends is the unit recording via tuners shows just as though you had set it to record that show with the idea you might like the show. Has nothing to do with the other feature per se but the other feature can take some advantage of a tuner tuned to a channel that is recording a genie recommends show. Make sense? Also genie recommends as far as I know has zero to do with on demand as well.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> But the genie doesn't have to have had a tuner tuned to that station previously. That's the big key. Very big key.


and another big difference is that Genie recommends is not through the the internet as the other feature is.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> You are pretty much right. Genie recommends is the unit recording via tuners shows just as though you had set it to record that show with the idea you might like the show. Has nothing to do with the other feature per se but the other feature can take some advantage of a tuner tuned to a channel that is recording a genie recommends show. Make sense? Also genie recommends as far as I know has zero to do with on demand as well.


Yes, this absolutely makes sense. I think I "got lucky" and GR was currently recording the show because I might like it when I tuned to it. My Genie then offered me the choice to watch from the beginning, which I chose to do. I think this is a nice feature to have, but I also understand that it's pretty hit or miss as to me tuning to a channel and whether or not GR is actually recording at the time.

I look forward to what Peds is talking about! That sounds pretty damn cool!

One more thing re: GR. I might be mistaken, but I think VoD does figure into GR at some level. If you go into the GR menu and browse shows that Genie Recommends, when you choose one and that show has VoD options, they are listed and you can download/record them. But it also probably has other episodes that GR recorded from the satellite on the DTV partition of the hard drive.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> If I had to guess this will be genie only and maybe even not till the next gen of hardware who knows. Sounded like its a ways off. But it's development has begun evidently so that's good news.


Somebody just shoot me now. I can hardly wait to be bludgeoned by yet another GUI "upgrade". Is this suppose to be another major foundation technology upgrade or just a paint the pig exercise?

Sadly this is now a standard disease in the world of software. Chase the latest fad in platforms, languages, toolkits, whatever. Might make one aspect better but seems to make something else worse. Take speed for example. Yep, this Java bloatware is SLOW. So its prettier and SLOWER. Wonderful.

Extremely optimistic thinking the next great thing will be good news. Even after the 2-3 years of we, the customer, beta testing.

Just think of the actual *functional* improvements that could be achieved with the resources being wasted!


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Somebody just shoot me now. I can hardly wait to be bludgeoned by yet another GUI "upgrade". Is this suppose to be another major foundation technology upgrade or just a paint the pig exercise?
> 
> Sadly this is now a standard disease in the world of software. Chase the latest fad in platforms, languages, toolkits, whatever. Might make one aspect better but seems to make something else worse. Take speed for example. Yep, this Java bloatware is SLOW. So its prettier and SLOWER. Wonderful.
> 
> ...


I know what you mean. . . OT but IOS7 readability sucks!!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mrdobolina said:


> I look forward to what Peds is talking about! That sounds pretty damn cool!


go give it a try, go to channel 239


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I know what you mean. . . OT but IOS7 readability sucks!!


Soon you will be able to install iOS8 and bathe in all its glory - or not.

When I was in software development we used to joke that a release was 1 step forward - and 3 steps back.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> I know what you mean. . . OT but IOS7 readability sucks!!


If you don't like iOS7 skin, all you need to do is JB and choose from hundreds of available themes from the "app store"


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

peds48 said:


> If you don't like iOS7 skin, all you need to do is JB and choose from hundreds of available themes from the "app store"


I like my DAFI too much to occasionally lose it by JB. And several others.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> I like my DAFI too much to occasionally lose it by JB. And several others.


you dont loose it, that is a myth!


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

peds48 said:


> you dont loose it, that is a myth!


I like it too much to worry about it . . . and other apps.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dennisj00 said:


> I know what you mean. . . OT but IOS7 readability sucks!!


If you don't like the thinner font, in the accessibility menu there's a setting for bold text. I prefer it that way, personally. There are other settings for increasing contrast, font size, etc.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> I like it too much to worry about it . . . and other apps.


everything works as usual. no worries.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> If you don't like the thinner font, in the accessibility menu there's a setting for bold text. I prefer it that way, personally. There are other settings for increasing contrast, font size, etc.


I've tried all of those, it still sucks. IOS6 was very readable, my eyes didn't go that quickly!


----------



## pappasbike (Sep 19, 2006)

mrdobolina said:


> I look forward to what Peds is talking about! That sounds pretty damn cool!.


It's working on a bunch of channels now just look for the arrow to the right of the name of the show. Pretty neat.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mrdobolina said:


> Yes, this absolutely makes sense. I think I "got lucky" and GR was currently recording the show because I might like it when I tuned to it. My Genie then offered me the choice to watch from the beginning, which I chose to do. I think this is a nice feature to have, but I also understand that it's pretty hit or miss as to me tuning to a channel and whether or not GR is actually recording at the time.
> 
> I look forward to what Peds is talking about! That sounds pretty damn cool!
> 
> One more thing re: GR. I might be mistaken, but I think VoD does figure into GR at some level. If you go into the GR menu and browse shows that Genie Recommends, when you choose one and that show has VoD options, they are listed and you can download/record them. But it also probably has other episodes that GR recorded from the satellite on the DTV partition of the hard drive.


Genie recommends never records form on demand. Only live linear channels. It does however have the on demand shows listed if you want to get them too.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Genie recommends never records form on demand. Only live linear channels. It does however have the on demand shows listed if you want to get them too.


Exactly what I was trying to say. If you go into the GR menu/area and select a show, it also lists VoD episodes that are available and you can play now or download them. It also lists upcoming episodes that you can set to record. As the main tv season is ending, I am looking at GR more and more.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> If I had to guess this will be genie only and maybe even not till the next gen of hardware who knows. Sounded like its a ways off. But it's development has begun evidently so that's good news.


I hope you're right. My systems just humming along quite well now and I don't feel like going thru another GUI nightmare.

Rich


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Well with FiOS TV doing Premium Quantum service with two 6-tuners receivers, I expect DirecTV with quickly allow two Genies in a single home..


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Drucifer said:


> Well with FiOS TV doing Premium Quantum service with two 6-tuners receivers, I expect DirecTV with quickly allow two Genies in a single home..


Why? How many customers are there really (outside of dbstalk) for something like that? Most of whatever demand there is for that would be served by offering a new Genie that had 8 or more tuners and allowed for more clients/active streams.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> _*Why? How many customers are there really (outside of dbstalk) for something like that? *_Most of whatever demand there is for that would be served by offering a new Genie that had 8 or more tuners and allowed for more clients/active streams.


That's the same answer I've been getting to my constant harping on allowing us to use any HDD recorded on any HR withing our accounts for years. And, I suppose it's the correct answer. We should remember that we are anomalies.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Ya. I'm not an installer, but seems to me an 8-tuner Genie that could serve local + 5 streams would probably satisfy the needs of 99.9% of the customer base.

What would be amazing is if it was diskless, the size of an H25 and used fault-tolerant, network-attached storage.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Oh, yeah.... Though the latter isn't that far fetched.... 

In the mean time, two Genies would be pretty impressive.


----------



## Riverpilot (Aug 13, 2010)

Drucifer said:


> Well with FiOS TV doing Premium Quantum service with two 6-tuners receivers, I expect DirecTV with quickly allow two Genies in a single home..


I've been hoping for a two genies in a single home for the past year. I've been out of contract for 6 months now, and am impatiently waiting for this to happen. lol 

Come on D! Make it happen and I'll sign up for another 2 years today!  lol :righton: :rolling:


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Why? How many customers are there really (outside of dbstalk) for something like that? Most of whatever demand there is for that would be served by offering a new Genie that had 8 or more tuners and allowed for more clients/active streams.


You think there's somebody that cares about the customer needs and wants at DirecTV?

It is marketing that rules DirecTV and they just hit with a gauntlet by Verizon!


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Steve said:


> Ya. I'm not an installer, but seems to me an 8-tuner Genie that could serve local + 5 streams would probably satisfy the needs of 99.9% of the customer base.
> 
> What would be amazing is if it was diskless, the size of an H25 and used fault-tolerant, network-attached storage.


I'm curious what percentage of the customer base is satisfied with the current Genie? Probably just a few percent less. So is the incremental gain worth the investment?

There is no technological limit to how many tuners and streams *could* be supported - given sufficient $. Not sure a $1000+ unit makes sense. And would such a monster STILL not have RAID storage? So we can lose 1,000s of hours of programming??

As for NAS - never. For a multitude of reasons they would only want a point-to-point and proprietary if possible connection to storage.

IMO they would be better off enhancing the software so that a single client can use multiple servers. Operating multiple servers as if they were one would be even better (so effectively get multiples of tuners and storage transparently). Lastly, allow a pair of servers to act as one - fully fault tolerant.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

unixguru said:


> There is no technological limit to how many tuners and streams *could* be supported - given sufficient $. Not sure a $1000+ unit makes sense. And would such a monster STILL not have RAID storage? So we can lose 1,000s of hours of programming??
> 
> As for NAS - never. For a multitude of reasons they would only want a point-to-point and proprietary if possible connection to storage.


Who says an 8-tuner, 5-stream box would cost any more to manufacture today than the HR44 did 2 years ago? Moore's law, and all.

And why can't NAS be proprietary? Recordings could still be encrypted to the access card of the box with the tuners, although I do wish DIRECTV could switch to account-based encryption, so recordings can be played on another box if the one that made them fails.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> IMO they would be better off enhancing the software so that a single client can use multiple servers. Operating multiple servers as if they were one would be even better (so effectively get multiples of tuners and storage transparently). Lastly, allow a pair of servers to act as one - fully fault tolerant.


I think that's what I've built. I only use three HRs, the rest act as servers.

Rich


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Steve said:


> Who says an 8-tuner, 5-stream box would cost any more to manufacture today than the HR44 did 2 years ago? Moore's law, and all.
> 
> And why can't NAS be proprietary? Recordings could still be encrypted to the access card of the box with the tuners, although I do wish DIRECTV could switch to account-based encryption, so recordings can be played on another box if the one that made them fails.


Moore's law doesn't help with disk seek time nor with ethernet over coax infrastructure. I didn't say 8/5 would be more expensive - I said unlimited, or "at some point".

What's the value of NAS if its proprietary? Or do you just mean the format of the content of the files is proprietary? The whole point of NAS is to share files amongst multiple hosts. A NAS box has an embedded operating system, file system, network stack, etc, etc. Why do that expense for a point-to-point solution? eSATA is better/cheaper.

They won't support clients talking to Genie over anything but their dedicated networking hardware. No way they are going to do anything different with storage. So again, why even consider the extra expense of NAS?

Assuming they changed the encryption model there are still cheaper ways to do what you are talking about. For example, SAS (instead of SATA) would allow a "mini-SAN" and failover.

My bet is that more tuners and more streams will still be a single disk with no fault tolerance of any kind. Those of us that want more are few and we already have solutions with eSATA.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

unixguru said:


> IMO they would be better off enhancing the software so that a single client can use multiple servers. Operating multiple servers as if they were one would be even better (so effectively get multiples of tuners and storage transparently). Lastly, allow a pair of servers to act as one - fully fault tolerant.





Rich said:


> I think that's what I've built. I only use three HRs, the rest act as servers.


But you manage it all manually!

I no longer think about HR2x as I think thats a dead path. In my mind the future will be HR34/HR44/... and C31/C41/... so those are the servers and clients I refer to.

If a customer wants more than 5 tuners/3 streams then my suggestion is a software solution, not bigger hardware. The reasoning is that no mater how big they build there will be some customer and some point in time that will want more. Settle on an optimum "minimum" size server and then enhance the software so that it automatically and transparently aggregates as many server bricks as one has. Likewise clients should not know or care where a recording is happening or where playback is coming from. Then its a small step to designate servers as mirrors of other servers - redundant recordings for fault tolerance. That is the direction that computing in general has been moving for a long time.

So why aren't they doing this instead of planning more tuners/streams, rewriting the UI *again*?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I wouldn't expect them to ever support two servers in a fault tolerant configuration. Figures someone with the handle "unixguru" would want a Genie cluster! :rolling:

It would be nice if they'd let people transfer recordings to their PC or tablet and play them there. Tivo has allowed this for ages, there's no reason Directv can't. Then none of the worries about losing recordings will matter, as people who are worried about it can back them up to their PC and build up a huge library of stuff they can watch whenever they want, so long as they maintain their Directv subscription.

It would provide a good reason for those people to stick with Directv, not wanting to render their thousands of hours of past recordings unplayable!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

For some, yes, but watching on my iPad or laptop just ain't my cuppa. I do it enough with 'Flix and HBOGO.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

So long as they also let you copy recordings in the other direction, you could use your PC for backup to insure you don't lose anything, even if you only ever watch on your TV.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

unixguru said:


> But you manage it all manually!
> 
> I no longer think about HR2x as I think that's a dead path. In my mind *the future will be HR34/HR44/*... and C31/C41/... so those are the servers and clients I refer to.
> 
> [SNIP]


Only if the Server side can be of various sizes -- the _one size fits all_ approach ain't going to cut it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Drucifer said:


> Only if the Server side can be of various sizes -- the _one size fits all_ approach ain't going to cut it.


I think that's what unixguru is suggesting. So if the Genie isn't enough for you, you would get a second one which becomes the slave of the first. You have only one Genie to manage (the other one wouldn't take input from the remote or anything like that) and it would appear to have twice as many tuners and twice as much storage.

It is a good way of handling it, but is it worth it for Directv to invest in it? I doubt it. An 8 tuner Genie would cover probably 99.9% of residential installs, the corner cases who need more can use DVRs. Hard to think it is worth all the effort to serve that 0.1%, even if they spend several times more than other customers on average. The HR2x may be a dead path as unixguru suggests, but only because Directv stated in an earnings call last year they're going to add the ability to add a hard drive to a receiver and turn it into a DVR (one would assume with a new model of receiver, but who knows)

It's a pretty smart move - it frees Directv from having to deal with receiver exchanges when the hard drive is bad. I'll bet the majority of DVR failures are due to hard drive failure, not failure of other DVR components. Might not be a bad idea to offer a diskless Genie while they're at it, at least as an option. Save $100 on the diskless home server model, that sort of thing.

Anywhere that it says "add your own hard drive" it wouldn't have to mean a separate drive, theoretically it could mean NAS if Directv thought it was worth supporting that. Have to be gigabit ethernet though, or DECA would have to be upgraded to MoCA 2.0 enhanced mode (maybe while they're at it they could switch to F band like Dish)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> We should remember that we are anomalies.


I just had a spontaneous flashback to the movie _Stripes_:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The HR2x may be a dead path as unixguru suggests, but only because Directv stated in an earnings call last year they're going to add the ability to add a hard drive to a receiver and turn it into a DVR (one would assume with a new model of receiver, but who knows)


Brand E did this with their existing HD receiver (ViP211) five and a half years ago and it seems to work pretty well (outside of having only one tuner to work with if you don't have OTA access).


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> It would be nice if they'd let people transfer recordings to their PC or tablet and play them there. Tivo has allowed this for ages, there's no reason Directv can't. Then none of the worries about losing recordings will matter, as people who are worried about it can back them up to their PC and build up a huge library of stuff they can watch whenever they want, so long as they maintain their Directv subscription.
> 
> It would provide a good reason for those people to stick with Directv, not wanting to render their thousands of hours of past recordings unplayable!


Great post! Now if you could get someone at D* to do this it would be greatly appreciated. But they don't listen. We've been complaining about this for years and we get nothing.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> It's a pretty smart move - it frees Directv from having to deal with receiver exchanges when the hard drive is bad. I'll bet the majority of DVR failures are due to hard drive failure, not failure of other DVR components. Might not be a bad idea to offer a diskless Genie while they're at it, at least as an option. Save $100 on the diskless home server model, that sort of thing.


I've had more problems and replacements than most people would put up with and it's rarely the HDD that's at fault. At least in my experience. It's easy to blame the HDDs and a lot of people do that. Just hasn't been my experience. I did have that problem with my SD TiVos, tho, so I understand why you would assume that HDDs are still the main problem.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Different experience here. 13 years with DIRECTV and with 7 viewing locations (3 DVR and the rest diskless), I only had to replace one H21 once, because of a faulty network connector. And I used that box for a year or two (non-network connected) before I even realized it had a problem. Never once had a hardware failure on my other H21s, H24s, H25s or Genie clients.

OTOH, I've probably replaced a half-dozen DVRs because their drives failed.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You know people always say tivo lets you do this or that with recordings. What people seem to forget is TiVo doesn't have to negotiate rights with channels in the first place. There's things they wouldn't do if they had to. 

Channels and producers Don't like people Moving copies and keeping them. They like tv everywhere apps and such. This is why you have genie go too. 

Why do we all think you can't ever fast forward anything that is on demand from pretty much all channels? It's not DIRECTV choice at all.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Different experience here. 13 years with DIRECTV and with 7 viewing locations (3 DVR and the rest diskless), I only had to replace one H21 once, because of a faulty network connector. And I used that box for a year or two (non-network connected) before I even realized it had a problem. Never once had a hardware failure on my other H21s, H24s, H25s or Genie clients.
> 
> OTOH, I've probably replaced a half-dozen DVRs because their drives failed.


I've stopped counting how many replacements I've had. Haven't had any problems for almost 2 years now, seems too good to be true.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Brand E did this with their existing HD receiver (ViP211) five and a half years ago and it seems to work pretty well (outside of having only one tuner to work with if you don't have OTA access).


These days the cost differential between a multi tuner SoC and single tuner SoC is almost nil, so Directv (or Dish) could introduce a new receiver that has an extra tuner or two that only gets used when a hard drive is attached. Come to think of it, Directv already did that with the AM21, which has two tuners, but only one can be used when it is connected to a receiver.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Everyone has different experiences, and since you wouldn't even be the first "owner" of the DVR in many cases, you don't know how it may have been treated before you. Maybe they kept it inside a sealed cabinet that allowed no airflow? Or allowed it to become caked with dust inside, or it was in a smoker's home, or was in Florida and wasn't kept on a surge protector. Maybe it was in one of those situations, and the hard drive failed and was replaced with a new one when it was refurbished, so when you get it the hard drive is fine but many other components have been seriously stressed and are more likely to fail.

If hard drive failure isn't number one on the list, I'm sure it is up there, along with power supply and fan failure. Between external power supplies and customers supplying their own hard drives Directv could avoid all equipment swaps caused by those three factors. Whatever percentage that adds up to, I'm sure it adds up to a lot of savings for Directv.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Everyone has different experiences, and since you wouldn't even be the first "owner" of the DVR in many cases, you don't know how it may have been treated before you. Maybe they kept it inside a sealed cabinet that allowed no airflow? Or allowed it to become caked with dust inside, or it was in a smoker's home, or was in Florida and wasn't kept on a surge protector. Maybe it was in one of those situations, and the hard drive failed and was replaced with a new one when it was refurbished, so when you get it the hard drive is fine but many other components have been seriously stressed and are more likely to fail.
> 
> If hard drive failure isn't number one on the list, I'm sure it is up there, along with power supply and fan failure. Between external power supplies and customers supplying their own hard drives Directv could avoid all equipment swaps caused by those three factors. Whatever percentage that adds up to, I'm sure it adds up to a lot of savings for Directv.


The last problems I had with my 24s were bad power supplies. I think I've lost one HDD in the last couple years. I've never lost a 2TB internal drive. Most of my replacements came in the early days of the HRs. In my case I had a couple Sony TVs that were incompatible with D* HRs. That caused me problems for months and all the PP people (or whoever I talked to at the time) would do was send me another 20-700 that would do the same thing. Finally got that fixed and ended up with a bunch of Panny plasmas that had no HDMI issues. Then the 20-100 came out. I don't know how many of them I had, but none of them worked. See what I mean, everyone? The story is the same with the 21 Series HRs. Never had a 21-100 that worked. Had a bunch of them, too.

Now everything works well and all 12 HRs seem to get along quite well. I'm knocking wood right now.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> fan failure.


Don't recall ever having one fail. I've never experienced a heat problem that I haven't deliberately caused. Kinda surprises me that I haven't had one fan failure, now that I think about it. Knocking on wood again.

Rich


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I've had two HR34's replaced due to HDD failure, my some has had one. I've also had one replaced due to the fan failing and the unit over heating. I've had a HR24 replaced due to front panel failure. My HR44, which I've had since the early release testing has been rock solid.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> You know people always say tivo lets you do this or that with recordings.


And by extension, the fantasy land dwellers seem to be of the mistaken impression that TiVo lets you do it with all content.

Like the GenieGo, there are lots of not particularly well documented limitations to what content can be worked with.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> These days the cost differential between a multi tuner SoC and single tuner SoC is almost nil, so Directv (or Dish) could introduce a new receiver that has an extra tuner or two that only gets used when a hard drive is attached. Come to think of it, Directv already did that with the AM21, which has two tuners, but only one can be used when it is connected to a receiver.


As wonderful as SoC is, they still haven't figured out how to put a satellite tuner (even a SWiM-only one) on a chip.

As many apologist posts as were offered to justify DIRECTV's removal of the ATSC tuners, I find it hard to imagine that someone is trying to talk up having a largely unused satellite tuner installed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

unixguru said:


> There is no technological limit to how many tuners and streams *could* be supported - given sufficient $.


The SWiM channel and DECA bandwidth limitations would seem to be such technical limits. If DIRECTV is to maintain compatibility with existing boxes, SWiM and DECA can't change appreciably.

Running multiple cables to the Genie is certainly doable but I'm pretty sure the bandwidth on DECA is a show-stopper.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> As wonderful as SoC is, they still haven't figured out how to put a satellite tuner (even a SWiM-only one) on a chip.
> 
> As many apologist posts as were offered to justify DIRECTV's removal of the ATSC tuners, I find it hard to imagine that someone is trying to talk up having a largely unused satellite tuner installed.


You're way behind the times, satellite tuners have been on a chip for years. The Genie uses two chips that have three tuners each.

The most satellite tuners on a chip I could find with a quick google is 8, on a Maxlinear SoC that has been shipping for a year.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> You're way behind the times, satellite tuners have been on a chip for years. The Genie uses two chips that have three tuners each.


but, but, how would he know that? :nono2: !rolling


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You're way behind the times, satellite tuners have been on a chip for years. The Genie uses two chips that have three tuners each.
> 
> The most satellite tuners on a chip I could find with a quick google is 8, on a Maxlinear SoC that has been shipping for a year.


I don't get the whole tuner number thing. What good is a single 8 tuner DVR? I've never had 8 different programs or 5 different programs recording at the same time. If I had considered this an issue that would have made my system better, I would have bought a Tenbox years ago. I'm only taking members of the forum into consideration when I say this. I realize that the general public has little or no idea what they're doing.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Rich said:


> I don't get the whole tuner number thing. What good is a single 8 tuner DVR? I've never had 8 different programs or 5 different programs recording at the same time. If I had considered this an issue that would have made my system better, I would have bought a Tenbox years ago. I'm only taking members of the forum into consideration when I say this. I realize that the general public has little or no idea what they're doing.
> 
> Rich


Remember, with a Genie, attached clients steal tuners for LIVE TV. Imagine a family of four with two teens. Let's say that household has a Genie and 3 clients and. You could easily have 3-4 recordings scheduled at one time, leaving only one or two tuners for LIVE TV.

With just the wife and me here, I actually had one hour in the 2012-2013 primetime season where we did record 5 things at once. IIRC, it was 9PM on Thursday night. During that time, if there happened to be a game on and I wanted to watch it on LIVE TV on the Genie or any one of the attached clients, I would have had to cancel one of those recordings.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Remember, with a Genie, attached clients steal tuners for LIVE TV. Imagine a family of four with two teens. Let's say that household has a Genie and 3 clients and. You could easily have 3-4 recordings scheduled at one time, leaving only one or two tuners for LIVE TV.
> 
> With just the wife and me here, I actually had one hour in the 2012-2013 primetime season where we did record 5 things at once. IIRC, it was 9PM on Thursday night. During that time, if there happened to be a game on and I wanted to watch it on LIVE TV on the Genie or any one of the attached clients, I would have had to cancel one of those recordings.


Yup, that's why I don't get the whole thing. Now that I think of it, we must record more than 5 shows at the same time many times. My son and wife each have at least one HR dedicated only to them. I was just thinking of myself when I posted.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Other than perhaps football fanatics who want to record every game, or very large families with diverse interests, it is hard to imagine anyone ever needing 8 or more recording tuners.

Directv - and every other provider - wants to move away from receivers and DVRs for residential installs, and go to a single "home server" and clients for all the TVs. Directv has already been pushing in this direction by offering deals for Genie and clients but not for DVRs and receivers.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Other than perhaps football fanatics who want to record every game, or very large families with diverse interests, it is hard to imagine anyone ever needing 8 or more recording tuners.


Remember, in a Genie-only home, clients commandeer tuners for LIVE TV too.

Last summer, I had my daughter, son-in law and kids living with us for a few months while their new home was being renovated, so basically 4 TV watchers after dinner. It's a good thing I had two additional HRs in the home, because my 5-tuner HR44 alone didn't cut it, between recording and LIVE TV viewing needs.

Granted 4 TV viewers in a home may not be the norm, but I can't imagine it's a rarity.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I agree 5 tuners is not enough for a family, when you count recording and live viewing, I was responding to a post about whether 8 is enough - something it would be easy for Directv to do with a next generation Genie.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Rich said:


> I don't get the whole tuner number thing. What good is a single 8 tuner DVR? *I've never had 8 different programs or 5 different programs recording at the same time.* If I had considered this an issue that would have made my system better, I would have bought a Tenbox years ago. I'm only taking members of the forum into consideration when I say this. I realize that the general public has little or no idea what they're doing.
> 
> Rich


Well, it not only recording, but playback. Tuners still can't do both at the same time.

But it ain't the number of tuners that concern me, but where the recordings are stored. DirecTV needs to ofter more options. Hopefully rumors of a DirecTV Cloud might be a fix, but will that become real?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Well, it not only recording, but playback. Tuners still can't do both at the same time.
> 
> But it ain't the number of tuners that concern me, but where the recordings are stored. DirecTV needs to ofter more options. Hopefully rumors of a DirecTV Cloud might be a fix, but will that become real?


What rumors Of a DIRECTV DVR? White specifically said one of their strong suits was DVRs in customers homes.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

There has been talk of bringing the options they have in Latin America to the US, being able to plug a USB key etc into a receiver and getting DVR functionality.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Drucifer said:


> Well, it not only recording, but playback. Tuners still can't do both at the same time.
> 
> But it ain't the number of tuners that concern me, but where the recordings are stored. DirecTV needs to ofter more options. Hopefully rumors of a DirecTV Cloud might be a fix, but will that become real?


That isn't a tuner limitation, but a limitation of the Genie's number of outgoing streams. Playing a recording doesn't require a tuner.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I wouldn't expect them to ever support two servers in a fault tolerant configuration. Figures someone with the handle "unixguru" would want a Genie cluster! :rolling:
> 
> It would be nice if they'd let people transfer recordings to their PC or tablet and play them there. Tivo has allowed this for ages, there's no reason Directv can't. Then none of the worries about losing recordings will matter, as people who are worried about it can back them up to their PC and build up a huge library of stuff they can watch whenever they want, so long as they maintain their Directv subscription.
> 
> It would provide a good reason for those people to stick with Directv, not wanting to render their thousands of hours of past recordings unplayable!


Well, no, it wouldn't technically be a cluster.

I wouldn't want to have to transfer to a PC as a backup. Again, a manual repetitive tedious operation.

If they enhanced their software so that a number of Genies acted as a single logical Genie that would be goodness in itself. From there its a small step to have two of them record the same stuff and delete at the same time, etc.

Drive failure is the biggest probability for loss of recordings. Months of unwatched recordings are equal to the $ spent on service for all that time. They have no interest (apparently) in supporting RAID and even if they did it wouldn't help with receiver failure. This would be a relatively simple solution for storage and receiver failure for those that want better resiliency.

The best solution would be to have everything available for VOD after it is broadcast and have a cloud-based record of what is suppose to be on a DVR - then recover from failure over the internet.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Only if the Server side can be of various sizes -- the _one size fits all_ approach ain't going to cut it.


Why not? A brick with N tuners and M streams. With appropriate software you just add bricks and the capacity transparently grows.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I think that's what unixguru is suggesting. So if the Genie isn't enough for you, you would get a second one which becomes the slave of the first. You have only one Genie to manage (the other one wouldn't take input from the remote or anything like that) and it would appear to have twice as many tuners and twice as much storage.
> 
> It is a good way of handling it, but is it worth it for Directv to invest in it? I doubt it. An 8 tuner Genie would cover probably 99.9% of residential installs, the corner cases who need more can use DVRs. Hard to think it is worth all the effort to serve that 0.1%, even if they spend several times more than other customers on average. The HR2x may be a dead path as unixguru suggests, but only because Directv stated in an earnings call last year they're going to add the ability to add a hard drive to a receiver and turn it into a DVR (one would assume with a new model of receiver, but who knows)
> 
> ...


Invest in - software! Then no longer necessary to invest in growing hardware - and churn of upgrading. At what point is hardware too much? 8 tuners? 12? 16? What's to say that 99% aren't covered by 5? Since almost every channel is 99% rebroadcasts why does anyone need to record more than 5 at once?

I hadn't heard about adding a drive to a receiver to make a DVR in the future. No idea what possible value that would be. Turn a single tuner into a DVR??? You're talking about needing 8 or more - why the heck will 1 be enough for anybody?

Now if they are saying they will make all storage external, or at least a disk tray that can be removed, then its about time. Some of us have been suggesting that for many years. If it's just a single disk tray then... yawn.

Diskless ain't gonna happen. NAS is not appropriate. May sound good but technically is a bad idea.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

harsh said:


> The SWiM channel and DECA bandwidth limitations would seem to be such technical limits. If DIRECTV is to maintain compatibility with existing boxes, SWiM and DECA can't change appreciably.
> 
> Running multiple cables to the Genie is certainly doable but I'm pretty sure the bandwidth on DECA is a show-stopper.


Well, sure. But unlimited $ means replacing DECA where needed is ok.

We didn't used to have DECA. We did't use to have SWM. Dishes used to be smaller.

My bet is that DECA won't be upgraded and the next step will be pure ethernet. DECA is only a transitional mechanism. People that want a super setup are going to have to switch to the latest which will likely be CAT6+.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

... Turn a single tuner into a DVR??? You're talking about needing 8 or more - why the heck will 1 be enough for anybody? ...

With multiple tuner single chips available, why can't they make a receiver that has multiple tuner capability. When installed as a receiver, only 1 (or maybe 2 for PIP purposes) would be available. When "upgraded" to a DVR, then 2 to 5 (or more) could become available without having to replace the receiver hardware at the customer premise.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

unixguru said:


> Well, sure. But unlimited $ means replacing DECA where needed is ok.
> 
> We didn't used to have DECA. We did't use to have SWM. Dishes used to be smaller.
> 
> My bet is that DECA won't be upgraded and the next step will be pure ethernet. DECA is only a transitional mechanism. People that want a super setup are going to have to switch to the latest which will likely be CAT6+.


They're far more likely to go all wireless (using a Genie/server that acts as an access point, rather than using the homeowner's) than they are to support wired ethernet that their installers don't install and they don't want to troubleshoot.

As far as Directv needs are concerned, gigabit ethernet (which requires only cat5/5e) is it. That provides way more bandwidth than any Directv install could ever possibly need.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

carl6 said:


> ... Turn a single tuner into a DVR??? You're talking about needing 8 or more - why the heck will 1 be enough for anybody? ...
> 
> With multiple tuner single chips available, why can't they make a receiver that has multiple tuner capability. When installed as a receiver, only 1 (or maybe 2 for PIP purposes) would be available. When "upgraded" to a DVR, then 2 to 5 (or more) could become available without having to replace the receiver hardware at the customer premise.


Just because something is all on one chip doesn't mean one doesn't pay for what one isn't using. Intel doesn't make only 12-core Xeons and then turn off some of them. (Well, actually sorta - if they have a die with a bad processor they can disable a few to get down to the next lowest level rather than throw the chip out. This is just standard die sorting like they do for clock rate.) There is probably a cost/benefit tradeoff where some excess but unused capacity would make sense.

So why wouldn't the "standard" single box that everybody gets going forward be a Genie? They are FREE. Get rid of the stupid DVR fee and everybody would want that.

I just don't get the logic to converting a receiver. Does this apply only to existing ones already installed? Just plug a disk box into them? If so, its only to save DTV money by not having to upgrade the whole thing. Makes no sense to me.

With the market heading for a central home server with clients it makes even less sense.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> They're far more likely to go all wireless (using a Genie/server that acts as an access point, rather than using the homeowner's) than they are to support wired ethernet that their installers don't install and they don't want to troubleshoot.
> 
> As far as Directv needs are concerned, gigabit ethernet (which requires only cat5/5e) is it. That provides way more bandwidth than any Directv install could ever possibly need.


Oh that will be fun. Half a dozen+ streams competing with all the other wireless traffic in my neighborhood. So installers can troubleshoot wireless problems instead of wired problems. That will work out well...

Ok, sure, cat5 is good enough. Nobody is doing new installs with cat5 anymore. Cat5e is about dead as Cat6 is almost the same price. Whatever.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

unixguru said:


> Ok, sure, cat5 is good enough. Nobody is doing new installs with cat5 anymore. Cat5e is about dead as Cat6 is almost the same price. Whatever.


ethernet only installs are just never going to happen.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

unixguru said:


> So why wouldn't the "standard" single box that everybody gets going forward be a Genie? They are FREE. Get rid of the stupid DVR fee and everybody would want that.
> 
> I just don't get the logic to converting a receiver.


Not everyone wants a DVR. I don't know the current numbers, but I'd guess at least 30% of DirecTV customers are non-DVR. Genie's are not FREE to produce or to provide to a customer, and if I can produce the "universal stb" which goes to every customer, and only add storage for those customers that want it (and pay for it), then I'm saving money. 30% of 20,000,000 is 6,000,000. If I can save $25 per box for 6M customers, I've saved $150,000,000. I'm just guessing at these numbers, but whatever the numbers are, you're talking about millions of dollars,probably hundreds of millions.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

unixguru said:


> Just because something is all on one chip doesn't mean one doesn't pay for what one isn't using. Intel doesn't make only 12-core Xeons and then turn off some of them. (Well, actually sorta - if they have a die with a bad processor they can disable a few to get down to the next lowest level rather than throw the chip out. This is just standard die sorting like they do for clock rate.) There is probably a cost/benefit tradeoff where some excess but unused capacity would make sense.
> 
> So why wouldn't the "standard" single box that everybody gets going forward be a Genie? They are FREE. Get rid of the stupid DVR fee and everybody would want that.
> 
> ...


Well. Let's see. Fios already deploys DVRs with the dvr functionality turned off if you don't pay for it. They can turn it on with a flick of a switch. Directv sends out HD hardware that is used for SD only. In other words, there are all kind of hardware out there that pieces are not used. The cost of extra gates on a chip are not linear. Nor are they the only cost of the hardware itself or of the supply chain involved from manufacture all the way to customer support.

I won't even mention all the XP 32 bit machines for years with memory they couldn't use.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

unixguru said:


> Just because something is all on one chip doesn't mean one doesn't pay for what one isn't using. Intel doesn't make only 12-core Xeons and then turn off some of them. (Well, actually sorta - if they have a die with a bad processor they can disable a few to get down to the next lowest level rather than throw the chip out. This is just standard die sorting like they do for clock rate.) There is probably a cost/benefit tradeoff where some excess but unused capacity would make sense.
> 
> So why wouldn't the "standard" single box that everybody gets going forward be a Genie? They are FREE. Get rid of the stupid DVR fee and everybody would want that.
> 
> ...


If you buy/manufacture in higher volumes you get a discount/save money. That could easily make up the extra few dollars a dual tuner SoC costs versus a single tuner. Comparing it to a 12 core Xeon is ridiculous. We're talking chips on the level of what is found in a lower end cell phone, not a high end server.

I won't even comment on the free Genie thing, you really have no understanding of business at all if you don't understand that offering one free Genie as a come-on for new customers/upgrades is not the same thing as letting people get as many as they want for free. And eliminate the DVR fee? Hey, why not make the programming free while you're at it, then everyone will want to subscribe!

No one knows how the receiver upgrades will work, if it will be possible on existing receivers or only on new ones. We'll have to wait and see. You say "only to save DTV money" as if that doesn't matter. Do you make decisions that "just save you money"? Why shouldn't Directv? They're a business, not a charity. Right now they charge $99 for a receiver, $199 for a DVR. People can buy a much larger drive than what the DVRs come with today, with a 5 year warranty, for under $100, so customers would have ample incentive to want to do this as well.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

peds48 said:


> ethernet only installs are just never going to happen.


True BUT it wouldn't be unreasonable for a high-end system to require it. People with million dollar plus homes wouldn't flinch about it.

"DECA" is a shared media (i.e. has collisions just like ancient coaxial ethernet). As such it's limited in bandwidth and number of devices. It will only scale so far.

For coax to scale up to UHD and more than a few streams its going to have to be deployed via point-to-point with a true packet switch.

Note how a DECA leg can be a tree of splitters - which can be anywhere along the run. Never going to make those a switched environment. Must be home-run to a single location OR be able to put a switch at each split (which then requires power which likely won't be done over coax).

A high-end infrastructure built on coax is just plain garbage.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

unixguru said:


> True BUT it wouldn't be unreasonable for a high-end system to require it. People with million dollar plus homes wouldn't flinch about it.


Just so we are on the same page,
Customers don't have a problem with Ethernet hook ups, they would prefer it in the newer homes , instead of these CCK's hanging around.

The installers are the ones having a Hissy over it.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

carl6 said:


> Not everyone wants a DVR. I don't know the current numbers, but I'd guess at least 30% of DirecTV customers are non-DVR. Genie's are not FREE to produce or to provide to a customer, and if I can produce the "universal stb" which goes to every customer, and only add storage for those customers that want it (and pay for it), then I'm saving money. 30% of 20,000,000 is 6,000,000. If I can save $25 per box for 6M customers, I've saved $150,000,000. I'm just guessing at these numbers, but whatever the numbers are, you're talking about millions of dollars,probably hundreds of millions.


Exactly why the upgradable thing doesn't make sense. Every dollar counts at volume.

Why would the extra money on every unit making it DVR-capable be ok... short of putting the disk in it?

Every unit would require

Extra tuners
Faster processor
More memory
Bigger power supply
Bigger fan
Removable storage tray


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

carl6 said:


> Not everyone wants a DVR. I don't know the current numbers, but I'd guess at least 30% of DirecTV customers are non-DVR. Genie's are not FREE to produce or to provide to a customer, and if I can produce the "universal stb" which goes to every customer, and only add storage for those customers that want it (and pay for it), then I'm saving money. 30% of 20,000,000 is 6,000,000. If I can save $25 per box for 6M customers, I've saved $150,000,000. I'm just guessing at these numbers, but whatever the numbers are, you're talking about millions of dollars,probably hundreds of millions.


I wrote to DTV a couple of years or more ago about doing this very thing. Add and external hard drive and it is now a DVR. They have the capability to control if it acts as a DVR or not so that people could not go out and buy an external hard drive and get the DVR service for free on that unit. Not only that, when a hard drive goes out it would be easy to change just that and not the whole box.
I never heard back from them.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> If you buy/manufacture in higher volumes you get a discount/save money. That could easily make up the extra few dollars a dual tuner SoC costs versus a single tuner. Comparing it to a 12 core Xeon is ridiculous. We're talking chips on the level of what is found in a lower end cell phone, not a high end server.
> 
> I won't even comment on the free Genie thing, you really have no understanding of business at all if you don't understand that offering one free Genie as a come-on for new customers/upgrades is not the same thing as letting people get as many as they want for free. And eliminate the DVR fee? Hey, why not make the programming free while you're at it, then everyone will want to subscribe!
> 
> No one knows how the receiver upgrades will work, if it will be possible on existing receivers or only on new ones. We'll have to wait and see. You say "only to save DTV money" as if that doesn't matter. Do you make decisions that "just save you money"? Why shouldn't Directv? They're a business, not a charity. Right now they charge $99 for a receiver, $199 for a DVR. People can buy a much larger drive than what the DVRs come with today, with a 5 year warranty, for under $100, so customers would have ample incentive to want to do this as well.


As I just said in prior post - there is a lot more involved than just the tuner.

Maybe you don't understand what the difference is between a non-Genie DVR and a Genie.

Extra tuners
Faster processor
More memory
Bigger disk
Bigger power supply
Bigger fan
Nearly the same list as a receiver vs a plain DVR which people are saying is insignificant. If that is true then the step to a Genie is likewise small.

Either you believe in this small incremental cost or you don't. You've argued both ways.

Seems that the companies can't figure out what they want to do either.

Maybe DTV wants to head in the direction of DVR+ (http://www.channelmaster.com). *That* would make sense - NO internal disk in any model.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Other than perhaps football fanatics who want to record every game, or very large families with diverse interests, it is hard to imagine anyone ever needing 8 or more recording tuners.
> 
> Directv - and every other provider - wants to move away from receivers and DVRs for residential installs, and go to a single "home server" and clients for all the TVs. Directv has already been pushing in this direction by offering deals for Genie and clients but not for DVRs and receivers.


Could that be because it's cheaper (of course it is)? I know that's the reason for the existence of any HR ending in 100.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Remember, in a Genie-only home, clients commandeer tuners for LIVE TV too.
> 
> Last summer, I had my daughter, son-in law and kids living with us for a few months while their new home was being renovated, so basically 4 TV watchers after dinner. It's a good thing I had two additional HRs in the home, because my 5-tuner HR44 alone didn't cut it, between recording and LIVE TV viewing needs.
> 
> Granted 4 TV viewers in a home may not be the norm, but I can't imagine it's a rarity.


It's not a rarity. We do that all the time on weekends.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

unixguru said:


> True BUT it wouldn't be unreasonable for a high-end system to require it. People with million dollar plus homes wouldn't flinch about it.
> 
> ".


true, but those customer only make 1% of the customer base. For the majorly the current system is more then enough

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Well, it not only recording, but playback. Tuners still can't do both at the same time.
> 
> But it ain't the number of tuners that concern me, but where the recordings are stored. DirecTV needs to ofter more options. Hopefully rumors of a DirecTV Cloud might be a fix, but will that become real?


I'd like to see that too. I'd lose all the money I've put into my system, but it's money spent already and I didn't spend it intending to get it back. I'd like to see them do something like NF does. That seems to be the future of TV content. NF doesn't even have a tech support group. Seems like it would be cheaper for D* to do it that way.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> I wrote to DTV a couple of years or more ago about doing this very thing. Add and external hard drive and it is now a DVR. They have the capability to control if it acts as a DVR or not so that people could not go out and buy an external hard drive and get the DVR service for free on that unit. Not only that, when a hard drive goes out it would be easy to change just that and not the whole box.
> _*I never heard back from them.*_


Probably because you used logic for your argument.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> true, but those customer only make 1% of the customer base. For the majorly the current system is more then enough
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We must remember we don't represent the whole subscriber base. We are anomalies.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Rich said:


> Probably because you used logic for your argument.
> 
> Rich


I had also asked it they could use a flash drive in the USB port to store all the new graphics we get in our menus, etc. I was told that someone had a patent on using the USB for storage. I don't know how that is possible but if it is true that patent should run out very soon. This would be an easy way to add memory to the boxes and possibly make them a little bit faster.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

peds48 said:


> true, but those customer only make 1% of the customer base. For the majorly the current system is more then enough


Agreed. This thread is going round in circles. So what percentage of the customer base needs more than 5 tuners and 4 viewers?

If we play Moore's law advocate, we will get a new model with 8 tuners and maybe 6 viewers. A few more tuners (1 chip?). Faster processor and more memory. Disk should still be able to handle it. DECA should. SWM is done at 8. HR44 will be finished.

Can we then stop chasing the rabbit and work on software?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Agreed. This thread is going round in circles. So what percentage of the customer base needs more than 5 tuners and 4 viewers?
> 
> If we play Moore's law advocate, we will get a new model with 8 tuners and maybe 6 viewers. A few more tuners (1 chip?). Faster processor and more memory. Disk should still be able to handle it. DECA should. SWM is done at 8. HR44 will be finished.
> 
> _*Can we then stop chasing the rabbit and work on software?*_


That would be nice. Just leave the hardware alone and concentrate on the software. But some of us have been fruitlessly saying that for years.

Rich


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Yes I would love that .

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

unixguru said:


> As I just said in prior post - there is a lot more involved than just the tuner.
> 
> Maybe you don't understand what the difference is between a non-Genie DVR and a Genie.
> 
> ...


I think we all may be looking at this wrong.

I suspect the long range gamble is a genie without a hard drive for everyone. And yes all tuners work so even if don't want a DVR you get a genie and clients.

They have said that this platform is far cheaper. I think probably because chips with multiple tuners and clients is cheaper than separate boxes with individual tuners.

Then if you want DVR they drop ship another small box that makes it a DVR.

This would be the cheapest way to upgrade all sd people as I would imagine 80% or more of sd people do not have DVR.

They could offer both the "Lego" DVR and regular genie to everyone but a Lego DVR may be able to offer all the on demand and other interested connected abilities without the hard drive.

That would be a good way for them to upgrade sd people in the long run for sure IMHO.

Also think about all the commercial accounts that don't need DVRs.

I still think the other key is multiple genies which is ache over through software.

They do the Lego system and they no longer need any sd or Hi Definition stand alone or 2 tuner DVRs. They have literally three things to sell. Lego, clients, and genie.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

unixguru said:


> As I just said in prior post - there is a lot more involved than just the tuner.
> 
> Maybe you don't understand what the difference is between a non-Genie DVR and a Genie.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't think the cost differential from receiver to DVR to Genie is all that great. Certainly nowhere near what some people claim. I'll spare my estimates to avoid going down the path of arguing with those people who think Directv equipment is made of gold.

At any rate, the discussion was not about Genie versus DVR, but about a single tuner receiver that can be upgraded to a DVR versus a dual tuner receiver that can be upgraded to a DVR. Perhaps a bit more CPU power and memory are required, perhaps there's adequate headroom. Even the Genie has less of both than a bottom end sub-$100 smartphone, so we aren't talking about a large expense here to upgrade a receiver's horsepower to a DVR's horsepower.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

unixguru said:


> Well, sure. But unlimited $ means replacing DECA where needed is ok.


The problem with replacing DECA is that you would have to replace all of the DECA equipment. That includes all DECA adapters, GenieMinis and the GenieGo. Adapting the H25 would not be a clean solution for a company that is pushing their "no wires" agenda. You would have to use adapters with just about everything.

I think you too easily dismiss the complexity of getting installers to work with high-bandwidth networking technologies as that's where the real trouble ensues. I would imagine that the CAT5 experience of even the AT&T uVerse installers is limited to patch cables.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I think we all may be looking at this wrong.
> 
> I suspect the long range gamble is a genie without a hard drive for everyone. And yes all tuners work so even if don't want a DVR you get a genie and clients.
> 
> ...


Agree this would be the best approach.

This is an interesting example: Concept Project Christine. More expandable than needed for DTV. "Genie" might need 8, low-end 4. Very elegant solution - gets rid of the damn separate power block too yet makes it field repairable. DTV doesn't need full PCIe connections.

Blocks should be:

Power supply
"Server" side - sat receivers, processor, memory
4 disk slots (with software RAID 0/1/10)
OTA receivers
"Client" side
Same client side module should also plug into another "dock" that is the power supply for standalone clients.

*That's real engineering.*


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

You can dream all you want, but Directv would never recoup the design costs for that "real engineering", because a very tiny number of people would prefer that big stack of stuff rather than an integrated unit.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You can dream all you want, but Directv would never recoup the design costs for that "real engineering", because a very tiny number of people would prefer that big stack of stuff rather than an integrated unit.


Sure they would. "Design cost" is not really a factor. When they talk about a receiver that can be converted to a DVR doesn't that incur a cost?

Today we have a receiver (H25), DVR (HR25), Genie (HR44), wired client (C41), wireless client (C41W), wireless bridge, OTA (AM21N). Only the AM21N plugs together with anything and even with that its a separate box.

So how is engineering, manufacturing, and supporting all those things going to be less expensive than a modular approach? By simply altering the size of the "backplane" they can replace every category.

That Razer concept is twice as big as what I proposed. It has 8 slots on both sides for a total of 16. The beefiest DTV would need is half that size. What is the problem with that "stack of stuff"? With multiple sizes of "backplane" the size can easily be scaled. It is integrated - no wires between modules; physically one thing (when assembled). If the space age look bothers you its easy to convert all that into a rectangular box with the modules laying sideways (there are advantages to the concept - cooling without fans).

In my setup an HR34, AM21N, and Caldigit VR are piled near each other - you think that is integrated? Even dropping the Caldigit I wouldn't call it integrated.

While I can't think of a precise example at the moment, there are products that are totally separate blocks that have cases made to stack and physically interlock. That would be an improvement but you then have a number of short jumper cables connecting things together. Not very integrated or consumer friendly either.

Either DTV sees a benefit to modularization or they don't. If they don't then a receiver that converts to a DVR is dumb.

I wonder why they talked about a convertible receiver in the context of the merger. What does the merger have to do with that? They don't need the merger to fund minor product changes.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Still needs to fit next to it under a tv. That's a big one. 

And they already have the modular aspect built in now. Esata drives hook up easily. 

However I have often wondered if they won't go the way of the drive connecting via coax so it can be placed anywhere a la a genie go. 

This would be helpful in that all clients could be small at all tvs. 

Size matters more than ever today.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> Still needs to fit next to it under a tv. That's a big one.
> 
> And they already have the modular aspect built in now. Esata drives hook up easily.
> 
> ...


With the Whole Home feature I don't know why you could not use one of the External Networked Hard Drives now using the coax. ??


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Perhaps it has to do with the same reason DirecTV does not allow moving recording from DVR to DVR


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Still needs to fit next to it under a tv. That's a big one.
> 
> And they already have the modular aspect built in now. Esata drives hook up easily.
> 
> ...


Are you suggesting having just a bare drive in a box that connects via coax? Where are the tuners? They need to be somewhere too, if you want to have tuner-less clients at all TVs. So if you have the drive in the box and the tuners in the box, then you have a Genie except without the video output. Not sure of the value of that.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Are you suggesting having just a bare drive in a box that connects via coax? Where are the tuners? They need to be somewhere too, if you want to have tuner-less clients at all TVs. So if you have the drive in the box and the tuners in the box, then you have a Genie except without the video output. Not sure of the value of that.


One main genie with all the tuners.. any number of clients... you want dvr, ok here is a box with a hard drive in you just plug in and you have a dvr too.

I suspect if they do go that route the hard drive would simply plug into the genie unit, not the coax so they could always drop ship instead of sending an installer...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> One main genie with all the tuners.. any number of clients... you want dvr, ok here is a box with a hard drive in you just plug in and you have a dvr too.
> 
> I suspect if they do go that route the hard drive would simply plug into the genie unit, not the coax so they could always drop ship instead of sending an installer...


It sounds like this is what they're doing with the receivers, except it will be a customer provided drive. No drop ship required, no need for them to deal with it if the hard drive dies, the customer gets exactly as much storage as they need and guys like unixguru who want RAID could even add an external RAID array.

Why would Directv want to be involved in that when it is cheaper and easier for them to let the customer be responsible?

Not sure they'd want to go as far as shipping the Genie without a hard drive, but it would make a lot of sense. To make it easier for customers to get a free install offer that includes everything, they could throw in a free external drive. Directv would own/lease the Genie but the customer would own the drive (and its manufacturer warranty) and therefore be responsible for dealing with replacing it if it dies.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> It sounds like this is what they're doing with the receivers, except it will be a customer provided drive. No drop ship required, no need for them to deal with it if the hard drive dies, the customer gets exactly as much storage as they need and guys like unixguru who want RAID could even add an external RAID array.
> 
> Why would Directv want to be involved in that when it is cheaper and easier for them to let the customer be responsible?
> 
> Not sure they'd want to go as far as shipping the Genie without a hard drive, but it would make a lot of sense. To make it easier for customers to get a free install offer that includes everything, they could throw in a free external drive. Directv would own/lease the Genie but the customer would own the drive (and its manufacturer warranty) and therefore be responsible for dealing with replacing it if it dies.


I can say I'm positive there is zero chance DIRECTV would not provide a hard drive for a DVR they offered. That doesn't make any sense at all.

Just think about trying to tell an 80 year old to go buy a hard drive with certain specs. Not going happen.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Well what's the point of offering a Genie without a hard drive, as it sounded like you were suggesting, if not to allow customers to upgrade it themselves?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

unixguru said:


> Agreed. This thread is going round in circles. So what percentage of the customer base needs more than 5 tuners and 4 viewers?
> 
> Can we then stop chasing the rabbit and work on software?


Agree we need better software, that should be the main focus, and nothing else right now.
But I personally will not upgrade or sign another commitment with directv , unless the next Genie is an 8 tuner, and streams 8 rooms at the same time, and has a 3TB Hard drive.
Now most people don't need that, but I'm just speaking for myself.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The problem with a the degree of modularization being discussed is that it not as simple as you might think. If you are going to split out the hard drive and make the receiver section usable alone, you have to design circuitry that can be software controlled so you can route the data straight to the HDMI circuit when operating as a receiver only, or to the hard drive module, and back, and then on to HDMI when you add the "DVR" module. The same applies to power distribution, control signals, incoming data to the tuners and outgoing again to provide streaming and download (GenieGo functions)- they will need software controllable switching. And where do you put the streaming transcoder? In the "DVR" module, or the receiver? Or is it a separate module?

Solving the engineering design issues and fabricating the components and developing the software is all certainly possible. Most of the hardware components required can be assembled from off the shelf components, but that doesn't eliminate the design challenges. It would increase the cost of the total solution. Not to mention that whenever you have a plug and a socket you have the possibility of a failed connection, making troubleshooting more complicated.

The earliest DVRs were assembled from standard PC components. The first TiVo used PowerPC CPUs and did all the DVR work in software. Today 75% of that code is built into the processor chip (the same family of "DVR on a chip" is at the heart of both a Genie and a Roamio). The trend is towards more and more integration, not towards distribution of function across modular devices. Monolithic integration is popular for CE devices for a reason...it is more reliable and cheaper over the life of the device.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm not a systems engineer, but conceptually, I don't see why modularity can't be achieved at the operating system level. Why can't an HR44 be configured to read and write to a network attached storage device, instead of the internal drive? I say this, because I can just as easily create or access recordings on my PC using internal or networked drives. My operating system makes it completely transparent to my recording and playback software where the storage is.

Once this is accomplished, then why not an H45 without a disk, period?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

unless this NAS works with MoCA (DECA) and therefore proprietary (at least the enclosure) I dont see it happening.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

peds48 said:


> unless this NAS works with MoCA (DECA) and therefore proprietary (at least the enclosure) I dont see it happening.


I assume it would be a DIRECTV NAS device with built in MoCA. Otherwise, as you know, you'd need a BB MoCA adapter, like adding an HR20 to a SWM set-up.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Correct, my point was that IMO DirecTV is not going to rely on a customer's network for their services, like using an Ethernet NAS where a router is need it. of course, for VOD they have no choice until they can provide internet to all of its customers


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

As I look to better my DirecTV experience, a few items that I've noticed elsewhere, some of which I'd look forward to DirecTV exploring: http://forums.solidsignal.com/showthread.php/5920-My-TiVo-Roamio-amp-Mini-Thoughts-amp-Observations?p=13094#post13094

Obviously, not all are technologically possible, but probably a few nuggets in there that would be nice to have as I enjoy DirecTV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> Why can't an HR44 be configured to read and write to a network attached storage device, instead of the internal drive?


With a DVR, there is usually important data lodged on the hard drive (the guide data if nothing else) without which the DVR is dead in the water. If the DVR can't log into that hard drive, what it is to do?

Yes, you could commit all of the guide data to NVRAM but what then?

Making modular systems foolproof is not a trivial task (ask anyone who has set up clustered or mirrored servers). CE gear must be substantially foolproof or it can't be CE gear.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> With a DVR, there is usually important data lodged on the hard drive (the guide data if nothing else) without which the DVR is dead in the water. If the DVR can't log into that hard drive, what it is to do?


A: There's plenty of GUIDE data available in a diskless DIRECTV STB now. E.g., you can currently use the GUIDE to schedule autotunes on any H2x box, so why not recordings to a networked storage device?

B: If there is a future need to cache more data than STB memory allows, why can't it be cached on a network attached drive, instead of an internal drive?


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

It would be cool to be able to add USB flash memory to a tuner client (H25), to add tuner buffering, while also assigning the client to a server, thus not stealing a tuner from the server to maximize recording, but getting the other benefits of the client/server model.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> With a DVR, there is usually important data lodged on the hard drive (the guide data if nothing else) without which the DVR is dead in the water. If the DVR can't log into that hard drive, what it is to do?
> 
> Yes, you could commit all of the guide data to NVRAM but what then?
> 
> Making modular systems foolproof is not a trivial task (ask anyone who has set up clustered or mirrored servers). CE gear must be substantially foolproof or it can't be CE gear.





Steve said:


> A: There's plenty of GUIDE data available in a diskless DIRECTV STB now. E.g., you can currently use the GUIDE to schedule autotunes on any H2x box, so why not recordings to a networked storage device?
> 
> B: If there is a future need to cache more data than STB memory allows, why can't it be cached on a network attached drive, instead of an internal drive?


C: This model already exists in the DIRECTV world. WHDVR. Any diskless box (like an H25, e.g.) that can play back a recording via MRV is already accessing a form of networked storage.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Again, it is all possible, but the added complexities and engineering challenges mean that it would be more expensive, not cheaper.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Again, it is all possible, but the added complexities and engineering challenges mean that it would be more expensive, not cheaper.


We'll have to agree to disagree on the complexity. Whatever's entailed, however, is a one-time engineering expense. The customer service savings by just having to replace a failed drive module vs entire STBs, like today, would be on-going.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> A: There's plenty of GUIDE data available in a diskless DIRECTV STB now. E.g., you can currently use the GUIDE to schedule autotunes on any H2x box, so why not recordings to a networked storage device?


The H2x box has NVRAM dedicated to that purpose. The current DVRs do not.

If the DVR can't see the storage device for some reason, should it assume it will be there when it comes time to record? Does a client lodge the record request on the hard drive, with the DVR or "in the cloud"?


> B: If there is a future need to cache more data than STB memory allows, why can't it be cached on a network attached drive, instead of an internal drive?


Assuming you have unfettered access to said storage. What happens when your networking system isn't functioning nominally?

Dealing with not being able to log in to a storage device (because it is powered off, hung or disconnected) is absolutely not trivial.

If we're talking about using off-the-shelf NAS solutions, there's series of much higher level protocols in play than you experience with a SATA connection. Having to work through CIFS, NFS or even HTTP is not the same as issuing direct hard drive reads.

Engineering determines not only what it possible but what might break and how to continue to deliver some manner of experience when it does.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> The H2x box has NVRAM dedicated to that purpose. The current DVRs do not.
> 
> If the DVR can't see the storage device for some reason, should it assume it will be there when it comes time to record? Does a client lodge the record request on the hard drive, with the DVR or "in the cloud"?
> Assuming you have unfettered access to said storage. What happens when your networking system isn't functioning nominally?
> ...


All the issues you mention would be caused by the STB not being able to communicate with the storage device, for whatever reasons. Those are the same networking and/or hardware issues that exist today in a WHDVR or RVU set-up, and that model has proved to be supportable.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on the complexity. Whatever's entailed, however, is a one-time engineering expense. The customer service savings by just having to replace a failed drive module vs entire STBs, like today, would be on-going.


DIRECTV has tipped their hand with respect to the level of support that they offer for eSATA on existing HR models. They did the one-time engineering, deployed the product and at some fairly high level, washed their hands of it.

Using conventional CSRs to diagnose external storage issues is probably not all that reliable and I would suggest that any replacement hardware savings would be more than offset by failed diagnoses and customer exasperation.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> All the issues you mention would be caused by the STB not being able to communicate with the storage device, for whatever reasons. Those are the same networking and/or hardware issues that exist today in a WHDVR or RVU set-up, and that model has proved to be supportable.


The current model doesn't necessarily trash reception for the entire household. Any H2x and HR2x equipment can still function independently.

Even in a fully client-server scenario with GenieMinis at remote TVs, you could still have limited access to television with the Genie if the network was hinky. You would need to poll a few receiver-less customers to really determine how "supportable" that model is. As it is, most here don't recommend visiting such a configuration.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> [...] if the network was hinky.


Ever since MRV, I want to be able to watch a recording on any TV in the house, not just the one it happens to be local to. It goes without saying that reliable networking needs to be a given in any current or future scenario. WHDVR, RVU, on demand, cloud DVR, DVR/NAS, etc. It's been my personal experience that DIRECTV does provide reliable networking. The more worrisome issue, IMHO, is hard drive failure.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

damondlt said:


> Agree we *need better software*, that should be the main focus, and nothing else right now.
> But I personally will not upgrade or sign another commitment with directv , unless the next Genie is an 8 tuner, and streams 8 rooms at the same time, and has a 3TB Hard drive.
> Now most people don't need that, but I'm just speaking for myself.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


A dog of a software can work better if the CPU is fast.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Agree we need better software, that should be the main focus, and nothing else right now.
> But I personally will not upgrade or sign another commitment with directv , unless the next Genie is an 8 tuner, and streams 8 rooms at the same time, and has a 3TB Hard drive.
> Now most people don't need that, but I'm just speaking for myself.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


No one on the planet offers that. No one.

And something else to consider. As annoying as some of the stuff is on DVRs it's so far beyond what majority of people in this country use as a DVR it's absolutely frightening. There's very few decent DVRs and the genie and all hrs are a couple of them. TiVo, hopper, dishs other DVRs, and The new FIOS are also some but beyond that there's not a big list. If any list at all.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> No one on the planet offers that. No one.
> 
> .


I don't care. Doesn't change my actions or feelings.
Defective equipment is the only equipment changes that will be happening in my house.

When directv adds an 8 tuner Genie with 8 remote streaming rooms , then I'll upgrade.

But until then, I have no upgrade worth giving directv another 24 months on.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> But until then, I have no upgrade worth giving directv another 24 months on.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


So if such DVR came two years from now, you would upgrade, correct? If that is the case, you just gave them another 2 years. What difference does it makes to subscribe for two years with or without a paper contract. just wondering...


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> So if such DVR came two years from now, you would upgrade, correct? If that is the case, you just gave them another 2 years. What difference does it makes to subscribe for two years with or without a paper contract. just wondering...


Difference is why commit to a company that doesn't have what you want if someone else does?

Right now is fine, but when the time comes to leave, I'm not going to spend money on an ETF over a single wasted upgraded HR when that's not what I want now.

In June 2015, I may not want the system I have now, and for that, I'm not upgrading , when there is nothing to upgrade to IMO,That warrants a 24 month commitment.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> So if such DVR came two years from now, you would upgrade, correct? If that is the case, you just gave them another 2 years. What difference does it makes to subscribe for two years with or without a paper contract. just wondering...


Or, to put it differently, who says DirecTV will be the first company to meet his requirements? Suppose Verizon reveals that the VMS1100 can actually support 12 tuners each, instead of 6, by virtue of a software upgrade? And what if they do it in June, 2015? Why waste your time bothering to commit to a 2 year contract, simply to get newer hardware, when the features are identical?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Remember Peds, in the real directv world, free upgrades are not anytime you want them , they can't be wasted on going from HR34 to HR44 when it's almost the same thing.
Not worth 24 month commitment to me.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Or, to put it differently, who says DirecTV will be the first company to meet his requirements? Suppose Verizon reveals that the VMS1100 can actually support 12 tuners each, instead of 6, by virtue of a software upgrade? And what if they do it in June, 2015? Why waste your time bothering to commit to a 2 year contract, simply to get newer hardware, when the features are identical?


Exactly, I don't feel Hr23 to a 24 or HR34 to a 44 warrants an upgrade that requires 24 months .Its the same basic products.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Exactly, I don't feel Hr23 to a 24 or HR34 to a 44 warrants an upgrade that requires 24 months .Its the same basic products.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


And "functionally equivalent", don't ever forget that, now that you have a chance to stick their own words down their throats. See what they say to that.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Diana C said:


> Or, to put it differently, who says DirecTV will be the first company to meet his requirements? Suppose Verizon reveals that the VMS1100 can actually support 12 tuners each, instead of 6, by virtue of a software upgrade? And what if they do it in June, 2015? Why waste your time bothering to commit to a 2 year contract, simply to get newer hardware, when the features are identical?


you pose a good point. my thought was that if you were planning to stay with DirecTV and have no plan to go anywhere, why not enjoy that time with something "new" but it does come to a point that DirecTV can' provide anything better. case and point is my case, with 2 Genies and one HR24, (my 2 HR21s are being used by my sis downstairs) there is nothing better I can get from DirecTV.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Remember Peds, in the real directv world, free upgrades are not anytime you want them , they can't be wasted on going from HR34 to HR44 when it's almost the same thing.
> Not worth 24 month commitment to me.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


agreed, specially when this is not an option via DirecTV CSR


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Difference is why commit to a company that doesn't have what you want if someone else does?
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


Fair enough. good point!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I don't care. Doesn't change my actions or feelings.
> Defective equipment is the only equipment changes that will be happening in my house.
> 
> When directv adds an 8 tuner Genie with 8 remote streaming rooms , then I'll upgrade.
> ...


I was simply saying vowing to never commit based on an expected hardware that doesn't exist anywhere may be off. What if you get a 4k tv in a couple years, no one has changed the tuners in DVRs and DIRECTV offers a 4k DVR?

I think that and multiple genies is far more
Likely than an 8 tuner genie, unfortunately.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I was simply saying vowing to never commit based on an expected hardware that doesn't exist anywhere may be off. What if you get a 4k tv in a couple years, no one has changed the tuners in DVRs and DIRECTV offers a 4k DVR?
> 
> I think that and multiple genies is far more
> Likely than an 8 tuner genie, unfortunately.


4K not interested.
And I listed multiple reasons above on why I flat out refuse to risk a 24 month commitment based on what's offered by directv.

Again why commit to something now, that's not really an upgrade, when in a year someone else may have something better in the works.

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drucifer said:


> A dog of a software can work better if the CPU is fast.


No amount of CPU speed can fix code that doesn't do what it is supposed to do.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Exactly, I don't feel Hr23 to a 24 or HR34 to a 44 warrants an upgrade that requires 24 months .Its the same basic products.


You might think so if you hadn't seen all the posts about people wanting to insure they got the latest and greatest.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> No amount of CPU speed can fix code that doesn't do what it is supposed to do.


If it's supposed to complete in .005 seconds with an old CPU, a new, 15x faster one can make it do it well inside the original spec.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> The problem with a the degree of modularization being discussed is that it not as simple as you might think. If you are going to split out the hard drive and make the receiver section usable alone, you have to design circuitry that can be software controlled so you can route the data straight to the HDMI circuit when operating as a receiver only, or to the hard drive module, and back, and then on to HDMI when you add the "DVR" module. The same applies to power distribution, control signals, incoming data to the tuners and outgoing again to provide streaming and download (GenieGo functions)- they will need software controllable switching. And where do you put the streaming transcoder? In the "DVR" module, or the receiver? Or is it a separate module?


Well, no. Says a software engineer.

There is no routing in any of it without software. Software tells the tuners what buffers to dump their data into. The tuners generate interrupts as they fill the buffers. Software writes the buffers to disk just as it would if it was receiving a LAN stream. For live viewing it also tells the video/audio output chip the same buffers to output. Trick play or playback is just messing around with filling and draining buffers.

How the components are connected doesn't matter. They can all be on one circuit board, separated by PCIe and slots, separated by Thunderbolt (which is basically external PCIe), USB, eSATA, whatever.

I would venture to guess that the minimum "tuner" chip has had 3 tuners all along. One for sideband data and two for programming. Plain receivers have one unused. Base DVRs use all of them. Genie has more than one chip - notice all discussed max number of record streams is (N*3)-1.

Most of the mother/logic-board is probably identical between an H25 and an HR24. Even the same circuit board just not populated with disk interface chip.

So the modularity is pretty trivial to achieve.

There are actually people playing with making modular smart phones.



Diana C said:


> Solving the engineering design issues and fabricating the components and developing the software is all certainly possible. Most of the hardware components required can be assembled from off the shelf components, but that doesn't eliminate the design challenges. It would increase the cost of the total solution. Not to mention that whenever you have a plug and a socket you have the possibility of a failed connection, making troubleshooting more complicated.
> 
> The earliest DVRs were assembled from standard PC components. The first TiVo used PowerPC CPUs and did all the DVR work in software. Today 75% of that code is built into the processor chip (the same family of "DVR on a chip" is at the heart of both a Genie and a Roamio). The trend is towards more and more integration, not towards distribution of function across modular devices. Monolithic integration is popular for CE devices for a reason...it is more reliable and cheaper over the life of the device.


Yes, that's been the excuse for a long time. Yet in a datacenter there isn't a single disk drive anywhere that isn't hot swappable. Blade servers are common.

For consumers anybody that can manage the current tangle of sat receivers/DVRs, disc players, A/V receivers, TVs, game consoles, computers, etc can easily handle anything DTV would produce. There used to be a terrible mess of plugs and sockets. Things are better now - in my setup I'm down to HDMI, power, ethernet, and speaker wire. Although I'm a bit surprised at the resiliency of the HDMI plug/sockets - they don't look that great.

So why hasn't "monolithic integration" expand to all of those areas? That approach would lead to a TV that had everything else integrated.

There is a very good reason why modularity hasn't come *within* those products. They want to sell product. They don't want you to be able to upgrade pieces of it. They want to replace the whole thing repeatedly. I don't think DTV is aiming for that kind of model - they resist it.

When my son was around 5 he was plugging game cartridges in his Nintendo. I don't think we give enough credit to the abilities of consumers. As for grand(m/p)a, the service tech will take care of it.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Steve said:


> I'm not a systems engineer, but conceptually, I don't see why modularity can't be achieved at the operating system level. Why can't an HR44 be configured to read and write to a network attached storage device, instead of the internal drive? I say this, because I can just as easily create or access recordings on my PC using internal or networked drives. My operating system makes it completely transparent to my recording and playback software where the storage is.
> 
> Once this is accomplished, then why not an H45 without a disk, period?


NAS introduces unpredictable behavior - reliability, consistency, etc. Because of the added complexity - much more hardware and software in the data path, fragile connections, unrelated traffic, etc.

What does a DVR do with a record stream coming from a sat and it runs out of buffers because it can't empty the data to the storage? No matter how big you make the buffers there is a point at which it will fail. There is no "retry" - it can't go back to the sat and say "please send again".

A DVR is a somewhat real-time (category of computing) application. NAS isn't good at it. You won't find banks recording transactions to NAS.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Well, no. Says a software engineer.
> 
> There is no routing in any of it without software. Software tells the tuners what buffers to dump their data into. The tuners generate interrupts as they fill the buffers. Software writes the buffers to disk just as it would if it was receiving a LAN stream. For live viewing it also tells the video/audio output chip the same buffers to output. Trick play or playback is just messing around with filling and draining buffers.
> 
> How the components are connected doesn't matter. They can all be on one circuit board, separated by PCIe and slots, separated by Thunderbolt (which is basically external PCIe), USB, eSATA, whatever...


Sure, but in modern DVRs, most of that functionality (buffers, USB and SATA, controllers, etc.) are inside one chip set. Splitting off function means either distributing the chip set (which introduces potential timing issues) or producing your own software/firmware to do the job. Sure, it can be done, but I strongly question that it can be done at a reasonable cost.



unixguru said:


> ...Yes, that's been the excuse for a long time. Yet in a datacenter there isn't a single disk drive anywhere that isn't hot swappable. Blade servers are common...


Absolutely true, but how many blade servers and hot swappable power supplies and disk packs do you see in people's home PCs? What does an HP Proliant DL560 cost compared to a top of the line home PC?

TVs will never have all viewing functionality built into them simply because they last too long. For example, if you were building an HDTV today you might put a gigbit Ethernet port on it (although most today, having been designed a few years ago, still have 100Mbit ports) but 5 years from now you might want a 10 gigibit port, but the TV will still have 15 years of life left.

CE design values design, manufacturing, shipping and support cost control most highly - saving even a few cents per unit can be significant. Field upgradability and flexibility is of little value since a lot more money can be made selling a new STB that has receiver and hard drive in one monolithic cabinet than by selling a "storage module" that converts a receiver into a DVR.

If field upgradability was a winning formula, Echostar would have expanded the design to all of their products.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

What possible use could a TV have for going beyond gigabit? They don't even really need that, the only reason they have it is because OEMs quit making fast ethernet PHYs and chipsets when the cost differential with gigabit dropped to near zero.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> What possible use could a TV have for going beyond gigabit? They don't even really need that, the only reason they have it is because OEMs quit making fast ethernet PHYs and chipsets when the cost differential with gigabit dropped to near zero.


and who's not to say the same will happen to 1 gig NICs?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> and who's not to say the same will happen to 1 gig NICs?


That probably will happen, but what difference will it make when TVs start shipping with 10GbE interfaces? They would have no functional improvement over ones with a "mere" gigabit, so it wouldn't be like people would be wishing for that part to be upgradeable.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Sure, but in modern DVRs, most of that functionality (buffers, USB and SATA, controllers, etc.) are inside one chip set. Splitting off function means either distributing the chip set (which introduces potential timing issues) or producing your own software/firmware to do the job. Sure, it can be done, but I strongly question that it can be done at a reasonable cost.


I don't think so. Take a look at this listing - just the pictures for now: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/DIRECTV-HR44-700-MOTHER-BOARD-Main-Board-CPUcircuit-board-FOR-HR44-DVR-/251557749427?pt=US_DVRs_Hard_Drive_Recorders&hash=item3a9202a2b3&_uhb=1

That's an HR44 motherboard. At the very least I can make out separate processor, memory, sat decoders, and a fair number of glue chips. Hardly the all-encompassing SoC.

Yet, notice the price. *$20 new*. Has 4 of them. Parts for repairing DVRs? I will admit these are probably priced below market value but that can't be a lot higher.

I would wager that a HR24 motherboard is more than 75% the cost of an HR44 motherboard. Needs all the same basic components - just slightly "less" capability in some.

The only things that absolutely have to be together are the processor and memory. Everything else is connected by the thinnest thread - everything these days is high speed "serial" interconnect, i.e. just a couple of "wires". What is the difference between SATA and eSATA? Just the shape of the plug/socket and the cable length!

At a minimum, storage needs to go separate just like power has.



Diana C said:


> Absolutely true, but how many blade servers and hot swappable power supplies and disk packs do you see in people's home PCs? What does an HP Proliant DL560 cost compared to a top of the line home PC?


Any brand-name product is not a worthy comparison. They are nothing more than a much cheaper commodity part with a huge brand markup. No seriously large data center is using brand name - Google and the others are designing and having theirs built by the same commodity sources.

SuperMicro would be a better example. I have a couple at my house. In fact they have 8 removable SATA bays (smaller configs are available). They don't cost more than a home PC with the same capacity (number of drives). Any why should they? SATA drives are by default hot swappable. The tray is simply two cheap metal rails with a plastic front and lever.

Don't confuse what a marketeer charges for something with what its worth.



Diana C said:


> TVs will never have all viewing functionality built into them simply because they last too long. For example, if you were building an HDTV today you might put a gigbit Ethernet port on it (although most today, having been designed a few years ago, still have 100Mbit ports) but 5 years from now you might want a 10 gigibit port, but the TV will still have 15 years of life left.
> 
> CE design values design, manufacturing, shipping and support cost control most highly - saving even a few cents per unit can be significant. Field upgradability and flexibility is of little value since a lot more money can be made selling a new STB that has receiver and hard drive in one monolithic cabinet than by selling a "storage module" that converts a receiver into a DVR.
> 
> If field upgradability was a winning formula, Echostar would have expanded the design to all of their products.


I mostly agree with you. So why is DTV talking about a receiver that can be converted to a DVR????

A "disposable" DTV box would be fine IF the contents (settings/series list/recorded content) could be easily migrated.

One morsel for thought... the Mac Pro has no internal storage. Processor, memory, and graphics (and power supply).

BTW, your and sixto's FiOS/TiVo comments make me weep. If only we had FiOS out here in small town USA (Minneapolis metro ! Needless to say Mediacom is no alternative at all.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> That probably will happen, but what difference will it make when TVs start shipping with 10GbE interfaces? They would have no functional improvement over ones with a "mere" gigabit, so it wouldn't be like people would be wishing for that part to be upgradeable.


Basic enterprise servers already have 10g ethernet. 10/100/1000/10000mbit on same port. And low-end ones have 4 ports!

Its the same thing as wiring. Cat5e became as cheap as Cat5. Now Cat6 is becoming as cheap as Cat5e.

_*Needing*_ it is not much of a factor.

In my mind that level of upgradability is not relevant. People do want more tuners/streams and storage capacity (and a few of us storage reliability).

What they fail miserably at is what happens to ones accumulated programming when they have a failure? As I've said before, we watch almost nothing live. Right now we are 2+ months behind. If we have a failure we essentially throw away 2 months of service (>$300). If that happened in the winter then we are more screwed because we would have a hole in series that ruins the spring too. That wouldn't be funny in the least.

Swapping out equipment for some kind of upgrade currently has the same exact effect as a failure. At our house we can only upgrade in August as that is when the backlog is the smallest.

Modularity is the first step in fixing that. The second is fixing the way programs are encrypted/stored.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> ...Don't confuse what a marketeer charges for something with what its worth..


And don't confuse you, me and most everyone else that posted in this thread with the average DirecTV customer. The entire membership here is only 0.05% of the DirecTV customer base. At least 95% of DirecTV's customers don't have need for 1 Genie's capacity and functionality, let alone anything more than that.

BTW, I guess you hang around different data centers than I do. The one I was in last week (belonging to a household name in investments and finance) has mostly HP and Sun servers.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> What possible use could a TV have for going beyond gigabit? They don't even really need that, the only reason they have it is because OEMs quit making fast ethernet PHYs and chipsets when the cost differential with gigabit dropped to near zero.


I remember when upgrading from a 300 baud modem to a 1200 baud modem thinking I'd never need anything more. What possible use would anyone have for higher transfer rates than that?

A few years ago I worked for a company that sub-leased a couple of buildings from Microsoft. Microsoft had wired both buildings completely with Cat3 wire, which was more than adequate for what their needs were at the time they wired. We tore it all out and replaced it with Cat5e, and if it were being done today that would be at least Cat6.

So don't say "What possible use..." - there will continue to be exponential growth in the need for data bandwidth, and the capability to meet that need, even if we can't imagine it today.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

carl6 said:


> I remember when upgrading from a 300 baud modem to a 1200 baud modem thinking I'd never need anything more. What possible use would anyone have for higher transfer rates than that?


And that'd still hold if we weren't sending images and sound files, not to mention streaming, and downloading many files larger than the HDDs of the day!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

unixguru said:


> Modularity is the first step in fixing that. The second is fixing the way programs are encrypted/stored.


Only one of those two would be needed to "fix" your issue of losing accumulated programming. Either allow people to transfer programs to a PC and watch them there and/or be able to transfer them back to a different DVR to watch them, OR your dream of modularity that would allow mirroring, etc. There's no need for both. I think you're the only one who thinks the modularity idea will be cheaper.

As for your idea that you can look at a picture of a board on EBay and tell what chips perform what function without being able to read part numbers, all I can say is that you're guessing, and your guesses go against the information we KNOW about what functionality is on performed by the SoCs in the Genie based on the parts it uses what Broadcom says those parts do.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

carl6 said:


> I remember when upgrading from a 300 baud modem to a 1200 baud modem thinking I'd never need anything more. What possible use would anyone have for higher transfer rates than that?
> 
> A few years ago I worked for a company that sub-leased a couple of buildings from Microsoft. Microsoft had wired both buildings completely with Cat3 wire, which was more than adequate for what their needs were at the time they wired. We tore it all out and replaced it with Cat5e, and if it were being done today that would be at least Cat6.
> 
> So don't say "What possible use..." - there will continue to be exponential growth in the need for data bandwidth, and the capability to meet that need, even if we can't imagine it today.


I think that whatever man can imagine, man can build. I've watched this go on throughout my life. Think someone somewhere isn't looking at a "warp drive"?

Rich


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Rich said:


> ...Think someone somewhere isn't looking at a "warp drive"?


Theoretically, yes. It is called a "gravity drive" and can, again theoretically, surpass light speed. All we need to do is figure how to manipulate gravity.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Theoretically, yes. It is called a "gravity drive" and can, again theoretically, surpass light speed. All we need to do is figure how to manipulate gravity.


I spent my childhood reading science fiction and I've seen a lot of that "fiction" turn into real things. Dick Tracy (read a lot of comic books, too) had a wrist radio way back when. I've seen most of the "futuristic" cars turn into the cars we see on the road today. What we imagine, it seems we end up making. We probably would have never had flip phones if it wasn't for Captain Kirk using that flip phone-like communicator on _Star Trek_.

Rich


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Rich said:


> Think someone somewhere isn't looking at a "warp drive"?


http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/tech/innovation/warp-speed-spaceship/


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> BTW, I guess you hang around different data centers than I do. The one I was in last week (belonging to a household name in investments and finance) has mostly HP and Sun servers.


Old school. Wall Street was one of Sun's biggest sources of revenue in the day. When the crisis hit, Wall Street (and lots of other companies) stopped buying - that is entirely the reason why Sun is now part of Oracle. (I love Sun stuff.) Those buyers are big enough that they pay nothing like the list prices.

New school is Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. Most hardware is built for them to their custom specifications. Lots of stuff stripped out.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

carl6 said:


> I remember when upgrading from a 300 baud modem to a 1200 baud modem thinking I'd never need anything more. What possible use would anyone have for higher transfer rates than that?
> 
> A few years ago I worked for a company that sub-leased a couple of buildings from Microsoft. Microsoft had wired both buildings completely with Cat3 wire, which was more than adequate for what their needs were at the time they wired. We tore it all out and replaced it with Cat5e, and if it were being done today that would be at least Cat6.
> 
> So don't say "What possible use..." - there will continue to be exponential growth in the need for data bandwidth, and the capability to meet that need, even if we can't imagine it today.


That's a red herring. Someone always trots something like this out if anyone ever suggests we won't need "more" of everything, but think about what you're saying. I'm suggesting that a TV set doesn't have the need for more than a gigabit. What does a TV use a network connection for? A smart TV might use it streaming Netflix or other video providers. A top quality 4K stream is measured in dozens of megabits, not thousands. What other apps running on a TV are going to need over a HUNDRED MEGABYTES A SECOND?

On a PC, sure, even if you don't do it today there are things that might need more than a gigabit tomorrow. Using it as a file server, doing backups from one PC to another. Maybe some application that hasn't been invented yet. How's that apply to a TV, which has a puny CPU that couldn't even do anything useful with hundreds of megabytes a second?

I used modems back in those days, and 1200/2400 bps was about the limit of reading speed, but it was obvious there was a need for much more. Even if you limited it to just text, being able to quickly page through something so you could find what you were looking for would require at least an order of magnitude more speed. If you have the computer searching the text instead of you you'd want another order or two higher than that so a huge document could be searched in less than a second. That didn't even get into graphics and text markup. It is a lot harder to come up with reasons why we might need a gigabit connection to the home or faster. Not saying we never will, but one has to start to make up technologies that may never arrive, like streaming full 3D volumetric holograms instead of ordinary TV of any resolution, as a reason why someday Google Fiber users might be itching for an upgrade.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> As for your idea that you can look at a picture of a board on EBay and tell what chips perform what function without being able to read part numbers, all I can say is that you're guessing, and your guesses go against the information we KNOW about what functionality is on performed by the SoCs in the Genie based on the parts it uses what Broadcom says those parts do.


Prove it. Where is the link to a photo with part # details, a parts list, a block diagram, anything indisputable. Google shows very little and most of it is PRE release speculation.

After 30+ years of software/computer engineering I actually CAN tell at a general level what those parts are. Looking at the picture from the back perspective (below)... That big square in the middle - CPU. In the First Look there is a heat pipe on it to carry the heat over to the heatsink on the side. Four chips nicely lined up to the right - memory. Broadcom chip to the left - sat; with the shielded RF section right below it. Another chip above the Broadcom under heat pad - probably 2nd Broadcom sat chip. In the First Look both those chips have a heat sink over them. Upper left is smart card interface; just below - those 3 chips are probably flash/nonvolatile memory. Plenty of other interface chips. In short, nothing like what you are suggesting.










The C41 *is* the kind of SoC you are suggesting.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> That's a red herring. Someone always trots something like this out if anyone ever suggests we won't need "more" of everything, but think about what you're saying. I'm suggesting that a TV set doesn't have the need for more than a gigabit. What does a TV use a network connection for? A smart TV might use it streaming Netflix or other video providers. A top quality 4K stream is measured in dozens of megabits, not thousands. What other apps running on a TV are going to need over a HUNDRED MEGABYTES A SECOND?


There is very little, if any, cost difference.

This is the evolution of a twisted-pair ethernet socket: 10mb, 10/100mb, 10/100/1000mb, 10/100/1000/10000mb. Some people needed the bigger value at each step while many did not. But it actually costs MORE to keep manufacturing (and supporting) multiple parts than it does to just migrate to the better part. Same sequence happened for disk capacity. Its inevitable.

This is the root of the anti-modularity stance as well. It is a very strong argument - even more so when a product is consumer-focused.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Here is what a disk tray looks like.










In the chassis there is a SATA socket on a circuit board. The drive plugs directly into it.

Incremental cost of this verses a built-in drive? Pennies.


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

carl6 said:


> I remember when upgrading from a 300 baud modem to a 1200 baud modem thinking I'd never need anything more. What possible use would anyone have for higher transfer rates than that?


Likewise, I remember in the late '90s I was buying a computer and asked my boss (a programmer) for his recommendations. He told me to go with the 6GB hard drive instead of the 10GB hard drive, saying "I can't see anyone ever needing more than 6 GB!"


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Wasn't the most infamous quote along those lines from Bill Gates?

From wikiquotes:



> "640K ought to be enough for anybody" *was* *definitely* said by Bill Gates. He said it at an early microcomputer trade show in Seattle in mid 1981. It is the Microsoft PR machine that has tried over the years to rewrite history and pretend that Gates never made this asinine comment.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

unixguru said:


> Prove it. Where is the link to a photo with part # details, a parts list, a block diagram, anything indisputable. Google shows very little and most of it is PRE release speculation.
> 
> After 30+ years of software/computer engineering I actually CAN tell at a general level what those parts are. Looking at the picture from the back perspective (below)... That big square in the middle - CPU. In the First Look there is a heat pipe on it to carry the heat over to the heatsink on the side. Four chips nicely lined up to the right - memory. Broadcom chip to the left - sat; with the shielded RF section right below it. Another chip above the Broadcom under heat pad - probably 2nd Broadcom sat chip. In the First Look both those chips have a heat sink over them. Upper left is smart card interface; just below - those 3 chips are probably flash/nonvolatile memory. Plenty of other interface chips. In short, nothing like what you are suggesting.
> 
> ...


Is this HR34? Because I think all the rest of the HRs Have digital optical audio outputs right? Not Digital Coax.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

If a DVR had its drive in a removable tray, then the manufacturer is implicitly saying that you, the user, can swap it out. That opens the door to users swapping the supplied drive with any drive they can get their hands on. This is a support nightmare for a company like DirecTV. It makes no difference what it costs for the hardware, the support problems (more training required, more extensive troubleshooting scripts needed, customer dissatisfaction, etc.) are prohibitive.

If something has a socket you are inviting the user to plug something into it. Unless you can control exactly what that something is, you are better off putting it inside the box and not revealing the socket to the user.

This is CE gear - not computers in a data center, not a science project and not an engineering competition. Remember that this is the company that won't support users connecting to a switched gigabit LAN where QOS settings can be respected and instead insist they use a 100 Mbit MOCA bus-topology network running on low frequencies over coax. The only reason they do that is for control and simplicity.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Is this HR34? Because I think all the rest of the HRs Have digital optical audio outputs right? Not Digital Coax.


Nope. Its from the HR44 ebay listing I referred to a few posts back. It also matches the HR44 First Look.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

mrdobolina said:


> Likewise, I remember in the late '90s I was buying a computer and asked my boss (a programmer) for his recommendations. He told me to go with the 6GB hard drive instead of the 10GB hard drive, saying "I can't see anyone ever needing more than 6 GB!"


This same thing happened to me in the early eighties when I put the first hard drive on an IBM PC (external) -- except the customer said "I can't see anyone ever needing more than 10 MB".

It was a full height 5 1/4" drive in a case with a second case equally as large for the power supply. +$5000.00


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> If a DVR had its drive in a removable tray, then the manufacturer is implicitly saying that you, the user, can swap it out. That opens the door to users swapping the supplied drive with any drive they can get their hands on. This is a support nightmare for a company like DirecTV. It makes no difference what it costs for the hardware, the support problems (more training required, more extensive troubleshooting scripts needed, customer dissatisfaction, etc.) are prohibitive.
> 
> If something has a socket you are inviting the user to plug something into it. Unless you can control exactly what that something is, you are better off putting it inside the box and not revealing the socket to the user.
> 
> This is CE gear - not computers in a data center, not a science project and not an engineering competition. Remember that this is the company that won't support users connecting to a switched gigabit LAN where QOS settings can be respected and instead insist they use a 100 Mbit MOCA bus-topology network running on low frequencies over coax. The only reason they do that is for control and simplicity.


I agree to a point. But it isn't black and white. People aren't suppose to open their device either but they do - and replace the disk.

The USB and eSATA port represent the same problems. Granted the USB is crippled by software. Yet the eSATA is fully functional and used by many of us.

The Caldigit VR I use has trays. The drive screws were security screws and one of them had a "WARRANTY VOID IF REMOVED" sticker over it. DTV could do the same. The support differences are little. (I have replaced the security screws and drives - with the same effect as opening the HR and replacing the drive.)

An iPhone or iPad is CE gear too. They are far more difficult to get into than anything DTV has. In those cases I don't have a problem with them being self contained. (I have replaced batteries in iPhones.) However, there is one *HUGE* difference in functionality. _The products contain absolutely nothing that can be lost or not migrated._

DVRs are banks in a sense. Every month one makes deposits and withdrawals. A balance is maintained. Yet the bank can go under at any time and the balance is lost. Even if DTV offered a service credit it would be a different kind of currency and it wouldn't replace the loss.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> I agree to a point. But it isn't black and white. People aren't suppose to open their device either but they do - and replace the disk.
> 
> The USB and eSATA port represent the same problems. Granted the USB is crippled by software. Yet the eSATA is fully functional and used by many of us....


And they do not support any of that. Open your box and you void your warranty and get no support whatsoever for the hardware. Plug in an ESATA drive and if it works, great. If not, don't call DirecTV for help - you are on your own.

TiVo used to tacitly allow their DVRs to be hacked, but gradually locked them so that now it nearly impossible. Again, they did that because people were calling complaining their DVR was rebooting and it was caused by TiVo Web Plus crashing or something similar.

All of these companies are selling scalpels, not Swiss Army knives.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

unixguru said:


> That's an HR44 motherboard. ...
> 
> ... notice the price. *$20 new*. Has 4 of them. Parts for repairing DVRs? I will admit these are probably priced below market value but that can't be a lot higher.
> 
> I would wager that a HR24 motherboard is more than 75% the cost of an HR44 motherboard. Needs all the same basic components - just slightly "less" capability in some.


Interesting that nobody has a comment about that.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> And they do not support any of that. Open your box and you void your warranty and get no support whatsoever for the hardware. Plug in an ESATA drive and if it works, great. If not, don't call DirecTV for help - you are on your own.


And how does a warranty mean anything in the context of DTV? Its *leased*.

How do they know the box was opened? I've never seen a detection mechanism on ANY product that wasn't a joke.

Keep the old internal drive after replacing. If the box goes south just swap drives and call for service. It will get replaced.

Drive trays would change nothing.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Interesting that nobody has a comment about that.


My only comment is that the eBay price has absolutely NOTHING to do with cost to DirecTV.

Your wager 'that a HR24 motherboard is more than 75% the cost of an HR44 motherboard' has to take into account the 2+ years difference in their development. It's highly possible that the 24 motherboard cost more than the 44 - even disregarding that it also had the power supply onboard.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> ...Drive trays would change nothing.


Except that they would have to support it. Today, if I put a 1TB drive in my HR24 and I start having problems it's on me to fix it. Sure, I can call up support and lie, and not disclose that I have an after market drive in the unit, but DirecTV won't fix it. Sure, I can put the original drive back in before I ship it back for warranty repairs, but what good is that if the problem was the drive?

Today, because it is clearly unsupported, the only people that swap drives (or even plug in external ESATA drives) are people with the knowledge to support themselves (or who come here for support). If the DVR had removable bays DirecTV would be encouraging the replacement of hard drives, which means customers would expect troubleshooting advice and support from DirecTV. Now their support people need to be trained on various types of drives, their specifications, what the specifications mean, what symptoms are likely caused by "out of spec" drives, etc. It just spins out of control, from a support perspective, really quickly.

And again, why would they do this in the first place? What business benefit or clear competitive advantage comes from this ability? It marginally increases manufacturing cost (while the parts may be pennies, the time required for a worker to mount a drive to a tray and install it in the DVR is longer than the time required to mount it in the DVR directly, and time is money) and significantly increases support costs.

I go back to the networking example. A well implemented Ethernet LAN will outperform MOCA every time, but DirecTV doesn't support it for MRV specifically because they can control the MOCA network, but not an Ethernet LAN. To support Ethernet they would have to train their CSRs on switches and routers, CAT5 versus 5e versus 6, DHCP, etc. Same situation here.

A modular design with interconnected components just opens up more points of failure (bad cables, bad connectors, loose plugs, etc.). They have enough trouble with coax and HDMI - the last thing they want is a crop of additional connections to worry about and support.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> Prove it. Where is the link to a photo with part # details, a parts list, a block diagram, anything indisputable. Google shows very little and most of it is PRE release speculation.
> 
> After 30+ years of software/computer engineering I actually CAN tell at a general level what those parts are. Looking at the picture from the back perspective (below)... That big square in the middle - CPU. In the First Look there is a heat pipe on it to carry the heat over to the heatsink on the side. Four chips nicely lined up to the right - memory. Broadcom chip to the left - sat; with the shielded RF section right below it. Another chip above the Broadcom under heat pad - probably 2nd Broadcom sat chip. In the First Look both those chips have a heat sink over them. Upper left is smart card interface; just below - those 3 chips are probably flash/nonvolatile memory. Plenty of other interface chips. In short, nothing like what you are suggesting.
> 
> ...


Note that the only cables in this picture are the drive data and power cables. If you broke up the function across 2 or 3 devices you need cables to run from the board to the external sockets. It is infinitely cheaper to draw a trace on a circuit board than to put in a cable socket, fabricate and attach a cable to the board and then attach the other end to the back of the chassis socket. Even edge mounting the socket only eliminates the internal cable. You still have to fabricate the external cable and worry about its connection integrity. Not to mention that, for some degrees of modularization, you will need to either propagate the system clock, engineer the modules to synchronize clocks, or build and manage data buffers at each end.

While such a design would earn kudos for engineering excellence, how does it either increase revenue or decrease costs? At the end of the day, that is the test for any "cool" idea. If it can't do one or the other it will never happen.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

BTW, here is a *5 year old* DVR on a chip. Looks like a whole lot of functionality is this solution, and it doesn't lend itself to a lot of modularity at the level that has been suggested:

http://www.slashgear.com/broadcom-bcm2763-1080p-capable-media-processor-and-persona-ip-dvr-chipset-launched-1566054/


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I can't think of a mainstream CE product that has pluggable drives. Sure a server might have hot swappable bays but I don't consider them consumer devices.

I do have an HP Desktop that has a 'HP Pocket Media Drive Bay' but have never seen anything to plug into it. There are lots of bays on eBay (~$5) but no media.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

To answer the original question, the next DirecTV Genie will likely have:

Larger (3 or 4 TB) hard drive
Wireless bridge built in
GenieGo built in
4K support

And probably a couple of other things I can't think of right now.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Diana C said:


> To answer the original question, the next DirecTV Genie will likely have:
> 
> Larger (3 or 4 TB) hard drive
> Wireless bridge built in
> ...


I'm with you, except for the wireless bridge. IMHO, the installers will need the flexibility of locating the access point in the best spot in the house to service the clients, which may not be where the Genie itself is located. Especially if folks want to place wireless clients behind displays, like they're promoting.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see 8 tuners.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

Diana C said:


> To answer the original question, the next DirecTV Genie will likely have:
> 
> Larger (3 or 4 TB) hard drive
> Wireless bridge built in
> ...


I think your overestimating the HD size. I could see 2TB at this point with where OE prices are in bulk but 3-4 not only add cost they compound the issue that people are complaining about. When you have to replace the unit you lose recordings. At this point I would say that the main reason these units will need to be replaced is because of the HD and not due to other parts. This means you still lose recordings. Perhaps in the future there will be a supported way to expand storage on the units and at that point other conversations could open up. I'm surprised you didn't add tuner count to your list though as most have.

Unixguru the people who want to do what you're stating already do and don't care about the warnings as you have done. Your average consumer doesn't want to do this nor would they. Hot swap drives were marketed and failed with desktop pc's when sata became a primary interface at home. People just don't want to be bothered. People also wouldn't want to buy the hard drives just for the DVR as they wouldn't own it. They wouldn't think to re-use it in something else, and if it's made for a DVR it probably wouldn't be something you would want to anyways. I can understand why you want it but unfortunately the view point is such a minority in the consumer market it would just add cost and complication for almost 0 ROI.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I doubt you'll see 8 tuners, since I don't know of any chipset that supports 9 tuners (you need 1 for the guide data). They could, of course use two SOCs, but that has circuit design ramifications that are not simple. If they were going that route, they could just "go to 11." 

As for the bridge, I expect that if they build it into the DVR, it would have an external antenna that could detached and mounted elsewhere. But you're probably right...it makes sense to keep it separate.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Diana C said:


> I doubt you'll see 8 tuners, since I don't know of any chipset that supports 9 tuners (you need 1 for the guide data).


7 recording tuners would work too. I was only thinking 8 because that's what a SWM LNB happens to support.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They don't necessarily need to be limited by what SWM supports today. They could provide two inputs, or they could have the additional tuners as a dormant capability until they offer more than 8 SWM channels to the residential market.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> I doubt you'll see 8 tuners, since I don't know of any chipset that supports 9 tuners (you need 1 for the guide data). They could, of course use two SOCs, but that has circuit design ramifications that are not simple. If they were going that route, they could just "go to 11."


Be careful of wording. "chipset" implies multiple. SoC implies 1. And no, there wouldn't be 2 SoC. SoC is *System* on a Chip - everything.

I think there will be 8 tuners. As I said a few posts back, the current HR44 is a pair of 3 tuner chips. The formula for recording streams is (N*3)-1 where the 3 is per chip, the one is the sideband data, and N is the number of chips. Assuming that Broadcom hasn't put more tuners on a chip, which I have no knowledge of, they could easily add a 3rd chip to get to 8 tuners. I'm not saying that Broadcom hasn't or couldn't have a 9 tuner chip.

The HR44 is *NOT* a SoC system *AT ALL*. I don't think any Genie is going to be for awhile because it is currently too high-end and low volume for SoC.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> BTW, here is a *5 year old* DVR on a chip. Looks like a whole lot of functionality is this solution, and it doesn't lend itself to a lot of modularity at the level that has been suggested:
> 
> http://www.slashgear.com/broadcom-bcm2763-1080p-capable-media-processor-and-persona-ip-dvr-chipset-launched-1566054/


And yet the Genie still doesn't use it 5 years later...


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Note that the only cables in this picture are the drive data and power cables. If you broke up the function across 2 or 3 devices you need cables to run from the board to the external sockets. It is infinitely cheaper to draw a trace on a circuit board than to put in a cable socket, fabricate and attach a cable to the board and then attach the other end to the back of the chassis socket. Even edge mounting the socket only eliminates the internal cable. You still have to fabricate the external cable and worry about its connection integrity. Not to mention that, for some degrees of modularization, you will need to either propagate the system clock, engineer the modules to synchronize clocks, or build and manage data buffers at each end.
> 
> While such a design would earn kudos for engineering excellence, how does it either increase revenue or decrease costs? At the end of the day, that is the test for any "cool" idea. If it can't do one or the other it will never happen.


As I've said, it isn't black and white. You are drawing a line (arguing for the current line) where some stuff is better being a trace on a board and other stuff is better across a socket. The placement of that line is not set in stone either technically or economically. Historically it has moved back and forth.

Why does a disk drive have a circuit board with processor, memory, interface, etc on it? Why aren't the heads and motor soldered right to the motherboard?

The "system clock" is only relevant between processor and memory. Any modern serial interconnect is self-clocking.

Sockets and wires are accepted for OTA box. Sockets and wires are accepted for the power supply in newest models. Your argument isn't water tight.

If you like traces then all on one chip is even better. Yet, look at the HR44.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

unixguru said:


> Be careful of wording. "chipset" implies multiple. SoC implies 1. And no, there wouldn't be 2 SoC. SoC is *System* on a Chip - everything.


You're being a bit too literal here. That is what SoC stands for what but not how it is implemented in the industry. Look at all the cell phone SoCs like Apple's A7. It doesn't include baseband, DRAM, NAND, MEMs, charge controller etc. Likewise satellite SoCs do not include everything on a single chip. They integrate a lot of functionality, but there are no solutions which are a single chip anywhere in the satellite or cable industry, because some discrete RF components are difficult to make on small processes and the efficiency of the logic is compromised having both on the same die.

If you want to use such a strict definition of SoC, you will not find a single SoC in anyone's cell phone, wireless router, or set top box.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You're being a bit too literal here. That is what SoC stands for what but not how it is implemented in the industry. Look at all the cell phone SoCs like Apple's A7. It doesn't include baseband, DRAM, NAND, MEMs, charge controller etc. Likewise satellite SoCs do not include everything on a single chip. They integrate a lot of functionality, but there are no solutions which are a single chip anywhere in the satellite or cable industry, because some discrete RF components are difficult to make on small processes and the efficiency of the logic is compromised having both on the same die.
> 
> If you want to use such a strict definition of SoC, you will not find a single SoC in anyone's cell phone, wireless router, or set top box.


Yes, you are quite right. I was using it like others on this thread - imagining some ultimate consolidation into a blob of plastic.

SoC is just another pile of marketing BS.

I used to work on supercomputers where a single CPU was implemented on *hundreds of chips*.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

unixguru said:


> SoC is just another pile of marketing BS.


I wouldn't go that far. The original concept, like many, was the engineering "ideal" but practical considerations surrounding cost, time to design, IP ownership, etc. makes it an unattainable ideal.

It is typically used in the industry to describe the overall trend of merging as much functionality as possible onto a single chip. Thus there can be "SoC chipsets", even though the term doesn't make sense measured against the engineering ideal's definition of the term.

While we may never see a single chip cell phone, the number of chips will continue to drop as they integrate more and more onto a single chip. Qualcomm sells SoCs that integrate a CPU/GPU and baseband on a single chip. Samsung and Intel have been trying to do so, but haven't quite managed it yet, not for LTE at least.

Since Broadcom shut down their baseband unit a few months ago, rumor has it Apple has hired a lot of them, and presumably will eventually add an in-house baseband to their A* SoC series. They hired a bunch of senior GPU guys a couple years ago, so this fall's A8 may see that instead of the Imagination GPU Apple used in the last two paired with their custom CPU. I'm not sure they'd really want to get into cellular baseband design, but doing it for the other radios (wifi, BT, GPS, etc.) makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> As I've said, it isn't black and white. You are drawing a line (arguing for the current line) where some stuff is better being a trace on a board and other stuff is better across a socket. The placement of that line is not set in stone either technically or economically. Historically it has moved back and forth.
> 
> Why does a disk drive have a circuit board with processor, memory, interface, etc on it? Why aren't the heads and motor soldered right to the motherboard?
> 
> ...


Lots of possibilities, sure, and I wouldn't argue about the need to change design parameters as needs change. But we were talking about splitting a DVR in two or three separate boxes that Lego together to make a the equivalent of client, a stand alone receiver and a DVR depending how you plug the pieces together. I just don't see the business value in doing that.

Oh, and while I haven't seen anyone design a hard drive with the "heads and motor soldered right to the motherboard" if you take a look inside an Apple MacBook these days you'll find the SSD is just chips surface mounted on the motherboard. Why would they do that instead simply buying SSDs and plugging them into the SATA interface? Because it is cheaper (most importantly) and more reliable (as a side benefit). It also prevents users from opening up the case and inserting a larger aftermarket drive, reducing support costs and creating a reason to upgrade (increasing revenue).

Reducing cost and increasing revenue...if you can't do at least one or the other (and modularizing DVRs are unlikely to do either) then no properly run business will let it happen.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The incremental revenue gains in selling higher spec versions to people who can't upgrade it themselves wouldn't be worth it if it was turning off potential customers, so I really doubt that enters their calculations much. You lose a lot more revenue losing a repeat customer you've made unhappy than you could ever gain by having them spend more on the last product they buy.

There are other reasons to solder the memory chips to the motherboard - better performance. Socketing the DRAM limits the potential speed, and while I don't think Apple clocks their RAM any higher now, with DDR4 they'll have that option because bus length is becoming a serious problem for DRAM as speeds increase and DDR4 will offer only a single DIMM per channel (versus two with DDR2/DDR3 and four with DDR) With SSDs, the speed of SATA can be a limiter, and Apple's laptops have some of the fastest SSDs around because of this.

Apple was the first to drop the floppy, now everyone has. They were first to sell full-sized laptops without an option for built-in CD/DVD drive, now those are common. I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple's lead followed with these built-ins too. If/when it becomes possible to create a laptop that's completely sealed with no ports (wireless everything) I guarantee Apple will be the first to offer it.

Apple can "lead" here because they have a bit more freedom to do this than say Dell or HP as they aren't competing directly with other PC OEMs. If you want a Mac, you have to buy from Apple - you make the PC vs Mac decision before you look at the various models, and changing your mind because "oh hey I want a removable battery" is probably pretty uncommon.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

I'll put the modularity angle aside - it is only a means to an end. One that seems more plausible given the current circumstances.

So if I back away further and look at it more broadly then yes, increasing integration is the future. I'll bite on the Apple. The logical conclusion of the path is that the entire device will be a rollable film (think OLED). Power will be solar. No wired connections of any kind.

*A fundamental requirement will be that there is absolutely nothing of value on the device that could be lost.* The world is quickly approaching that now with iPhones/iPads/iCloud. My sons Mac Pro continuously backs up to the cloud (with CrashPlan). Shortly after a file changes it is backed up.

I have referred to DVRs as banks. They contain programming products that I have purchased. The value can be lost and is very difficult to recover - and certainly not conveniently. This is increasingly becoming a competitive disadvantage - revenue at risk.

They have to compete against the flood of tiny set-top boxes - Roku, AppleTV, etc, etc, etc. On a hardware level (cost) similar to a Genie Mini. Sure, we all recognize the current technology limitations of everyone using the internet for TV. Although, my crummy Mediacom internet just doubled in bandwidth with no increase in cost. For DTV the competition can only get worse.

DTV growth is over. In a mature market the next way to increase revenue is to reduce costs. They have a tough road ahead. Sat is inherently complicated.

Electronic hardware costs, at every degree of complexity, have been plummeting forever. People costs have been growing forever. The path for any business is obvious. Money into hardware - even at very large volumes - is frequently well spent.

Why was Genie created? The one box is more expensive than smaller DVR. With MRV there is little functional difference. It was driven by *cost*. Genie and Genie Minis are cheaper overall.

You can't look at the cost of a single box, whether modular or not, and predict the overall business case.

I suspect there is a business model where it makes sense to give every consumer a Genie. The vast majority of programming could shift from repetitive broadcasts to 1 broadcast; backed by internet recovery. Everything could become UHD with less sats. The loss of value potential would be gone. In my opinion this is the ONLY path that will keep them competitive.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> You can't look at the cost of a single box, whether modular or not, and predict the overall business case...


I agree with everything you said except this. You have it backwards here...you build the business case first, then a box that satisfies it.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The next stage in the evolution of the DVR looks like it will be cloud based DVRs. Cablevision has one deployed already, but which still uses a local box to provide the UI and buffering.

It is pretty clear that sooner or later set top boxes and monolithic channel delivery systems are all going to be replaced by IP. Some channels may still be multicast in a linear fashion (news and sports are obvious candidates) but most entertainment programming will go a pure "on-demand" system. This will make the DVR obsolete and all STBs will be replaced by apps.

I dread this day myself, since it will mean the end of skipping advertisements - something the content providers have been itching to do since the first TiVos and ReplayTVs rolled out the door.

TiVo sure sees this...they are focusing virtually all of their resources on OEM relationships and have already demoed TiVo software running in the cloud. Dish Network sees it as well, which is why they are pursuing broadband spectrum so strongly. Maybe the DirecTV/AT&T marriage will help clarify a strategy for DirecTV in this area.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

unixguru said:


> *A fundamental requirement will be that there is absolutely nothing of value on the device that could be lost.*


This may be a fundamental requirement for you, but don't assume that's the case for everyone else. I see a lot of techies who make assumptions that what they care about is what everyone else should care about. They think only the stupid or weak minded buy iPhones, and always think next year will be the year Linux on the desktop finally breaks through 

Please tell me you don't really believe that cloud DVRs were developed to address the "problem" of people losing recordings when their DVR dies. It is about cost savings for the provider, nothing more. If you figure the average customer has two DVRs, that's over a hundred dollars per customer in hard drives alone, plus a bit more for upgrades in the guts of the receiver itself, plus increased service call expenses.

If it weren't for the development of deduplication, we would have no cloud DVRs, because they'd have to have a ridiculous amount of storage at the headend to save a separate copy for every person recording the same program to meet the legal requirements in the Cablevision ruling.

A cloud DVR will never be practical for a satellite provider, they will always need to keep recordings in the home. If your requirement became important to satellite providers, they'd provide some way for people to store those recordings on hardware they own so they can take additional measures. And they do - plug an eSATA drive into a Directv DVR, and it will use that instead. Plug an eSATA array into it, and it'll be RAID protected. Plug that drive/array into a PC overnight and you can back it up to your PC, or tape or the cloud. Don't expect them to spend more to make it easier for you, when it just isn't something everyone cares about nearly as much as you do.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> I dread this day myself, since it will mean the end of skipping advertisements - something the content providers have been itching to do since the first TiVos and ReplayTVs rolled out the door.


Only if the option for people to own their own DVRs goes away. If all you get is an IP stream and a box that outputs HDCP protected HDMI, it will still be possible to record that. Technically illegal, but I wouldn't have any problem whatsoever breaking that law if it was the only way to skip the 20 minutes of ads per hour they throw at is.

Heck, if HDCP 2.2 can't be cracked like Intel and the MPAA hope, that might be what stops 4K from catching on, since you'll only be able to illegally record HD output that uses the older and already cracked HDCP 1.x


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> I agree with everything you said except this. You have it backwards here...you build the business case first, then a box that satisfies it.


I used to be deep into the engineering side of a Fortune 500 tech company. Business cases were a day to day topic. I co-authored a not insignificant number of patents.

You're not entirely correct either. Business cases created in a vacuum usually suck . In my experience those ideas were usually more fantasy than anything. Most the time requirements were a single sentence. Then engineering spent a lot of effort fleshing out what the real requirements were and coming up with a solution - that almost always looked entirely different from what the business people envisioned. There is a reason that engineers do engineering and bean counters count beans. Business-generated ideas were mostly minor incremental enhancements - big thinking was not to be expected. Big ideas and huge success comes from engineers time and again.

Now it is true that most entrenched businesses are extremely reluctant to pursue big ideas. They usually sustain with no growth because they won't use their resources to explore big ideas. There are, of course, some exceptions. But most the time it takes startups to change to the world - because startups are engineering heavy and business light.

DTV is not in the exception camp. So I don't expect anything from them.



Diana C said:


> The next stage in the evolution of the DVR looks like it will be cloud based DVRs. Cablevision has one deployed already, but which still uses a local box to provide the UI and buffering.
> 
> It is pretty clear that sooner or later set top boxes and monolithic channel delivery systems are all going to be replaced by IP. Some channels may still be multicast in a linear fashion (news and sports are obvious candidates) but most entertainment programming will go a pure "on-demand" system. This will make the DVR obsolete and all STBs will be replaced by apps.
> 
> ...


I can remember long arguments with you in the past about this. Glad you've admitted the inevitable.

No skipping will be fine in an on-demand system. Because every program will be available with commercials or without. Either let the advertisers pay for (most) of it or pay yourself. Choice is good.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> This may be a fundamental requirement for you, but don't assume that's the case for everyone else. I see a lot of techies who make assumptions that what they care about is what everyone else should care about. They think only the stupid or weak minded buy iPhones, and always think next year will be the year Linux on the desktop finally breaks through
> 
> Please tell me you don't really believe that cloud DVRs were developed to address the "problem" of people losing recordings when their DVR dies. It is about cost savings for the provider, nothing more. If you figure the average customer has two DVRs, that's over a hundred dollars per customer in hard drives alone, plus a bit more for upgrades in the guts of the receiver itself, plus increased service call expenses.
> 
> ...


I'm not of that techie variety. We have iPhones/iPads/Macs (and Solaris). No Android or Linsux here (except what is embedded in DTV of course).

I'm around a lot of non-techies in my big extended family. They would all have a fit if their mobile life was dependent on one device. They expect everything they do on one device to be instantly available on all their devices and fully protected by copies in the cloud. Apple does a good job of giving them what they expect.

Given the proliferation of Apple devices in the world I think that worldview is becoming the norm.

No, cloud DVRs weren't created solely for that purpose but it is a nice side benefit. One that nobody is going to say "gee, nice feature but I'm not going to use it". The world is full of examples where people thought they didn't need something and once they had it they wouldn't let go. My parents (in their 80s) swore for years that they had no need for HD or a DVR; VCR was fine for them. A few years ago they finally got a bigger TV and went HD and DVR (through cable provider). In a matter of days they couldn't live without it. They just moved to senior living and signed up again for all of it (with a different cable provider).

That's the problem with waiting until the bulk of consumers ask for something. Look at what has happened to Apple - they came out with the products first and the rest is history.

DTV is doomed to decline. Another business model that is unable and unwilling to adapt. ta-ta


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> I used to be deep into the engineering side of a Fortune 500 tech company. Business cases were a day to day topic. I co-authored a not insignificant number of patents.
> 
> You're not entirely correct either. Business cases created in a vacuum usually suck . In my experience those ideas were usually more fantasy than anything. Most the time requirements were a single sentence...


I know what you mean...I'm in a different part of technology, but have seen the same thing. In fact, I work on a software product these days that was specifically designed to address the "lack of detail" in most business requirements. I'm a product manager by trade and a big part of that job is coalescing the requirements of the business, the trends in the market and what is actually possible to build, into a coherent development plan. I sometimes play business person with the techies and techno-dweeb with the business. 

But all of the success I've had in the industry I credit to one guiding principle: nobody was ever successful selling something JUST because it was cool. Unless you can show the customer how the product makes their life better (and "better" means many different things to different customers) they will not pony up the cash. What I always tell developers that have an idea for a new feature or product: "Explain to me why I would pay for this."

I guess that's the question I'm struggling with...what does modularization do for the user such that it would make someone choose that option over another fully integrated unit that did the same thing. I get all your arguments why this is more logical, better engineering, and maybe, in the long run, even a little cheaper. But in a competitive marketplace, it has to be compelling enough to move the market.

Yes, I have changed my view about all IP delivery. I'm still skeptical of the bandwidth required to make it work, and many trends are moving against it right now, but there are enough technologies on the horizon that can solve the bandwidth issue to make me think it is now more likely than not.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Joe Tylman said:


> I think your overestimating the HD size. I could see 2TB at this point with where OE prices are in bulk but 3-4 not only add cost they compound the issue that people are complaining about. When you have to replace the unit you lose recordings. At this point I would say that the main reason these units will need to be replaced is because of the HD and not due to other parts. This means you still lose recordings. Perhaps in the future there will be a supported way to expand storage on the units and at that point other conversations could open up. I'm surprised you didn't add tuner count to your list though as most have.


True...but I'm not expecting a successor to the HR44 for another couple of years. If they replaced it today, sure 2TB is the economic sweet spot, but I think 3TB drives will be there in 12 to 18 months. So it's all a matter of timing.

I think DirecTV may soon have to come up with a solution to the lost recordings problem...it is only a matter of time before a competitor starts marketing around this issue.

I didn't suggest more tuners since I think 5 covers the vast majority of households. I could see two models perhaps...a "Genie 2" with 5 tuners and a "Genie 2 Plus" with 8. Or, maybe 8 and 11...of course with more than 8 DirecTV also needs a switching solution that is a lot cheaper than a SWiM 16.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> I know what you mean...I'm in a different part of technology, but have seen the same thing. In fact, I work on a software product these days that was specifically designed to address the "lack of detail" in most business requirements. I'm a product manager by trade and a big part of that job is coalescing the requirements of the business, the trends in the market and what is actually possible to build, into a coherent development plan. I sometimes play business person with the techies and techno-dweeb with the business.
> 
> But all of the success I've had in the industry I credit to one guiding principle: nobody was ever successful selling something JUST because it was cool. Unless you can show the customer how the product makes their life better (and "better" means many different things to different customers) they will not pony up the cash. What I always tell developers that have an idea for a new feature or product: "Explain to me why I would pay for this."
> 
> ...


PM :lol: I suspected. My best friend from my last gig is now a PM there. Along with engineering, another under appreciated job.

Agree that modularization is not a slam dunk.

In computing we are well into the transition from being a new gizmo with glitches to a worry-free highly-reliable device just like the many other things in life. Glitches that were once acceptable are not any longer. People expect their computing device to work correctly all the time. Just like any of the many other things (toaster, clock, etc, etc) when it fails it is trivial and painless to replace. Nothing lost but time. iPhones and iPads are very close now and that partly explains their success.

I would argue, despite those who have said "its just TV", that TV has even greater expectation than computing devices. The fact that DirecTV devices *are* computers is meaningless. People view TV more like a toaster than a computer.

Given that, the equipment in the home needs to be, as much as possible, 

cheap
simple to operate
small
fewest wires
energy efficient
quiet
reliable
serviceable (without losing anything of value)
These have ramifications for internal costs to DirecTV and therefore overall cost to the consumer. We are not to a technology perfection stage yet so there are still tradeoffs. Steady progress has been made on most of these. Some not so much. Progress is restricted because some things are not easy or are still too expensive.

I am not convinced that modularity is the solution. It takes a lot of information, that we as outsiders will never have, to answer that question. But a solution must be found because it will be competitively necessary.

I fear that DirecTV is like the majority of other companies - including ones I've worked at - that will not even investigate ideas like modularity. Bean counters like to think their crystal ball is better than others and that they just "know" the answer already. I've seen many potentially revolutionary ideas dumped in the trash can before they even had a chance. While at the same time the lamest bean-counter-driven ideas are invested in. Business decision makers don't like to admit mistakes and adjust their thinking. The net for all of us is that it impedes progress.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Diana C said:


> True...but I'm not expecting a successor to the HR44 for another couple of years. If they replaced it today, sure 2TB is the economic sweet spot, but I think 3TB drives will be there in 12 to 18 months. So it's all a matter of timing.
> 
> I think DirecTV may soon have to come up with a solution to the lost recordings problem...it is only a matter of time before a competitor starts marketing around this issue.
> 
> *I didn't suggest more tuners since I think 5 covers the vast majority of households.* I could see two models perhaps...a "Genie 2" with 5 tuners and a "Genie 2 Plus" with 8. Or, maybe 8 and 11...of course with more than 8 DirecTV also needs a switching solution that is a lot cheaper than a SWiM 16.


I heard similar line many times in the tech world and always the assumption turns out to be wrong -- as bigger, smaller, faster are always the next step. It has NEVER been That's Enough when you can do better.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Drucifer said:


> I heard similar line many times in the tech world and always the assumption turns out to be wrong -- as bigger, smaller, faster are always the next step. It has NEVER been That's Enough when you can do better.


There's a difference between "there's demand for this so we need to make it happen ASAP" and "smaller/faster/cheaper gives us this capability essentially for free, so we'll add it in even though it really isn't needed".

For example, all the smart TVs used to have fast ethernet ports, now they have gigabit ports. I'm not aware of any smart TV application, now or in the future, that would need more than 100 Mbit, but once the cost become essentially the same all anyone makes now are gigabit PHYs.

For that matter, I have a number of Global Cache GC100 serial/IR gateway devices. The maximum total bit rate to/from all the ports is less than a megabit, but they have 10/100 ports. Why? Because when they were designed (about a decade ago) fast ethernet ports were "free" 

Not saying that's the case with Genie, clearly there is some demand for a model with more tuners, which I expect Directv will eventually satisfy.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

unixguru said:


> SoC is just another pile of marketing BS.


I disagree. SoC creates an environment that is closely coupled and assembled largely by a photographic process instead of a complex mechanical process.


> I used to work on supercomputers where a single CPU was implemented on *hundreds of chips*.


I used to work with microcomputers where the CPU (Western Digital WD16) was a pair of S-100-_ish_ boards and those were no picnic.

http://www.s100computers.com/Hardware%20Folder/Alpha%20Micro/AM-100/AM-100.htm

As you can tell from all of the regulators, these things ate power.

I still have a client with a 68020-based Alpha Micro running a BASIC program written in the early 1980s. The same p-code originally ran on an AM100-T.

Bill Gates wasn't wrong. It was just that his company couldn't create an operating system that would serve the perceived need without a whole lot more general purpose RAM.

The problem with modern personal computers is that so much that could be done in dedicated hardware is done in software. SoC goes the other way and incorporates dedicated hardware into the design.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> But all of the success I've had in the industry I credit to one guiding principle: nobody was ever successful selling something JUST because it was cool.


I challenge you to explain the success of Apple or Nintendo.

Technology was far from job one for either of these players.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I challenge you to explain the success of Apple or Nintendo.
> 
> Technology was far from job one for either of these players.


If you think Apple sells only because of "cool" then I guess you'll never understand their appeal. A lot of techies don't, because they only think in terms of numbers and stuff like design and ease of use is at best irrelevant to them, at worst something they consider a negative.

The "technology is job one" ethos is the typical commodity technology company's battle cry. They don't care what people do with what they sell, they only care about beating the competition on a spec sheet.

More cores, more MHz, more memory, more pixels, more features, faster benchmarks, lower price! What a product looks like doesn't matter, just make it look like everyone else's. Don't put any thought into how people use it, that's the customer's problem!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> More cores, more MHz, more memory, more pixels, more features, faster benchmarks, lower price! What a product looks like doesn't matter, just make it look like everyone else's. Don't put any thought into how people use it, that's the customer's problem!


That makes sense. In the PC world that is what the manufacturers are responsible for ... making the best physical machine possible while leaving the programming to those writing the operating systems. Let Microsoft and the competing OS builders worry about what to do with all that power (and working around any limitations put in place by the physical design). The Apple world has been more integrated. They have made themselves responsible for the whole experience.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> That makes sense. In the PC world that is what the manufacturers are responsible for ... making the best physical machine possible while leaving the programming to those writing the operating systems. Let Microsoft and the competing OS builders worry about what to do with all that power (and working around any limitations put in place by the physical design). The Apple world has been more integrated. They have made themselves responsible for the whole experience.


The problem for the commodity technology competitors is that it is a race to the bottom. There is no longer any profit in the PC market for the OEMs, Microsoft and Intel take it all.

The Android market may well end up there eventually, with Google taking all the profit.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> I challenge you to explain the success of Apple or Nintendo.
> 
> Technology was far from job one for either of these players.


You are foolish to think that apple isnt successful because of their technological prowess. They design their entire technical specs around creating a certain experience for people rather than trying to be simply the fastest or have the latest fad in tech that may or may not catch on.... Notice you don't see anyone advertising touching phones to exchange pictures anymore? But look what apple is doing with icloud for sharing? they are expanding it more and more all the time.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

you guys went too far with the apples and oranges... ummm PC

can we stay on DTV technologies in visible future ? aside UHD

Could the Apple company (during building the huge "doughnut" on place of HP campus here) take care of next DTV DVR design ? HR55-1000 ? ah ?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

P Smith said:


> you guys went too far with the apples and oranges... ummm PC


You go too far with correcting people, and you're not even a Moderator!


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> I challenge you to explain the success of Apple or Nintendo.Technology was far from job one for either of these players.


Are you kidding? Apple is the quintessential example of what I was talking about. Steve Jobs was relentless in insisting that every product be thought through, redesigned and then thought through again to make sure it fulfilled the customer need as completely, effortlessly and intuitively as possible. Nearly every single feature of every Apple product is there for a reason. That's what makes the products so successful. Technology snobs like to say Apple is all marketing, but once you have an iPhone in your hand the marketing fades away and the thing either works or it doesn't. Apple products just work...more reliably and more efficiently than the competition.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> Are you kidding? Apple is the quintessential example of what I was talking about. Steve Jobs was relentless in insisting that every product be thought through, redesigned and then thought through again to make sure it fulfilled the customer need as completely, effortlessly and intuitively as possible.


Jobs was mostly about elegant design and much less about underlying technology or suitability to a variety of purposes. How else do you explain selling Mac computers that had such a limited variety of software for so many years? How about walking away with hundreds of dollars for a personal music player? Then there was the Newton where Apple failed to market something what would become the future. Apple markets an environment and the technology has always taken a back seat to cool.

I came from the Commodore side of things where consistency and efficiency were held in much higher regard so I reject the notion that I'm a specification freak.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

harsh said:


> > SoC is just another pile of marketing BS.
> 
> 
> I disagree. SoC creates an environment that is closely coupled and assembled largely by a photographic process instead of a complex mechanical process.


I meant it in the sense of it being absolutely nothing new. Silicon has been on a path of greater integration since the transistor.

Marketeers created "SoC" only because the integration was finally getting to the point where most things for a "system" were on a single chip. Yet those "systems" are on the low end with limited capabilities.

I'm only disparaging the marketing term, not the approach.



harsh said:


> I used to work with microcomputers where the CPU (Western Digital WD16) was a pair of S-100-_ish_ boards and those were no picnic.


Shudder. I remember playing with an Altair.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

harsh said:


> The problem with modern personal computers is that so much that could be done in dedicated hardware is done in software. SoC goes the other way and incorporates dedicated hardware into the design.


Specialized hardware is faster. As the features shrink the real-estate gets cheaper so putting other stuff on the chip makes sense. Examples: additional cores; crypto engines; integrated memory controllers; integrated I/O controllers.

Xeons will have embedded FPGA (programmable hardware) soon.

Memory will happen as well for embedded applications (like DVRs) but will probably never happen for larger systems. Memory size is growing too fast. HP's "The Machine" proposes that volatile (RAM) memory will vanish and all memory will be persistent, connected to the "processor" with fiber.

Disks can't fade soon enough.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Jobs was mostly about elegant design and much less about underlying technology or suitability to a variety of purposes. How else do you explain selling Mac computers that had such a limited variety of software for so many years? How about walking away with hundreds of dollars for a personal music player? Then there was the Newton where Apple failed to market something what would become the future. Apple markets an environment and the technology has always taken a back seat to cool.
> 
> I came from the Commodore side of things where consistency and efficiency were held in much higher regard so I reject the notion that I'm a specification freak.


The Mac's smaller software selection had nothing to do with its "suitability to a variety of purposes". A Mac and a PC are both computers, and can handle any task the program tells them to do. Not having software doesn't mean the Mac couldn't run that software, it means the developers chose not to develop that software for the Mac. There is less software available for Windows Phone and Blackberry than for iOS and Android, but it has nothing to do with the ability of those platforms to run it, it is because developers know the potential sales are much higher for iOS and Android apps.

All the Amiga lovers I knew were the exact "spec battle" types I'm talking about. They couldn't understand why anyone would buy anything else, because the Amiga hardware was superior, and they'd list all the ways that was true every chance they got. They didn't care what you could DO with an Amiga versus a Mac (which had a superior GUI and development environment) or a PC (which had the support of IBM in the business world) You probably still don't understand why it ultimately failed in the marketplace, and have some conspiracy theory to explain it away.

You are half right in one statement though. The technology has always taken a back seat at Apple. Many techies just don't understand this at all. They believe the technology is the important thing, not what it enables. That was the Amiga's downfall, the "build it and they will come" engineer's attitude that provided little support to developers and was actively hostile to ease of use. IBM and Microsoft at least understood this mattered, even if it they didn't do as good of a job with it as Apple.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> Apple products just work...more reliably and more efficiently than the competition.


Perhaps they work in a sense that they do what they are designed to do ... but the technology flaw comes to the forefront when Apple products are simply not designed to do what people want them to do. People want more out of their products.

A VW bug and a Ferrari are equivalent when the same restrictions are placed on both.

Perhaps those that choose Apples are happy with what they have. It performs the function and that is all they care about. Those that choose something else are constantly looking for something better. Sure my receiver will do everything I _need_ but will it do everything I _want_?

And that is the premise of this thread ... has the development of DirecTV receivers and service peaked? Is there anything to look forward to? Should DirecTV customers be like Apple customers happy with what they have? Or should they look for more? Should the pace of innovation be driven by what the customers want or what the company wants to offer?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Perhaps they work in a sense that they do what they are designed to do ... but the technology flaw comes to the forefront when Apple products are simply not designed to do what people want them to do. People want more out of their products.
> 
> A VW bug and a Ferrari are equivalent when the same restrictions are placed on both.
> 
> ...


What things can't an iPhone do that you want it to do? What things can't a Directv receiver do that you want it to? You can make a list, someone else will make a different list, and someone else will point out things that each can do that their competition cannot. You're still falling into the basic trap of comparing the length of feature lists, rather than how well what is implemented actually works. Not everyone needs their phone or their DVR to do everything they can imagine. Some just want it to do the important stuff really well. Like, say, never losing a recording. Directv really ****ed that up with a recent software update, but it wouldn't have been an issue if they'd taken the blindingly obvious step of making deleted recordings recoverable until the space consumed by them is actually overwritten. Tivo figured this out a decade ago, because like Apple they put thought into how the technology is used, rather than just trying to pad their feature list. Well, they used to, these days Tivo seems to be more about creeping featuritis, adding to the endless number of devices that can play Youtube videos and Pandora.

Anyway, there are always features you don't have you can imagine having and wanting. Some are just a matter of time, like more channels, more quality, more storage, 4K, whatever, but innovating truly basic functionality that changes how you use a device is not so easy. Consider the time before DVRs; if you wanted to time shift you had to use a VCR. There were major functional limitations to using a VCR, due to the linear nature of tape and the time restriction. There were other limitations to VCRs that didn't have to be limitations, but no one really thought through what people want.

To wit, there's no reason that a VCR couldn't have had a modem that downloaded schedules so you could record a program rather than a channel number and a time. The VCR could have put a marker on the tape as it recorded and keep track of them. A small amount of NVRAM could maintain this information, allowing it tell what tape has been inserted and what is on it, and tell you which tape to insert if you were looking for a particular recording. Of course as it turns out, no one did, which made people think DVRs were that much better that VCRs. But it wasn't because such functionality was only possible with a DVR, it was more because no one had ever thought about what people really wanted/needed from a VCR if they weren't just using it to play rented movies.

If Apple had built a VCR, it would have been better than other VCRs because they would have considered stuff like that, though to add that stuff it would necessarily be more expensive. Due to the additional hardware, paying for the R&D, and because Apple correctly believes they can charge more for a better user experience. Had they produced such a VCR, I'm sure it wouldn't be the only one, others would have copied what in hindsight would appear to be "obvious" innovations and sell them for less, and people would complain about Apple's VCR costing too much!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> And that is the premise of this thread ... has the development of DirecTV receivers and service peaked? Is there anything to look forward to? Should DirecTV customers be like Apple customers happy with what they have? Or should they look for more? Should the pace of innovation be driven by what the customers want or what the company wants to offer?


It'd be a good thing if everyone were happy with what he has, but that isn't human nature for many. As an Apple guy and a DIRECTV guy, I am happy with what I have, and look forward to more and better from both companies, though I believe more innovation will come from Apple.

One of the aspects of genius of Jobs was he envisioned what people would like if there were such a product, and then he and his team made it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> What things can't an iPhone do that you want it to do? What things can't a Directv receiver do that you want it to? You can make a list, someone else will make a different list, and someone else will point out things that each can do that their competition cannot. You're still falling into the basic trap of comparing the length of feature lists, rather than how well what is implemented actually works.


And that is a fair response to the question put by this thread ... some people want more features, others just want the receivers to work. The desire to have the receiver work as advertised seems to be much stronger. Perhaps those wanting more features are not tripping over the "flaws" as much as those demanding fixes first?



slice1900 said:


> ... it wouldn't have been an issue if they'd taken the blindingly obvious step of making deleted recordings recoverable until the space consumed by them is actually overwritten.


Perhaps that feature is obvious. I find it useful when operator error (me) deletes something and then wants it back. But for a content delivery company such as DirecTV other features may be more obvious - including the reviled Internet apps. I believe that if my satellite subscription contains Internet content (whether it be HBOGO, PAC-12, ESPN or whatever) I should be able to watch that content via my satellite receiver. Is that a difficult concept? It must be as satellite customers are driven to their computers to get online content authenticated to their satellite account.

I can do without YouTube and Pandora ... but having those applications on a content delivery device is not horrible. Especially if delivered via a partnership which leads to my viewing being advertising free. It is a benefit.



slice1900 said:


> If Apple had built a VCR, it would have been better than other VCRs because they would have considered stuff like that ...


Perhaps ... or they would have decided that the basic functions of a VCR is why people have a VCR and not innovate any additional features. Since they didn't build a VCR the land of "if" can be anything one wants - except real.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> I believe that if my satellite subscription contains Internet content (whether it be HBOGO, PAC-12, ESPN or whatever) I should be able to watch that content via my satellite receiver. Is that a difficult concept? It must be as satellite customers are driven to their computers to get online content authenticated to their satellite account.


I think I'd blame the content owners more than the satellite/cable companies here. ESPN seems to be budging a little, as the recent Dish deal at least allows accessing ESPN3 which to my knowledge had previously been linked to one's ISP rather than one's TV provider. I do agree having that content available on the receiver would make a lot of sense, which would also allow people to record it.

Personally I'd go a step further and wonder why it can't be made available over satellite so you don't have to deal with the inconsistent streaming quality of ESPN feeds. Unless these problems are at the source, having a private line to the provider would give them full quality, and they could distribute it via satellite. I'm curious if Directv's new contract with ESPN (when complete) will allow them to provide ESPN3 feeds via satellite. Once the new satellites launch they'll have plenty of bandwidth for this. It makes a lot of sense, but maybe ESPN would have reasons why they would want to keep ESPN3 online only.

For stuff like HBO2Go I have a harder time understanding why you'd want to watch it via the receiver. Isn't this broadcast content? If so, you can record it. Ditto for Pac 12 - doesn't Dish provide 7 channels of Pac 12? What online content do they have that you can't simply record? Content that is only available via the internet, sure, find a way to make it available on a receiver. But content that is broadcast can simply be recorded, and it is seems like a big waste of effort to make it possible to stream this content as well.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> Jobs was mostly about elegant design and much less about underlying technology or suitability to a variety of purposes..


That statement shows you and I are coming away with vastly different views of reality. We may as well be speaking different languages.

The iPod was and is worth what people pay for it precisely because it was superior in user experience to all of the alternatives. If it were not, no one would have bought it (and Apple would probably no longer exist). Apple products sell at a sizable premium versus other products that perform exactly the same function. Why do you think that is??? It is because Apple is very rigorous about making sure that every feature they add is something that enhances ease of use, simplicity, efficiency or reliability - the things customers are willing to pay for.

The Newton was ahead of its time (and was developed while Jobs was running Next - John Sculley was Apple's CEO then). Evidence of Jobs' ability to anticipate the customer goes back to the early 80's when Apple was working on the successor to the Apple III. There were two teams, one lead by Wozniak, the other by Jobs. Wozniak's team produced the better engineered product, the Lisa.

Jobs' team produced the Macintosh.

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I do agree having that content available on the receiver would make a lot of sense, which would also allow people to record it.


Maybe. There is a lot of OnDemand content available that cannot be recorded. Whether live OnDemand would be able to be recorded or just restreamed later would be up to the content owner. Getting ALL of the content a satellite subscription includes visible on the receiver (whether streamed via one's own ISP or via satellite) would be a good thing.

But that also requires development of non-basic features on receivers ... or the redefinition of "watch Internet streamed on-demand content" as a basic feature and not an extra frill.



slice1900 said:


> Personally I'd go a step further and wonder why it can't be made available over satellite so you don't have to deal with the inconsistent streaming quality of ESPN feeds.


The answer is probably "bandwidth" ... although if streamed live only in Internet quality one satellite feed could be spared. Then the decision comes down to rights (limiting the receiver to the same rules as the website playback) and quality of presentation. If via satellite delivery of a web stream cannot match via Internet delivery I would not expect the stream to be seen via satellite.



slice1900 said:


> For stuff like HBO2Go I have a harder time understanding why you'd want to watch it via the receiver. Isn't this broadcast content? If so, you can record it.


If I know I want to watch it before it airs it can be recorded. But viewers should not need to think in advance. If it is available on the web it should be available on the receiver. I believe for the most part it is, using the OnDemand options.

Offering OnDemand from Internet sources required DirecTV developing non-basic receiver functions. Or defining "watch Internet streamed on-demand content" as a basic feature.

Agreeing to the concept of "if it is part of my subscription it should be available on my receiver" means agreeing to allow the satellite provider to develop the applications needed to make that content available.



slice1900 said:


> Ditto for Pac 12 - doesn't Dish provide 7 channels of Pac 12? What online content do they have that you can't simply record? Content that is only available via the internet, sure, find a way to make it available on a receiver. But content that is broadcast can simply be recorded, and it is seems like a big waste of effort to make it possible to stream this content as well.


DISH only has five channels of PAC-12, the primary and at most four alternates. I do not believe we're missing anything live but it would be good if all the on-demand content could be viewed on a receiver. It should not be much more effort than any other Internet delivered OnDemand content ... just find the CDN, authenticate and stream.

I consider watching content that is part of my subscription on my receiver a basic receiver function. Regardless of if that content is delivered via satellite or via Internet. If I am away from home websites and apps are a bonus ... but when I am in my home I want all the content in my subscription available through my receiver. That is not too much to ask.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> What things can't an iPhone do that you want it to do? What things can't a Directv receiver do that you want it to? You can make a list, someone else will make a different list, and someone else will point out things that each can do that their competition cannot. You're still falling into the basic trap of comparing the length of feature lists, rather than how well what is implemented actually works. Not everyone needs their phone or their DVR to do everything they can imagine. Some just want it to do the important stuff really well. Like, say, never losing a recording. Directv really ****ed that up with a recent software update, but it wouldn't have been an issue if they'd taken the blindingly obvious step of making deleted recordings recoverable until the space consumed by them is actually overwritten. Tivo figured this out a decade ago, because like Apple they put thought into how the technology is used, rather than just trying to pad their feature list. Well, they used to, these days Tivo seems to be more about creeping featuritis, adding to the endless number of devices that can play Youtube videos and Pandora.
> 
> Anyway, there are always features you don't have you can imagine having and wanting. Some are just a matter of time, like more channels, more quality, more storage, 4K, whatever, but innovating truly basic functionality that changes how you use a device is not so easy. Consider the time before DVRs; if you wanted to time shift you had to use a VCR. There were major functional limitations to using a VCR, due to the linear nature of tape and the time restriction. There were other limitations to VCRs that didn't have to be limitations, but no one really thought through what people want.
> 
> ...


JVC did: HM-DH300U (I've got 2 of them). I know, I know, I'm a smart-a**! As a "bleeding edge" HD enthusiast I used this system to keep track of *100s* of tapes, both digital _and_ analog. This system was (and still is) very convenient.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> JVC did: HM-DH300U (I've got 2 of them). I know, I know, I'm a smart-a**! As a "bleeding edge" HD enthusiast I used this system to keep track of *100s* of tapes, both digital _and_ analog. This system was (and still is) very convenient.


Wow, that's cool, I didn't realize there were VCRs that actually did that!


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> Wow, that's cool, I didn't realize there were VCRs that actually did that!


Yeah, it's a very nice feature. (I think I dropped a zero or two from the actual model #: It's "HM-DH *30000*U.") Not only is each tape given its own number, but each _recording_ on the tape can be labeled, categorized and stored, searched and recalled in the VCR's NVRAM.

JVC has had indexing marks for quite a few years on it's upper-end consumer VCRs, (some of which I think trickled down to other makes of Hi-Fi machines), that made finding individual recordings easier and quicker, but the 30000 allows for program and category search.

I simply labeled all my tapes with the consecutive assigned numbers and shelved them in order. I believe the information is embedded in the control track. (Just the tape number and location of the program). The system works on any type of tape (VHS, SVHS or DVHS) recorded with this machine. Very handy, especially when the number of tapes starts to pile up significantly.

Hey, anybody remember the VCRs that had automated commercial skip? Had two of those, too. They worked great until the networks figured out they could be foiled by jamming the commercials right next to the programming, leaving out the video black these VCRs got their cues from. I believe the first Replay DVRs used these same cues, too (had one of those, as well, until the superiority of the DTV Tivo kicked it's a**!)


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

I should also point out that slice1900 *is* correct in that nobody put modems in them to download schedules. However, most "newer" VCRs did have something called VCR+ which I think you only had to enter a four digit code to make a recording. Never figured out how to work it, though... (You'd get the code from the listing in the newspaper or _TV Guide_, IIRC.)


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> I should also point out that slice1900 *is* correct in that nobody put modems in them to download schedules. However, most "newer" VCRs did have something called VCR+ which I think you only had to enter a four digit code to make a recording. Never figured out how to work it, though... (You'd get the code from the listing in the newspaper or _TV Guide_, IIRC.)


Before I bought my first TiVo, VCR+ codes worked pretty well for me. I had a couple of the standalone IR units. You punched in the codes, and they automatically turned on the VCR at the right time, changed the channel and started and stopped recording. I don't remember if I ever bought a VCR with "+" built-in, but I would have, if I needed a new one. Codes were longer than 4 digits, IIRC. They limited the show descriptions the newspapers could publish in their TV guides.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> I should also point out that slice1900 *is* correct in that nobody put modems in them to download schedules. However, most "newer" VCRs did have something called VCR+ which I think you only had to enter a four digit code to make a recording. Never figured out how to work it, though... (You'd get the code from the listing in the newspaper or _TV Guide_, IIRC.)


I used VCR+ for quite a while. Worked perfectly. As for the JVCs, I think using one of them instead of a Sony (far superior PQ) would be a step backward. I tried a few of them and they just didn't produce as good a picture as the Sony VCRs. Would have been nice to have that feature you mentioned instead of having to keep a log of what was where, but the PQ just wasn't there. I'm not trying to start an argument, if Sony would have had the feature that would have let me throw away the logs, I would have been extremely happy.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Before I bought my first TiVo, VCR+ codes worked pretty well for me. I had a couple of the standalone IR units. You punched in the codes, and they automatically turned on the VCR at the right time, changed the channel and started and stopped recording. I don't remember if I ever bought a VCR with "+" built-in, but I would have, if I needed a new one. Codes were longer than 4 digits, IIRC. They limited the show descriptions the newspapers could publish in their TV guides.


Made life a lot simpler, tho.

Rich


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Evidence of Jobs' ability to anticipate the customer goes back to the early 80's when Apple was working on the successor to the Apple III. There were two teams, one lead by Wozniak, the other by Jobs. Wozniak's team produced the better engineered product, the Lisa.
> 
> Jobs' team produced the Macintosh.
> 
> Here endeth the lesson.


More complicated than that. At that time business and home/education were two different markets. The Lisa was targeted towards business - more advanced features at higher cost. The Macintosh was targeted towards home/education which had to be cheaper. The Lisa failed because Apple failed in the business market (then) against IBM and the PC, which was aggressively priced with higher volume.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> I should also point out that slice1900 *is* correct in that nobody put modems in them to download schedules. However, most "newer" VCRs did have something called VCR+ which I think you only had to enter a four digit code to make a recording. Never figured out how to work it, though... (You'd get the code from the listing in the newspaper or _TV Guide_, IIRC.)


Yeah, that was a _*great idea.*_... I tried it once or twice, but it really sucked. Thank heavens technology moved on well beyond that!


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Steve said:


> Before I bought my first TiVo, VCR+ codes worked pretty well for me. I had a couple of the standalone IR units. You punched in the codes, and they automatically turned on the VCR at the right time, changed the channel and started and stopped recording. I don't remember if I ever bought a VCR with "+" built-in, but I would have, if I needed a new one. Codes were longer than 4 digits, IIRC. They limited the show descriptions the newspapers could publish in their TV guides.


Some codes were shorter than 4 digits -- if I recall correctly, programming that aired on low channel numbers after 6:00 P.M. on the first day of the month would have short codes.

Gemstar, the company that produced the VCR+ system, ended up buying TV Guide magazine away from News Corporation, and it was all downhill from there for TV Guide.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Rich said:


> I used VCR+ for quite a while. Worked perfectly. As for the JVCs, I think using one of them instead of a Sony (far superior PQ) would be a step backward. I tried a few of them* and they just didn't produce as good a picture as the Sony VCRs.* Would have been nice to have that feature you mentioned instead of having to keep a log of what was where, but the PQ just wasn't there. I'm not trying to start an argument, if Sony would have had the feature that would have let me throw away the logs, I would have been extremely happy.
> 
> Rich


Not sure if you're referring to Sony Beta, or their VCRs in general (Sony did start selling VHS, eventually). Beta *absolutely* had the better PQ, and stepped it up even _more_ with Beta hi-fi (a fortunate side-effect of the technology), "SuperBeta" and finally "Extended Definition" Beta (IIRC used metal particle tape, like 8mm) for the consumer world. Have and had all but the ED over the years. The first hi-fi crapped out nearly 20 yr ago (belts and pulleys - a real clunker), but man, the audio quality... used it to tape albums and carried it around in the car w/an old Tripp-Lite inverter powering a living room sound system. (This a couple years before portable CD.) Audio cassette format always sucked and never should've been used for fidelity, as it was never designed for it. But I digress (as has this thread, with apologies, - more history than looking forward).

As far as the JVC 30000, PQ is about as decent as any VHS format can be. It can record SHVS onto standard tapes, and mpeg 2 onto SVHS and DVHS tapes (both SD _and_ HD). Has built-in TBC for SD inputs, as well as advanced digital NR for playback of standard and SHVS tapes (cleans the noise right out of a Laserdisc!). It bears mentioning, however, that anything recorded directly digital (OTA, DTV sat) needed to be supplied by external devices via firewire (remember firewire?). It does have A to D for SD inputs, though, for recording SD to mpeg 2 (which, for a consumer video recording product beat out all for PQ until DVD recorders came along...).

Surprisingly, one of the commercial-skipping VHS Hi-Fi machines we used (RCA brand) was actually able to _play_ SVHS recordings and they looked pretty good.

Hard to believe with all that, it's less than a dozen years later and I like to whine and complain about what my ageing DTV HR system *can't* do, yet! (However, I consider all gripes valid when it comes to declining performance, bad UI design and bring back the [insert funcion] issues.)

All in all, compared to what we used to put up with for "high-quality" audio and video recording and playback, modern DVRs are quite the invention.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Rich said:


> I used VCR+ for quite a while. Worked perfectly. As for the JVCs, I think using one of them instead of a Sony (far superior PQ) would be a step backward. I tried a few of them and they just didn't produce as good a picture as the Sony VCRs. Would have been nice to have that feature you mentioned instead of having to keep a log of what was where, but the PQ just wasn't there. I'm not trying to start an argument, if Sony would have had the feature that would have let me throw away the logs, I would have been extremely happy.
> 
> Rich


Sony did have a feature called SmartFile on some of their VCRs that was pretty awesome. There was a chip built into the label for the tape. The chip stored the contents of the tape. If you had the right Sony DIRECTV box connected it would transfer the program data automatically.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

David Ortiz said:


> Sony did have a feature called SmartFile on some of their VCRs that was pretty awesome. There was a chip built into the label for the tape. The chip stored the contents of the tape. If you had the right Sony DIRECTV box connected it would transfer the program data automatically.


Now that's cool. If nothing else, shows that at least the manufactures were starting to realize the value to the consumer of program data.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

and if we will return to the topic:

What is there to look forward to?

in terms of DTV features, equipment


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

No personal attacks. Please go back to topic....

:backtotop


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Not sure if you're referring to Sony Beta, or their VCRs in general (Sony did start selling VHS, eventually). Beta *absolutely* had the better PQ, and stepped it up even _more_ with Beta hi-fi (a fortunate side-effect of the technology), "SuperBeta" and finally "Extended Definition" Beta (IIRC used metal particle tape, like 8mm) for the consumer world. Have and had all but the ED over the years. The first hi-fi crapped out nearly 20 yr ago (belts and pulleys - a real clunker), but man, the audio quality... used it to tape albums and carried it around in the car w/an old Tripp-Lite inverter powering a living room sound system. (This a couple years before portable CD.) Audio cassette format always sucked and never should've been used for fidelity, as it was never designed for it. But I digress (as has this thread, with apologies, - more history than looking forward).
> 
> As far as the JVC 30000, PQ is about as decent as any VHS format can be. It can record SHVS onto standard tapes, and mpeg 2 onto SVHS and DVHS tapes (both SD _and_ HD). Has built-in TBC for SD inputs, as well as advanced digital NR for playback of standard and SHVS tapes (cleans the noise right out of a Laserdisc!). It bears mentioning, however, that anything recorded directly digital (OTA, DTV sat) needed to be supplied by external devices via firewire (remember firewire?). It does have A to D for SD inputs, though, for recording SD to mpeg 2 (which, for a consumer video recording product beat out all for PQ until DVD recorders came along...).
> 
> ...


I did have a BM from Sony, but I stupidly swapped it out for a Panny VCR because the video stores didn't carry many BM titles. What a letdown! That Panny VCR was really crappy. I did like the VCRs that Mitsubishi put out, they had so many functions, but they just didn't have the PQ of the Sony VHS sets. I did side by side tests of damn near every VCR on the market and ended up buying a bunch of Sony VCRs. After all that testing, I came to the conclusion that Sony just pumped out the best PQ of any VCR. And they were probably the most unreliable. I always kept at least one new set to replace the inevitable failure. At the peak of my VCR recording, I had 12 sets recording.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

David Ortiz said:


> Sony did have a feature called SmartFile on some of their VCRs that was pretty awesome. There was a chip built into the label for the tape. The chip stored the contents of the tape. If you had the right Sony DIRECTV box connected it would transfer the program data automatically.


Once I discovered DVRs I lost all interest in VCRs. Sold some of my Sonys, ended up giving them away. Never got to the point of finding out about the SmartFile thing.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> and if we will return to the topic:
> What is there to look forward to?
> 
> in terms of DTV features, equipment


VCRs? :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

unixguru said:


> More complicated than that. At that time business and home/education were two different markets. The Lisa was targeted towards business - more advanced features at higher cost. The Macintosh was targeted towards home/education which had to be cheaper. The Lisa failed because Apple failed in the business market (then) against IBM and the PC, which was aggressively priced with higher volume.


Yes and no. I used a Lisa quite extensively. It was beautifully engineered and had a higher resolution screen, and more memory than the Macintosh. The problem was the Lisa 7/7 software. It was a spreadsheet, a word processor, a desktop publisher, a database, a drawing package, a photo processing program and a terminal emulator. Unfortunately, it did none of those things very well (the desktop publishing part was the best of the lot, but couldn't hold a candle to Pagemaker). It failed as a business machine because of inadequate software and outrageous cost (it could run to $10,000, depending on configuration).

But my real point is that in 1982/3, when both machines were designed, no one thought there was much of a "home computer" market. The Apple II had been successful with hobbyists and some businesses, but the Macintosh was the first computer that crossed the line to the "appliance" category. It was the first computer aimed at people that didn't understand computers. THAT was Jobs' insight.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

Diana C said:


> But my real point is that in 1982/3, when both machines were designed, no one thought there was much of a "home computer" market. The Apple II had been successful with hobbyists and some businesses, but the Macintosh was the first computer that crossed the line to the "appliance" category. It was the first computer aimed at people that didn't understand computers. THAT was Jobs' insight.


Ken Olsen (founder/CEO DEC) in 1977 said _"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home"_. That was the common business view in that era.

You have given an excellent example of a technology revolution *without* a useful business case. Any business case created for a nonexistent market is hot air. I went through the initial stages of obtaining venture capital once - the suits would jump up and down about the need for a business case and would then be satisfied with just about _any_ numbers. Absolutely pointless exercise. All they wanted to see were numbers that showed big returns that _they believed were attainable_ - and so entirely based on their experience and gut feel. Slightly educated gambling. And it all revolved around the thing one is trying to do being close to existing businesses. If one is trying to create something revolutionary then you must use your own money.

Jobs wasn't an engineer either. He was visionary and tenacious and willing to invest in new ideas. It is a very rare combination to have high-value visionary ideas and the money to make it come true. For all that he was, he would have gone nowhere without engineers.

DirecTV has nothing special in this regard. All the hardware and software they create is simple evolution. At the conceptual level, lots of people on this forum could do just as well or better.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Should DirecTV customers be like Apple customers happy with what they have? Or should they look for more? Should the pace of innovation be driven by what the customers want or what the company wants to offer?


You've left out the hew and cry of the Apple crowd: It just works. Apple gives you the elegant carbon fiber handled shovel steeped in artistic design and simplicity while their competition gives you the power trencher with specialized attachments.

Where Apple refines (and not always successfully), DIRECTV runs hastily implemented gimmicks up the flagpole. If the gimmicks aren't as slick as they had hoped, they place them on a web page you have to search for and move on to something else. Neither approach is ultimately all that exciting in the end.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Rich said:


> Once I discovered DVRs I lost all interest in VCRs. Sold some of my Sonys, ended up giving them away. Never got to the point of finding out about the SmartFile thing.
> 
> Rich


Me too, until I decided I didn't want to wait for the first HD DVR, which got me back into the VCR realm. The first DVR (Replay) I had was relatively inexpensive to buy and of course blew away VCRs in terms of PQ and convenience (OTR, extended guide, etc.) Of course, when the DTV Tivos arrived, the complete integration, same data stream playback, no generation loss and two tuners was a no-brainer. Only real advantage Replay had was a buffer that lasted all the way to available disk space, but the machine required nightly resets.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

As far as what's to look _forward_ to, all I can do is wish...( for a device I can load up with* all* of my media, saved, ripped and current playlist of the HR, all rolled into one, backed up to something the size of a micro SD card with the performance of a SSHDD, usable and playable anywhere with the ability to selectively share contents with anyone at anytime of my choosing and the greatest UI in the world. Oh, and 8K resolution while we're at it.) Let's just not get into implantable devices, yet, but "think" controls, at least, can't be too far off. How's that for on topic?

- I know, I know, Smart a**, again -

If I'm being reasonable, though, what we've got now just isn't all that bad. And as long as there's a steady supply of electricity, the march of technology should eventually give us everything we want from a television service, no?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Well Delroy, if anybody ever builds that box, it won't be DirecTV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> Well Delroy, if anybody ever builds that box, it won't be DirecTV.


Or Apple. :lol:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> You've left out the hew and cry of the Apple crowd: It just works. Apple gives you the elegant carbon fiber handled shovel steeped in artistic design and simplicity while their competition gives you the power trencher with specialized attachments.
> 
> Where Apple refines (and not always successfully), DIRECTV runs hastily implemented gimmicks up the flagpole. If the gimmicks aren't as slick as they had hoped, they place them on a web page you have to search for and move on to something else. Neither approach is ultimately all that exciting in the end.


The "Apple crowd" as you put it, is not really homogenous and therefor has no single message. Moreover, I don't see a hue and cry there, either (note spelling).

Not exciting to you the consummate DIRECTV® customer? The Apple hater?

Please define for us just what is exciting in the consumer electronics world.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Now we know that D15/RB-2 will carry 4k channels (perhaps 20 of them, VOD? ) then our future forecast is minimizing to appearance of new DVR capable of UHD


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

At least at first, I don't see how they do anything BUT VOD...there aren't any 4K linear channels yet.

As to a receiver, if we know the chipset(s) inside an HR44 we should be able to figure out if the box can output UHD or not.


----------



## unixguru (Jul 9, 2007)

harsh said:


> You've left out the hew and cry of the Apple crowd: It just works. Apple gives you the elegant carbon fiber handled shovel steeped in artistic design and simplicity while their competition gives you the power trencher with specialized attachments.
> 
> Where Apple refines (and not always successfully), DIRECTV runs hastily implemented gimmicks up the flagpole. If the gimmicks aren't as slick as they had hoped, they place them on a web page you have to search for and move on to something else. Neither approach is ultimately all that exciting in the end.


As an advanced Apple user I would say the "it just works" motto is in decline. My wife, not an advanced user, would say the same. Sadly, it is still the best ecosystem available for the consumer.

Gimmicks are standard operating procedure in the technology industry. Most things are hastily implemented.

The masses are like a school of fish flinching from one gimmick to the next. The industry behaves the way it does because it works.

We aren't going to change the industry because we can't change the masses. Hopeless it is.


----------

