# Please provide feedback to DirecTV on the THR22-100



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

DirecTV says they listen to their customers so I encourage anyone with or who considered a THR22-100 to please contact direcTV via the Office of the President. I spent an hour or so with a gentlemen on the lack of MRV. While I doubt one person's opinion matters to them, I was impressed with there quick response to my concern via a phone call. If we want MRV on the THR22 we need to let DirecTV know. If you wanted a THR22 and no MRV was a showstopper, please still tell them your preference.

The Office of the president can be reached via the DTV website

I tried to be respectful of the return of Tivo but also my extreme disappointment in lack of features. MRV clearly being #1.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Here is the link to the feedback form

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIF.jsp?assetId=P4580012#h:561.591


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Why wouldn't you contact Tivo first?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

D* certainly listens to feedback on their DVR's.

The THR22-100 is NOT their DVR and your feedback is pointless.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

D* didn't design the sw. It's not their 'brainchild'.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Oh god, not this again. OK.

- It's a DirecTV DVR with Tivo.
- DirecTV supports the THR22 not Tivo
- DirecTV tells TiVo what features are allowed on the box

If TiVo had full control we would have TivoToGo. We would have MRV. For whatever reason, DirecTV didn't have Tivo include these features.

I talked to TiVo, DirecTV Customer Support, and a DirecTV Customer Advocate and 2 of 3 said DTV has control over the features. Customer support abstained but the Supervisor said his group couldn't support the THR22 if Tivo did whatever they want with the SW.

This leads to a good point. Why DOESN'T DirecTV give THR22-100 support back to TiVo like the good old days.

So check your bills, check the support telephone number, it's DTV NOT TiVo.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

TivoToGo killed by directv

http://www.phonenews.com/tivo-directv-tivotogo-19677/

When pressed by PhoneNews.com, representatives for TiVo blamed DirecTV squarely for not offering the technology on their units. TiVo even went as far as to say that they had offered DirecTV a solution that would ensure copy protection requirements for DirecTV, but that the service provider still mandated that TiVo remove TiVoToGo from the new generation of DirecTV-enabled TiVo HD units.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

It seems that this thread is about MRV, not other features. While I personally don't know the answer, your post just speculates that D* is the one witholding this particular feature. I can think of plenty of reasons they would "hold-back" other features (and agree that they did,) but what is your rationalle for stating that D* is specifically at fault with MRV?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> It seems that this thread is about MRV, not other features. While I personally don't know the answer, your post just speculates that D* is the one witholding this particular feature. I can think of plenty of reasons they would "hold-back" other features (and agree that they did,) but what is your rationalle for stating that D* is specifically at fault with MRV?


Because a CSR said so.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

frankygamer said:


> Oh god, not this again. OK.


Hey, if you (and others) want to waste your time, go right ahead.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

I'm encouraging people to provide feedback on on feature but lack of MRV is clearly the #1 complaint on the THR22. Not including this feature severely handicaps the DirecTV DVR by TiVo.

I am not speculating. I have had conversations with Tivo, DirecTV, and referenced an article DirecTV MANDATING a feature not being included. If there is a technology issue doing MRV on the THR22, it's one thing but we know that is not the case. The HW Tivo SW could be changed to stream vs move video just as the DirecTV HW can be used to move programing ala the TiVo Premiere. Add 15 years as an Electrical Engineer, 12 year Tivo user, and 10 year DireTV customer, it doesn't take much to figure out who pulls the strings.

Feel free to share your reasons to "hold back" features. One reasonable one could be not wanting to provide tech support for it. That is fair but then what the heck is my $5 Tivo fee going too.

All I'm asking is if you feel the DIRECTV dvr WITH TiVo could use a feature or too let the company your money is going to know!


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Hey, if you (and others) want to waste your time, go right ahead.


Thank you, I will. Now move along and cash you DTV paycheck.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Because a CSR said so.


Please see my other posts. I went as high in the chain as I could get which was the customer advocacy group that handles feedback to the Office of the president.

So no I didn't listen to a CSR.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Well, the article you linked to was not regarding MRV. I'm open to hear the real reason the Tivo doesn't have MRV myself. I'd like to actually see something factual on the issue for a change. I've heard a lot of "slippery slope" arguments (where because of A, it means B.) These types of arguments didn't pass muster in college, and hold up the same here. In addition, a conversation with D* or Tivo doesn't offer any real evidence one way or the other. 

Politics aside, it did take Tivo a lengthy amount of time to bring what they have to market. It's certainly possible that they're working on MRV (as it took D* quite a while to "get it right.") 

And I believe your $5 goes to Tivo :lol:


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

The point of the article is DirecTV mandates which features are on the THR22. If they denied TivoToGo, it's not a stretch they denied MRV.

I agree I wish both sides were more open about their arrangement but I assume lawyers on both sides like to keep the arrangement quiet to make neither side look bad but in the end it's hurts them both.

Yes, there are conspiracy theories on both sides but I disagree an argument can't be made. Yes DirecTV want's to sell their DVR with their SW, not their DVR's with TiVo. BUT if they are going to take the time to support TiVo for the DTV users who prefer the TiVo features, at least implement the standard TiVo features.

Logically, it makes no sense to me for Tivo to essentially sabotage itself by leaving out features. That doesn't make sense. Your own comment says my $5 goes to Tivo. If that is the case, don't you think TiVo would want DTV to sell more receivers with TiVo then not? How many threads have you read that people said lack of MRV was a deal breaker. Each one of those customers is $5 to Tivo.

The only reason I could see TiVo not care about the THR22 is if the agreement brings TiVo about the same amount of money regardless of sales. This brings up a whole other topic relating to patents which I don't even want to go to.

Anyway, I have my opinion and others have theirs. In the end THR22 customers are as much DTV customers as HR2x owners. So I don't know why people get so bent out of shape for encouraging a customer to give feedback the their service provider. If your happy with your service great. If your not, let them know.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

frankygamer said:


> The point of the article is DirecTV mandates which features are on the THR22. If they denied TivoToGo, it's not a stretch they denied MRV.
> 
> I agree I wish both sides were more open about their arrangement but I assume lawyers on both sides like to keep the arrangement quiet to make neither side look bad but in the end it's hurts them both.
> 
> ...


Because TiVo owners are a very small subset of customers and the other ones wouldn't waste their time issuing feedback on something that doesn't impact them.

DIRECTV created their WHDVR and TiVo has it's own software to assume it's a simple port job is grossly understating the issue. If TiVo wants to have a function they can ask DIRECTV and DIRECTV can approve or not approve it. There are aspects of TiVo's software that DIRECTV will never approve because it would cause a strain with the content providers. There are other aspects I'm sure they would approve, like whole home, as long as TiVo was going to do their system. TiVo's goal is to sell as many units as possible so ultimately it's in TiVo's hands if they want to get this done. With that said one of the largest reasons for all of the delays were patent issues. I'm betting that either company is wanting more patent sharing if different options are allowed and at this point it's not worth it to them. If TiVo wanted to they could become an RVU client and then have access to MRV through a HR34. With that said TiVo has been over it's head for a long time when it comes to hardware that is not working properly and I'm betting that the majority of their resources are still tied into making the Premier unit work and the THR22 will be on the back burner for awhile unless there's a major issue that pops up.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Huh? Isn't this the DirecTV with TiVo forum? I didn't post this in the general forum. People who read this forum have an interest in the DirecTV DVR with TiVo. I don't know why people who aren't interested in the DirecTV with TiVo DVR are even here.

I'm not asking people who are happy with their DVR to write DirecTV. I'm just asking people who are interested in Tivo to write DirecTV.

Whether it's a waste of time is up to the customer not somebody who says your wasting your time on a web forum.

The one item I noted from the DirecTV customer service advocate rep was if DirecTV had no interest in their TiVo customers, why was the THR22 developed at all? It was base on customer feedback. The one common thought is everyone (including me) never thought Tivo would see DirecTV again. But here we are. 

Let people decide for themselves and let DirecTV know. How soon people forget that TiVo put DirecTV in the DVR business at the start. The HRx's came later. It's not a waste of time to spend 5 minutes fill out a form. What is a waste of time is people who have no interest in TiVo DVR's hanging out in the TiVo forums just to bash TiVo and people who prefer TiVo service.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

frankygamer said:


> The one item I noted from the DirecTV customer service advocate rep was if DirecTV had no interest in their TiVo customers, why was the THR22 developed at all? It was base on customer feedback. The one common thought is everyone (including me) never thought Tivo would see DirecTV again. But here we are.


I seriously doubt it was based on customer feedback. D* probably allowed TiVo to create it so that they could continue to use some patents (or it was part of an agreement). TiVo probably agreed to make it so that they could sell a few and keep the TiVo brand relevent for at least another couple of years.

If you think that either company really cares about this unit (or the people that buy it), you're mistaken. TiVo doesn't care or it wouldn't have taken them almost 3 years to create it - it was just a side project to placate a small subset of users. D* doesn't care as they'd rather have people use their own DVR's. Neither company wants to devote any more resources to this unit which was deemed to be a failure from the start. It's just a Marketing piece, that some people bought anyway.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I seriously doubt it was based on customer feedback. D* probably allowed TiVo to create it so that they could continue to use some patents (or it was part of an agreement).


I agree with 90%. But as you noted it took 3 years for it to materialize. DirecTV DVR's got a whole lot better during this time. So there probably was some customer feedback that led them to agree to the unit in the first place, but now probably not so much.

And MRV has been out for a year and a half now, so if they could figure out how to do it in that time, it probably can't be or won't be done.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I seriously doubt it was based on customer feedback. D* probably allowed TiVo to create it so that they could continue to use some patents (or it was part of an agreement). TiVo probably agreed to make it so that they could sell a few and keep the TiVo brand relevent for at least another couple of years.
> 
> If you think that either company really cares about this unit (or the people that buy it), you're mistaken. TiVo doesn't care or it wouldn't have taken them almost 3 years to create it - it was just a side project to placate a small subset of users. D* doesn't care as they'd rather have people use their own DVR's. Neither company wants to devote any more resources to this unit which was deemed to be a failure from the start. It's just a Marketing piece, that some people bought anyway.


Can you tell me what you base this on? What insider information do you have that I can't get out of either company. Do you work for one of the companies?

You could be right that the agreement pays Tivo more for patents and collecting fees on the new boxes is just in the noise. That would be fine with me. Just somebody announce it who has some credibility. Not some anonymous person on a message board.

Why do you even care about this topic and read this forum?


----------



## circlessat (Feb 18, 2012)

When you post on this forum you should be allowed to post your question, opinion, or reply. I don't think anyone's time is being wasted. JMO


----------



## Jerry_K (Oct 22, 2006)

I submitted the following message to the linked website feedback form.

A long time ago DirecTV crippled the HD TiVo by switching to a new compression algorithm. That forced me to cancel DirecTV and go to Cable as I could get Series 3 TiVos. Since then we have retired and gone on the road. I had to dig out my old SD DirecTiVo boxes to use in our trailer. All during that time there were rumors that DirecTV would again get the TiVo interface on an HD box. Well if finally happened, I was so happy. Alas, the new THR22-100 is crippled in the single most useful way. It has no capability to play a recorded program on another receiver. The HR boxes do have a semi crippled means with streaming. Please do whatever needs to be done to get some sort of Multi Room Viewing (preferably the TiVo transfer method and alternately the less desirable DTV streaming method) onto the THR22-100 platform. The THR22-100 is useless to our family if we cannot do some sort of MRV. In the meantime, in protest of this unconscionable action to deliberately cripple the TiVo interface I have suspended my service. 

The second most important feature crippled is the lack of 30 second skip. Essential to me but not my lovely wife so it is a bit less important. 

Awaiting your changes to the THR22-100


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Gonna sell that HR34 you just bought Jerry?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

This TiVo was released due to both companies holding up their contractual obligations to each other. Neither company wants to see the unit fail but neither company is also going to make it a flagship receiver either. This unit was designed with one purpose in mind and that is to give people who have been holding onto their old TiVo's but wanted HD. They are not made for most customers and this is the way it will be until TiVo chooses they want to do something with it. However with that said DIRECTV will not allow them to use anything that moves a recording around that is outside of how DIRECTV HD DVR's do it. They also won't allow TiVo to automaticallybshare those patents so that means TiVo would have to renegotiate for patent sharing or pay DIRECTV a surcharge.

If the TiVo is a disappointment to you then order the receiver that meets your desires. Contacting the Office of the President will garnish you a nicely worded response thanking you for your business, letting you know that at this time there is not any information on feature updates to the TiVo but that they appreciate your valuable feedback but it won't change the plans that DIRECTV or TiVo have decided to do with their technology path. At this point this is probably the final objective of the current agreement between the two companies and unless something changes dramatically I wouldn't expect anything major to change in the near future.


----------



## midas69 (Jan 30, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> At this point this is probably the final objective of the current agreement between the two companies and *unless something changes dramatically* I wouldn't expect anything major to change in the near future.


Is it possible that *SOMETHING* is customer feedback?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

midas69 said:


> Is it possible that *SOMETHING* is customer feedback?


It could be possible if the amount of TiVo owners increased by about 200x the amount that they are today. The probability of that happening is slim to none. I would bet that there have been more HR34's ordered and installed already than TiVo's will for a year.

If you want to provide feedback to anyone it would be best to do it to TiVo because ultimately they're the ones who are losing the most money out of the deal. In 4 days TiVo has their earnings call and it will be interesting to see what they mention ,if anything, other than they finally launched the product.


----------



## midas69 (Jan 30, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> If you want to provide feedback to anyone it would be best to do it to TiVo


Providing feedback to one does not preclude providing feedback to the other.


----------



## Sunner73 (Feb 29, 2012)

I have been a long..... time SD DTivo customer w/mrv between all units and have been staying with DTV because of the promise of having a HD MPEG4 Tivo to replace my old SD units. However, I'm extremely disappointed that DTV has not allowed their Whole Home DVR capability (which has been working for appx a year and a half) to be extended into the newly released THR22. It only makes sense to include it now, as many homes at this point will likely have users who now like how the "HR series" DVRs work and have become comfortable with it's UI while many of those users "had" the older SD Tivos we all grew to love. 

Has anyone heard of any possible whispers or news of a possible future SW update to allow this feature?

It would be a shame if this never happens.....


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Sunner73 said:


> I have been a long..... time SD DTivo customer w/mrv between all units and have been staying with DTV because of the promise of having a HD MPEG4 Tivo to replace my old SD units. However, I'm extremely disappointed that DTV has not allowed their Whole Home DVR capability (which has been working for appx a year and a half) to be extended into the newly released THR22. It only makes sense to include it now, as many homes at this point will likely have users who now like how the "HR series" DVRs work and have become comfortable with it's UI while many of those users "had" the older SD Tivos we all grew to love.
> 
> Has anyone heard of any possible whispers or news of a possible future SW update to allow this feature?
> 
> It would be a shame if this never happens.....


Anything's possible. Be sure to email your feedback directly to DirecTV. And Tivo.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Just so you know, software updates are completely on TiVo. Regardless of what you think or may have heard, the folks at DIRECTV want certain fixes as much as you all do.


----------



## Heynonny (Jul 11, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Just so you know, software updates are completely on TiVo. Regardless of what you think or may have heard, the folks at DIRECTV want certain fixes as much as you all do.


The patience DirecTV has publicly shown with Tivo, given Tivo delivered a unit without elementary features, is admirable.

Clearly, when DirecTV supplied the specs to Tivo, they included all these features, and they were as shocked as we were when the THR22 came out without them.

Thankfully, the folks at DirecTV want these fixes as much as we all do. And they will work very hard to pressure a reluctant Tivo to live ip to the DirecTV specs.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

midas69 said:


> Providing feedback to one does not preclude providing feedback to the other.





Stuart Sweet said:


> Just so you know, software updates are completely on TiVo. Regardless of what you think or may have heard, the folks at DIRECTV want certain fixes as much as you all do.


Can you clarify if this true for bug fix updates and/or additional features? With all due respect, it would be reckless for DirecTV to give TiVo full SW control of DTV DVRs. It is a DirecTV DVR it just runs TiVo software. Are you saying DirecTV has no say or concern if THR22 were able to all of a sudden allowed sharing shows within the home, personal devices, even over the internet(obvious copyright violations)? What if they added Pandora, Netflix, Blockbuster overnight? Please don't tell Tivo has complete control. If TiVo did have full control why didn't they bust their butts to get a competitive satellite DVR out? There is no logical reason for TiVo to not do this unless someone was telling them what they could and could not do. It may be DirecTV. It may be TiVo lawyers. But as Engineer myself, I would never remove functionality from one of my products unless I was strictly told to.

Finally, when the company I work for outsources work to another company, it is very clear what is expected of the other company. Also at the end of the day it is MY company's product regardless of who I sub'd the work out to. So if TiVo did such a terrible job, why did they even release the box? They should have filed breach of contract and killed the box.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

frankygamer said:


> Can you clarify if this true for bug fix updates and/or additional features? With all due respect, it would be reckless for DirecTV to give TiVo full SW control of DTV DVRs. It is a DirecTV DVR it just runs TiVo software. Are you saying DirecTV has no say or concern if THR22 were able to all of a sudden allowed sharing shows within the home, personal devices, even over the internet(obvious copyright violations)? What if they added Pandora, Netflix, Blockbuster overnight? Please don't tell Tivo has complete control. If TiVo did have full control why didn't they bust their butts to get a competitive satellite DVR out? There is no logical reason for TiVo to not do this unless someone was telling them what they could and could not do. It may be DirecTV. It may be TiVo lawyers. But as Engineer myself, I would never remove functionality from one of my products unless I was strictly told to.
> 
> Finally, when the company I work for outsources work to another company, it is very clear what is expected of the other company. Also at the end of the day it is MY company's product regardless of who I sub'd the work out to. So if TiVo did such a terrible job, why did they even release the box? They should have filed breach of contract and killed the box.


You've described two extremes: DIRECTV having no control over the features in the THR22 and them having complete say one ach and every feature tht is and is not in the box.

There is a likely middle ground. That middle ground would be DIRECTV specifiing certain features that had to be in the software. And that there we're other features would not be in the software. But there is also likely features that are neither prohibited nor required.

It is entirely possible that MRV could fall into that middle ground. In that case, TIVO might be the best place to go to have a chance at the future being added. DIRECTV could come back and make the feature required. The chances of that are probably proportional to what it would cost them to make it a requird upgrade.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Let me clarify my position a little bit. The staff at TiVo, Inc. are the ones coding for the THR22. My understanding is that DIRECTV has an advisory role. They can ask for things to be done but they can't do them. 

DIRECTV staff were obviously involved in getting the specs, but not necessarily the way most people think. Most people think the Tivo guys came to DIRECTV and said "we want to do x,y,z" and DIRECTV said "nyet." It was probably more like the Tivo guys said "we can only deliver x,y,z in the timeframe we have" and DIRECTV said "try harder."


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It was *probably more like* the Tivo guys said .....


So again we are back to speculation.

The two main points I got out of this thread are:
1 - Nobody knows the arrangement between DTV and TiVo. Everything is speculation since neither side will make a formal statement.
2 - As a DirecTV customer with TiVo, we should provide feedback to both companies. As a previous poster said, it won't hurt.

I personally think it is more likely TiVo proposed a Series 3 like feature set and DirecTV said no, let's stick with the HR10-250 feature set and work from there. But what do I or anyone else know.

Either way, I think it's extremely asinine to let the company that my check goes to every month completely off the hook on the feature set on a DVR they provide and now advertise as the majority of the posters here seem to think.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> ...Most people think...


Since most of these threads are steered along one's "perception", I think the simple question is this: "Is Tivo allowed to implement D*'s form of MRV on the THR22?"

I'm guessing based on the generalizations that this (and other) questions cannot be answered directly; is that a question that D* will answer in a Yes/No answer Stuart?


----------



## Jerry_K (Oct 22, 2006)

The reply I got from DirecTV was,

Get an HR

Not one word of response to the original input on lack of MRV that I sent to DirecTV.


----------



## Heynonny (Jul 11, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> most of these threads are steered along one's "perception"


Yes. From outside looking in, we're tending to see what we want to see.

But the bigger picture is, one of the companies is lying.

Plus DirecTV is having it both ways, with top management having asserted that it's DirecTV's design while the lower level employees feeding their uhh sharers here claim it's Tivo's fault.

A couple of lowish level Tivo employees have said, in frustration, that it's DirecTV that made the decisions in question.

Though there may be shades of grey in the subtleties of it, basically somebody's lying.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Company A says "We want to do this"
Company B says "Ok but we require this"
Company A says "We don't want to do that"
Both companies say "We would love to however the other company is in control of that"

Who's right and who's wrong? Doesn't really matter because it's not going to change until the companies agree. However neither company is technically right or wrong. They just don't have an agreement.

With that said TiVo controls all aspects of their software but both companies have a say in what features are loaded.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

frankygamer said:


> So again we are back to speculation.


You really think he knows the exact conversation? Really?

It's not speculation.


----------



## Heynonny (Jul 11, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> Company A says "We want to do this"
> Company B says "Ok but we require this"
> Company A says "We don't want to do that"
> Both companies say "We would love to however the other company is in control of that"
> ...


Company A is telling the truth, and Company B is lying, in your example.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> You really think he knows the exact conversation? Really?
> 
> It's not speculation.


No, I don't expect the exact conversation or in actuality the contractual agreement but I would like more then statements using "probably more like" and features "x, y, z". If it's not speculation let's drop words like "probably" and "more like" and fill in what features "x, y, z" are. If features x, y, z = show transfer, show streaming, and TiVo2Go it is a lot different then TiVo features x, y, z = Yahoo weather, Pandora, and Netflix.

Earlier in this thread you told me it was pointless and a waste of time to contact DirecTV on the TiVo feature set and to contact TiVo By this logic, I should contact Western Digital or Seagate if my hard drive fails, Broadcom if my motherboard chips has issues, Hughes(?) if the satellite signal fails, etc, etc. While these other companies are involved in making satellite TV a reality, at the end of the day, DirecTV is responsible for it all (to me) since they are selling the service to me. It's DTV's responsibility to take issues related to their sub-contractors and partners to them, not me.

Please either post your source of the DirecTV/TiVo feature set agreement or stop trying do mock and shout down TiVo users who want an answer. Until you do, you are wasting YOUR time and YOUR feedback is pointless.

Other people on this thread have opened me to the possibility that the lack of MRV was a TiVo decision. I don't necessary agree with this opinion but yes I think it it a possibility. You on the other hand just come across as an arrogant,internet tough guy, who is trying to kill this discussion by mocking and blasting anyone with a different opinion then yours without any facts or discussion points to back it up.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

"frankygamer" said:


> Other people on this thread have opened me to the possibility that the lack of MRV was a TiVo decision. I don't necessary agree with this opinion but yes I think it it a possibility.


How about both. TiVo uses one method and DirecTV another. Maybe TiVo wanted to use their method but was told no, use our method and TiVo didn't want to reinvent their horse.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> How about both. TiVo uses one method and DirecTV another. Maybe TiVo wanted to use their method but was told no, use our method and TiVo didn't want to reinvent their horse.


This is the best argument I have heard. I heard it one other time, perhaps from you. Let's add to that DirecTV says do it our way and oh by the way you need to pay us a portion of the TiVo fee back to us to show you our way is a very believable.

I noticed on my TiVo Premieres recently TiVo added streaming as an option vs moving the program. Streaming seems to be more acceptable to content providers then moving a program. So TiVo may have also said, we have streaming already on our roadmap, so we can do that later. I would fully understand the lack of MRV in this case as long as the door is left open for tivo to add their streaming code in the newest TiVo code to the THR22.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

frankygamer said:


> No, I don't expect the exact conversation or in actuality the contractual agreement but I would like more then statements using "probably more like"


Did you even read Stuart's post you quoted? The part where he said "probably like" was in regards to a discussion/quote, NOT the message itself. So, apparently, you do expect exact conversations.



frankygamer said:


> Earlier in this thread you told me it was pointless and a waste of time to contact DirecTV on the TiVo feature set and to contact TiVo


Correct.



frankygamer said:


> By this logic,


I don't think you're familiar with logic. If you were, you'd realize that several people that have direct connections with the hierarchy at D* have been telling you the same thing, but you refuse to allow that information to penetrate.



frankygamer said:


> Please either post your source of the DirecTV/TiVo feature set agreement


Nobody here is going to post their sources. Even if they did, what would you do with that information?

I realize that it takes some people a longer time to gather information and come to a conclusion, but when a Moderator of the forum gives you this information, there's no need to search his post for key words that may or may not fit your argument.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Like I said, I am now more open to the idea that TiVo had more input into the feature set then I first believed. The truth is probably somewhere in between the two extremes.

But that doesn't change the point of my original post. People should give DirecTV feedback on their products. Any customer of any company has the right to give feedback to a company they get services from. What that company does with that information is a different story but telling people it is pointless and a waste of time is really none of your business. Also if you are speaking on behalf of DTV which I'm sure you are not, saying it is pointless to provide feedback would make DTV look very bad.

If this was a TiVo DVR that supported direct TV, i would have a completely different take on things. But this is DirecTV product that runs Tivo SW. Until DirecTV makes me start writing a check to TiVo every month, I will continue to encourage people to provide feedback to DirecTV. TiVo too.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Fair enough.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Please feel free to express your opinions to DIRECTV any way you wish. We're simply trying to guide you toward an understanding of the commonly known facts. And I do use the word "facts" knowing its meaning exactly.


----------



## Jerry_K (Oct 22, 2006)

From another forum.

"here is the first glitch of what I am sure will soon show up somewhere.
Today I installed my new HD TIVO via DTV.

After all was setup, BEFORE DTV activated the unit..I actually had to leave for an hour and figured when I return I will call. 

INTERESTING for as when I returned, a VERY ODD Multi Room Viewing Option was not only THERE, it FOOR SURE read files from my PC / NAS Netgear Device.

Well that all changed upon activation. 
The ONCE was no LONGER.

Maybe, just maybe...it was a very good idea for DTV & TIVO to leave off exactly where they left off. If I remember correctly, there was in due time lots of easter eggs along the life of the previous units.

Have a feeling Easter might come early. Anyone else find an egg?"

So who is crippliing MRV?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Without more information I can only guess what is happening. 

DIRECTV devices look like DLNA devices on the network. I see them on my TV and my Blu-ray player. Yet, because they are not actually DLNA devices, I can't play anything from them.

I suspect that the THR22 can see them too, but just like the TV it can't play them. So, it suppresses any DLNA server except TiVo desktop.

I don't know why activation would make a difference with this unless maybe it has to do with the loading the current software. 

It's just a theory, but one that fits the facts. As for MRV, who wouldn't like that... But there are still real technical hurdles there.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Please feel free to express your opinions to DIRECTV any way you wish. We're simply trying to guide you toward an understanding of the commonly known facts. And I do use the word "facts" knowing its meaning exactly.


Can you post these known facts? It would save people a lot of trouble.


----------



## billux (Mar 2, 2012)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Please feel free to express your opinions to DIRECTV any way you wish. We're simply trying to guide you toward an understanding of the commonly known facts. And I do use the word "facts" knowing its meaning exactly.


I did post feedback, the box is awesome, the techs are great, I almost dropped D* because of "customer service".


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Heynonny said:


> Company A is telling the truth, and Company B is lying, in your example.


Really? All company A needs to do is agree with Company B and they can have it. In this scenario there is not a liar because each company is willing to have the end result done. There just might be a contention of the how. Both companies can claim that it's in the other companies hands and be correct. How many times do we see this during contractual disputes with content creators and the providers.



frankygamer said:


> Can you post these known facts? It would save people a lot of trouble.


They have been posted a couple of times when it was relevant to the conversation but people don't like them. I already stated that contacting DIRECTV about it is pointless and you choose to disagree. That's your choice but it doesn't change the fact. Neither DIRECTV nor TiVo can force either company to do something that is outside of the contractual obligations they have or outside of the IP that the other company is willing to share.

TiVo knows that it is in their best interest to get DIRECTV WHDVR compatibility in their unit.They know that this will be a very legitimate reason that consumers wouldn't get their unit. This means that they generate less revenue per month. They also know that without this function that agents will also never offer this as a solution proactively to customers because it can create problems in the future if a customer wants to get WHDVR.

With that said DIRECTV has no reason to not want it either. If it's compatible then they can make that small segment of TiVo lovers happy as well. However they already have products that do WHDVR and if that's the deal breaker than the customer's needs can be met.

So both companies have a benefit in doing it. However both companies will have requirements to have the functionality in. TiVo would have to use DIRECTV IP and that would be something that there could be concessions on. TiVo could want to do other features that DIRECTV will not support or that DIRECTV would want to have shared IP from TiVo.

TiVo loses subscribers every quarter and is only solvent due to their IP which is getting less and less valuable every day. TiVo is the company you should be putting the feedback on because at the end of the day it's all on them to provide software for the unit. If they want to do something enough they'll do what it takes.

Complain to DIRECTV about WHDVR missing on TiVo and expect to get a great sales pitch on a HR2X series that can do it already without any problems.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

I'm never going to agree that a any Prime Contractor (DTV) should not listen to their customer feedback much less say it is pointless. I would say this is extremely poor customer service and would warrant possible termination of said customer with the Prime contractor. Sorry but the name on the box as well as the name on the check has to deal with feedback. Whether they do nothing more but pass it on to TiVo is irrelevant. I think on this issue you SIG is very appropriate and necessary.

Honestly, I don't what DirecTV whole house functionality. I want DirecTV with Tivo whole house functionality. I don't care if a HR21 or HR34 talks to THR22. I just want a THR22 to talk to a THR22. This could be implemented without DirecTV IP.

So maybe DirecTV is not controlling what features are on the THR22 but they are enforcing HOW the features are implemented.

Finally DUH! Tivo is losing subscribers. There hasn't been a MPEG4 box EVER. Customers have had no choice until now. While not a significant portion of the DirecTV customer base, I would imagine TiVo subs have gone up this quarter.

I do appreciate the information but I'm not sure why all the hate is for TiVo. They put DirecTV DVR service on the map. I would think DirecTV would at least appreciate that. I hope people have noticed in my posts, I never have brought the HRx DVR's into the discussion. They are an excellent DVR today but they were crap when DirecTV started pushing them out with the MPEG 4 rollout and no alternative. If it wasn't for TiVo carrying subscribers as people slowly moved to the HR2x, DirecTV surely wouldn't be where they are today.

I think it's just unfortunate what was once a great working relationship has come down to this.


----------



## mchero (Feb 18, 2012)

I dont care "what company B says"
I don't care "what company C says"

Fifteen year Tivo user will tell you all that the THR22 blows big time. 

I had one of the original Tivos when I first started out & loved it because it was the only DVR available. Thru the years Tivo had done some cool stuff, so cool that I stuck with it thru the HD Tivos. 

I can understand whay everyone loved the original DirecTV Tivo but now with the Whole Home System with the 5 tuner DVR, I can do much more than my HD Tivos. I don't think the THR22 will EVER get any better than the newest DirecTV boxes.

Any body want to buy my 2 HD Tivos?


----------



## billux (Mar 2, 2012)

mchero said:


> I dont care "what company B says"
> I don't care "what company C says"
> 
> Fifteen year Tivo user will tell you all that the THR22 blows big time.
> ...


A couple of 10 year tivo users love the thr22. So YMMV.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

mchero said:


> I dont care "what company B says"
> I don't care "what company C says"
> 
> Fifteen year Tivo user will tell you all that the THR22 blows big time.
> ...


Just curious if you've played with a TiVo Premiere. If not, you not aware of what Tivo is capable of. If you do, how do you compare that to the DTV DVR's?

I just want to know what is going on with the THR22. Is its feature set basically set or will we see updates. The THR22 is far better then the first HR2x. Let's compare apples to apples. First MPEG 4 TiVo vs DTV MPEG 4 DVR. Let's see, the THR22 has dual tuner support out of the box, dual buffers, doesn't randomly blow away all programming on the box. Not bad. Any company that does a stop work on a product is going to fall behind in that market . So the THR22 is behind.

Anyway, I'm going to keep pushing both sides and if the time comes, I'll drop DTV and just use my Premiere or get an Elite. I prefer sat but prefer TiVo more.

Again note the HR2x DVR's are pretty nice but the DTV Customer Service and handling of Tivo costumers will make me leave again even though I know I'm just a drop in the bucket. Which always makes me wonder. If the Tivo DTV users are so small, why does DTV even care about providing a TiVo DVR. Maybe there's more of us then one thinks.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

frankygamer said:


> Which always makes me wonder. If the Tivo DTV users are so small, why does DTV even care about providing a TiVo DVR. Maybe there's more of us then one thinks.


My personal opinion is that it is contractual. Nothing more.

But if you are correct and there are more customers who want the TiVo than DirecTV thinks, then yes, I think you will see the feature set expanded. The one big stumbling block I see is the way each does MRV. DirecTV does streaming, TiVo moves the show. I don't think there is any way DirecTV will allow this, so TiVo engineers will have figure out how to implement streaming.

I do understand where you are coming from. I have 2 R10 new in boxes in storage from back when the R15 train wreck came out. I wanted no part of that. But then I got an HDTV in the bedroom and wanted a DVR. So I went with the HR20. I figured even if it was bad, it wouldn't matter that much in the bedroom. And yes those first few months is sucked big time. But after a while I learned to appreciate how it did certain things. I added another one to my media room beside my HR10 and began to use it exclusively. The HR10 was back up just in case. Only needed the backup a couple of times. I grew to like the HR interface better. But I never used all those other TiVo features like suggestions or Thumbs, so I didn't miss them with the new box. The HR series as come a long way and with MRV, that is where we differ. There is nothing that TiVo has that can replace MRV. For me anyway.


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

The 12-year TiVo users in this house think the THR22 is pretty good. It's exactly what was promised.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

> Again note the HR2x DVR's are pretty nice but the DTV Customer Service and handling of Tivo costumers will make me leave again even though I know I'm just a drop in the bucket. Which always makes me wonder. If the Tivo DTV users are so small, why does DTV even care about providing a TiVo DVR. Maybe there's more of us then one thinks.


The last numbers I saw stated there were more TiVo users with DIRECTV than the other providers combined. I don't think TiVo posts those numbres anymore but given on their last earning statement they lost customers and blamed the "normal attrition" of DIRECTV subscribers from TiVo. This states that they cannot sign up more customers in a quarter than those that defect from DIRECTV and the numbers leaving are not small. They also didn't even talk about the number of units sold on the call of the new THR22.

There's really not much TiVo hate as there is TiVo indifference. In the big picture it's just not something that is going to be a game changer. In fact I would compare it to RIM at this point. Both companies did some ground breaking things but then made bad decisions and became complaicent. If TiVo hard WHDVR support I would get one just to have one but it wouldn't be the main receiver I used. I ordered one and chose to cancel it because I knew it wouldn't be used.

For people who won't go without it for whatever reason they choose than this is the receiver for them. However if you want features that other receivers have then it's time to start realising that as much as you like some things on TiVo you don't like others.

I'll be the first person to say that I didn't like the R15 going from the Tivo's however I now don't like the TiVo compared to the HR2X series. It's not about what could be done but about what is being done to me.

No one has said "I don't want TiVo to do this" most of us are just realistic when it comes to TiVo. They announced this box over 2 years ago and had it come out within 6 months of then well you'd probably have some significant people stoked about this. However those days are gone and while it's a great product for a small subset it's just not a mainstrem product now. If TiVo chooses to make it one then they have some ground to make up. More power to them if they do but given their track record I can't see it. It's more profitible to sue people than it is to make, market, and support quality products to them.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> My personal opinion is that it is contractual. Nothing more.
> 
> But if you are correct and there are more customers who want the TiVo than DirecTV thinks, then yes, I think you will see the feature set expanded. The one big stumbling block I see is the way each does MRV. DirecTV does streaming, TiVo moves the show. I don't think there is any way DirecTV will allow this, so TiVo engineers will have figure out how to implement streaming.
> 
> I do understand where you are coming from. I have 2 R10 new in boxes in storage from back when the R15 train wreck came out. I wanted no part of that. But then I got an HDTV in the bedroom and wanted a DVR. So I went with the HR20. I figured even if it was bad, it wouldn't matter that much in the bedroom. And yes those first few months is sucked big time. But after a while I learned to appreciate how it did certain things. I added another one to my media room beside my HR10 and began to use it exclusively. The HR10 was back up just in case. Only needed the backup a couple of times. I grew to like the HR interface better. But I never used all those other TiVo features like suggestions or Thumbs, so I didn't miss them with the new box. The HR series as come a long way and with MRV, that is where we differ. There is nothing that TiVo has that can replace MRV. For me anyway.


Ironically or not so ironically, TiVo added streaming to their Premiere Series in the Jan/Feb timeframe. You can now move or stream shows. I just have basic service with my Priemere but I've read complaints about not being able to move shows due to restrictions from the cable company. So I think TiVo has ran into the streaming vs moving issue you mentioned.

So for what it's worth, TiVo can stream over Ethernet today.

I honestly have no issues with the 2 HR21's I have. I went to Dish for 2-3 years and by the time I came back, the HR boxes were night and day. It just made little sense to me why DTV went this way but it's paying off today.

Unfortunately, I'm extremely loyal and the first time I saw a DVR, my jaw dropped and I ran out and bought one. that was my first of many TiVo's. To some they don't care if or they even want TiVo to go out of bussiness. That just doesn't sit well with me for what they've brought to the industry. I like pulling for the little guy I guess. I agree with you , many of the features on the Premiere aren't things I use but I get a kick when people celebrate Pandora on a HR2x DVR. Tivo's been streamming audio and video over the internet for years. Oh well, I seem to be talking to the wrong crowd over here......


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> The last numbers I saw stated there were more TiVo users with DIRECTV than the other providers combined. I don't think TiVo posts those numbres anymore but given on their last earning statement they lost customers and blamed the "normal attrition" of DIRECTV subscribers from TiVo. This states that they cannot sign up more customers in a quarter than those that defect from DIRECTV and the numbers leaving are not small. They also didn't even talk about the number of units sold on the call of the new THR22.
> 
> There's really not much TiVo hate as there is TiVo indifference. In the big picture it's just not something that is going to be a game changer. In fact I would compare it to RIM at this point. Both companies did some ground breaking things but then made bad decisions and became complaicent. If TiVo hard WHDVR support I would get one just to have one but it wouldn't be the main receiver I used. I ordered one and chose to cancel it because I knew it wouldn't be used.
> 
> ...


I just have a hard time with the argument that TiVo is just sitting back and suing people. I have two TiVo Priemere's and they are as capable as a DTV DVR. I can run Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Pandora, and all kinds of things that DTV is just now introducing. I just can't get past how TiVo can make such a great cable DVR yet thier Satellite DVR omit features that are over 5 years old such as MRV. Something tells me something is up so TiVo is focussing all their efforts on the Cable based DVR's.

Maybe the FCC should get involved and mandate a a standard such as cable cards equivilent for satellite. IDK.. I just hate to see the company that changed how we all view TV get wiped out because the way company's like DISH and DTV can drive the market. For that i don't blame TiVo for going after people who violate their patents or agree not sue for a fee as thier agreement with DTV has.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

frankygamer said:


> Can you clarify if this true for bug fix updates and/or additional features? With all due respect, it would be reckless for DirecTV to give TiVo full SW control of DTV DVRs. It is a DirecTV DVR it just runs TiVo software. Are you saying DirecTV has no say or concern if THR22 were able to all of a sudden allowed sharing shows within the home, personal devices, even over the internet(obvious copyright violations)? What if they added Pandora, Netflix, Blockbuster overnight? Please don't tell Tivo has complete control. If TiVo did have full control why didn't they bust their butts to get a competitive satellite DVR out? There is no logical reason for TiVo to not do this unless someone was telling them what they could and could not do. It may be DirecTV. It may be TiVo lawyers. But as Engineer myself, I would never remove functionality from one of my products unless I was strictly told to.
> 
> Finally, when the company I work for outsources work to another company, it is very clear what is expected of the other company. Also at the end of the day it is MY company's product regardless of who I sub'd the work out to. So if TiVo did such a terrible job, why did they even release the box? They should have filed breach of contract and killed the box.





frankygamer said:


> So again we are back to speculation.
> 
> The two main points I got out of this thread are:
> 1 - Nobody knows the arrangement between DTV and TiVo. Everything is speculation since neither side will make a formal statement.
> ...


First, when this deal was signed, both companies where in a different world in terms of where their software was. Tivo way back when decided to go with the platform you see today, which is totally different than any of their other current dvrs.

Second, Directv isn't going to let tivo do anything differently than they themselves are doing in terms of control of content. Period. I don't care how much either company wants a feature from tivo, if tivo can't or wont delivery that feature within the confines of DirecTV's content protection specs, they won't be allowed to implement it. MRV is case in point. Directv will not allow people to move full content from hr to hr, so they are not going to let tivo do that. They are only allowing people to offload content to portable devices via a nomad, so until tivo works with a nomad, you won't see tivo to go.

Some people will take that to mean DIrect is controlling what features tivo can and will put on the dirtectv units. I think DIrectv would probably let tivo do anything they want with the tivo, as long as it follows the same guidelines as a directv dvr ion terms of content abilities and protection. I'll bet they'd let tivo add pandora! I'll also bet that tivo doesn't want to sped the money to do that! I hope that changes over time for the masses, but I don't think the odds are any better than 50/50.

You can ask all you want and supply feedback all you want, but I think tivo is where you need to focus the feedback. They are the ones that have to do that actual coding, and unless they feel like they are going to loose subscribers, they probably won't feel any incentive to add any features, where as Directv has way more subscribers, so the loss of one is far less meaningful to them than it is tivo, and more importantly, they have a dvr that does everything tivo does and (and soon one that also does way more once its fully stabilized in a few months) better in terms of features, for 99% of all their customers. You ave to be really loud with the people who's pockets you can actually hurt to get anything done I believe.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

frankygamer said:


> Maybe the FCC should get involved and mandate a a standard such as cable cards equivilent for satellite. IDK.. I just hate to see the company that changed how we all view TV get wiped out because the way company's like DISH and DTV can drive the market. For that i don't blame TiVo for going after people who violate their patents or agree not sue for a fee as thier agreement with DTV has.


That would be terrible...

And tivo is its own worst enemy, They failed to deliver on so many occasions for cable company dvrs they eventually years latter had to completely abandon their contracts and start all over with new ones they had failed so miserably.

Tivo has always been about the money, not about the user. They absolutely rely on IP to make a lot of their money and stay afloat, more so than their dvr fees from what I see. Unfortunatly, thats in part because they where backed by people with more money when they first started out than the people who backed replaytv. That was by far the best dvr ever. They did things that no dvr does to this day still. Now that is sad! :nono2:


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

frankygamer said:


> I just have a hard time with the argument that TiVo is just sitting back and suing people. I have two TiVo Priemere's and they are as capable as a DTV DVR. I can run Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Pandora, and all kinds of things that DTV is just now introducing. I just can't get past how TiVo can make such a great cable DVR yet thier Satellite DVR omit features that are over 5 years old such as MRV. Something tells me something is up so TiVo is focussing all their efforts on the Cable based DVR's.
> 
> Maybe the FCC should get involved and mandate a a standard such as cable cards equivilent for satellite. IDK.. I just hate to see the company that changed how we all view TV get wiped out because the way company's like DISH and DTV can drive the market. For that i don't blame TiVo for going after people who violate their patents or agree not sue for a fee as thier agreement with DTV has.


4/?/2009 it's leaked that TiVo is launching new hardware
3/24/2010 TiVO launches the Premier and has a partial HD UI
3/6/2012 Still not a complete HD UI

9/3/2008 TiVO and DIRECTV announce a new agreement. TiVo announces new box by 3Q 2009.
12/9/2011 New DIRECTV TiVo launches

In that same time frame TiVo has filed suits with DISH, ATT, Verizon, Comcast, and Cox Communications.

DISH and DTV could be using TiVo today if it was economical to do so. I doubt Charlie would ever use TiVo due to Echostar, and he does everything he can to not use something DIRECTV does, so that part wouldn't help much. However DISH is now required to pay licensing. TiVo wasn't the first DVR out there and really it wasn't the best depending on who you ask. I loved my first TiVo but I loved my Replay and ultimate TV as well. Everyone of those had something I enjoyed more about it than the other.

Cable/Telco companies allow streaming because it helps their bottom line. They sell internet as well so they have a vested interest. Most cable/telco make their money off the phone/internet portion of the business and make a much smaller profit off of video. Notice how most companies will discount video services but not phone or internet?

I can respect your loyalty for TiVo but there comes a time when you have to realize that TiVo was the masters of their destiny and they zigged when they should have zagged. If DIRECTV truly wanted to crush TiVo they could. They could just offer people with TiVo's active free swaps and free DVR service for X time frame. The majority of TiVo users would swap. They could stop allowing them to be activated and supported. They could pay whatever fees they broke in the contract because at the end of the day TiVo stock prices would fall so fast it would be cheaper to buy them out with the poison pill (if it still exists) than pay the fees. DIRECTV has a vested interest in making this TiVo a success but it doesn't mean they will do so at the sake of their brand.

If I were Tom Rogers I would make WHDVR and a HD UI the highest priority for DIRECTV machines. I would do whatever contracts it took because to this day DIRECTV is still the majority of TiVo subscribers and has the easiest way to convert those old TiVo users again. If they had those functions I would get one.

Here's there last financial call. You might want to read it over to see where they're focusing their efforts on. Notice how little is spent on R&D for the 2012 year compared to say the legal fees or even just general and administrative.

http://investor.tivo.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=106292&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1664735&highlight=


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> First, when this deal was signed, both companies where in a different world in terms of where their software was. Tivo way back when decided to go with the platform you see today, which is totally different than any of their other current dvrs.
> 
> Second, Directv isn't going to let tivo do anything differently than they themselves are doing in terms of control of content. Period. I don't care how much either company wants a feature from tivo, if tivo can't or wont delivery that feature within the confines of DirecTV's content protection specs, they won't be allowed to implement it. MRV is case in point. Directv will not allow people to move full content from hr to hr, so they are not going to let tivo do that. They are only allowing people to offload content to portable devices via a nomad, so until tivo works with a nomad, you won't see tivo to go.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of what you said. I think the moving vs streaming shows is a legit reason for the lack of show sharing on the THR22. I just find if frustrating that neither side with say this. It's a pretty black and white answer. Good news is TiVo is now streaming on their Premiere boxes so I can always hope it gets carried over to the THR22.

The Nomad comment, I'm not sure what to believe. There is an article floating around the TiVo presented a TiVoToGo solution that they felt was well protected but a TiVo engineer said it was denied by DTV. I understand protection of content is important and the first few generations of TiVo had issues but those are in the past. To hack a TiVo HD or Premiere you have to un-solder a PROM. That's pretty locked down. DirecTV probably learned a thing or too about locking down their DVR's from TiVo.

Who controls what on the THR22 has been debated enough. All i know is when Tivo's code base between the satellite and standalone was much more in sync, features on the standalone side were left off the satellite dvr's. This was when people discovered backdoors and mods to add features. While I understand DirecTV not wanting this, it is a data point showing the platform could support features but someone didn't want them in there. This was mainly the DTiVo Series 2 and Hr10-250.

Yeah, DIRECTV probably owuld let TiVo add Pandora today since it's already coming on the HR2x series. Would they let Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster would be more interesting.

I've learned a lot since I started this thread and TiVo's investment in the THR22 is one of them. Like all company's you have to spend where you think you can make your money at and TiVo must feel technically it is in the Cable DVR market ( and patent disputes) but I do have a feeling DirecTV has stepped on TiVo's toes a few times so I would understand TiVo's reluctance to go all in on the THR22.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> That would be terrible...
> 
> And tivo is its own worst enemy, They failed to deliver on so many occasions for cable company dvrs they eventually years latter had to completely abandon their contracts and start all over with new ones they had failed so miserably.
> 
> Tivo has always been about the money, not about the user. They absolutely rely on IP to make a lot of their money and stay afloat, more so than their dvr fees from what I see. Unfortunatly, thats in part because they where backed by people with more money when they first started out than the people who backed replaytv. That was by far the best dvr ever. They did things that no dvr does to this day still. Now that is sad! :nono2:


Cable Cards like all new technologies has growing pains upfront but looking at it today, I think Cable Card technology is pretty solid. Or at least as solid as cable can get. You also have to admit cable companies were not in a rush or very helpful in getting cable cards implemented. I wouldn't say the cable card integration was anymore painful then the integration of the first HR2x DVR. That was also horrible but today no one remembers it.

Your 'TiVo is about the money and not the user' statement can easily be made about DirecTV also and honestly any other company for that matter. I think DirecTV likes to make money too and based on the (non-TiVo) complaints I see, I'm not sure they put the user first. Reading the DirecTV facebook wall is pretty embarrassing (and I'm not talking about the Disney Jr Posts).


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

frankygamer said:


> Unfortunately, I'm extremely loyal and the first time I saw a DVR, my jaw dropped and I ran out and bought one. that was my first of many TiVo's.


Same here. Had a Sony SV-3000 (I think that is the model #) and then got another one. Used then with my DirecTV receivers. The moved to the DirecTiVo series and did that horrible HR10 pre-order. So I get that.



> To some they don't care if or they even want TiVo to go out of bussiness. That just doesn't sit well with me for what they've brought to the industry.


Unfortunately many companies that innovate can't seem to sustain. RIM is a perfect example.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Replaytv brought more to the table than TiVo ever did. There is a reason that TiVo, with all their money settled with replaytv when the lawsuits started flying. It's because they new they would loose. I get tired of everyone giving TiVo credit for something when all they did was created a more restrictive and watered down version of a better device and had the money to back it up that the other lacked. Thats what's sad...

In general, I think people are tired of TiVo because they don't seem to have a clue about delivering on any of their promises.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"frankygamer" said:


> Cable Cards like all new technologies has growing pains upfront but looking at it today, I think Cable Card technology is pretty solid. Or at least as solid as cable can get. You also have to admit cable companies were not in a rush or very helpful in getting cable cards implemented. I wouldn't say the cable card integration was anymore painful then the integration of the first HR2x DVR. That was also horrible but today no one remembers it.
> 
> Your 'TiVo is about the money and not the user' statement can easily be made about DirecTV also and honestly any other company for that matter. I think DirecTV likes to make money too and based on the (non-TiVo) complaints I see, I'm not sure they put the user first. Reading the DirecTV facebook wall is pretty embarrassing (and I'm not talking about the Disney Jr Posts).


Sure all companies are about making money, but they can come from different angles. DirecTV believes if it offers a better product they will make more money than others because they will be the best. TiVo try's to make money by patenting everything and suing people at what appears to be the expense of spending so much money on that they can never deliver a product on time or as promised. And we aren't talking off by a month or two, we are talking years late, and in some cases never. You know the original hr10-250 was over 9 months late being released from when DirecTV was told that it would be ready? This is not something new for TiVo. They have a long history of being late, and I for one would not be surprised if that's not part if the reason dtv said goodbye to TiVo, because they wanted to have a better product and TiVo just never could deliver on time, and they didn't want to be held hostage to tivos failures. They let them back in now because their failures will cost DirecTV nothing, and their wins will make DirecTV money, so they can't loose anymore in their contract with TiVo.

And any company with 20 million subscribers will have people that are not happy. It's about how they focus their efforts in the first place.

Yeah, the hr20 was a disaster at first, no doubt about that. But it got ironed out fairly quickly.

Cable card is a disaster waiting to happen. There are to many variables. And I am pretty sure it's DirecTV teaching TiVo a thing or two about locking down content, since they have been doing it for much longer than TiVo has even been in business, and since they use a different technology than anyone else out there. Cable card and DirecTV boxes don't use the same things to encrypt their video at all. Two different worlds. If you want an example of how smart DirecTV is, search the net and find out about how they basically took out all the illegal stealing of their sat feeds with illegals access cards. That was just brilliant what they did to stop that, in terms of how. DirecTV is far more locked down than any other provider TiVo codes for.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"frankygamer" said:


> I agree with most of what you said. I think the moving vs streaming shows is a legit reason for the lack of show sharing on the THR22. I just find if frustrating that neither side with say this. It's a pretty black and white answer. Good news is TiVo is now streaming on their Premiere boxes so I can always hope it gets carried over to the THR22.
> 
> The Nomad comment, I'm not sure what to believe. There is an article floating around the TiVo presented a TiVoToGo solution that they felt was well protected but a TiVo engineer said it was denied by DTV. I understand protection of content is important and the first few generations of TiVo had issues but those are in the past. To hack a TiVo HD or Premiere you have to un-solder a PROM. That's pretty locked down. DirecTV probably learned a thing or too about locking down their DVR's from TiVo.
> 
> ...


I doubt TiVo would ever code TiVo to go the same way as DirecTV locks down their content, so that's not even a discussion for DirecTV. They are going to want full control of someones shows when they are on a mobile device, and TiVo to go would never give them that. You have to remember, this could easily be a contractual thing as well with its providers, as they often have different deals in place and restrictions than cable providers.

Way back when TiVo allowed way to much in their non sat boxes, DirecTV had to say no you can't offer that as well. (way to hack able)

And why would DirecTV allow a competitor to be on any of their units, TiVo or not. I don't expect to see Netflix, Hulu or anything else ever in a TiVo, if DirecTV itself doesn't launch some sort of collaborative agreement as a whole with one of those companies and add it to all their dvrs, TiVo and non TiVo.

I don't know what you mean by all in for TiVo with the thr22. I don't see DirecTV not letting them add any feature as long as they meet all of the same requirements as a DirecTV branded receiver. And that's where the problem lies, TiVo isn't going to want to do things the same way, proof in point the TiVo to go.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Replaytv brought more to the table than TiVo ever did. There is a reason that TiVo, with all their money settled with replaytv when the lawsuits started flying. It's because they new they would loose. I get tired of everyone giving TiVo credit for something when all they did was created a more restrictive and watered down version of a better device and had the money to back it up that the other lacked. Thats what's sad...
> 
> In general, I think people are tired of TiVo because they don't seem to have a clue about delivering on any of their promises.


Other then a flaky Commercial Advance, I don't recall what ReplayTV brought to the table. I did have one but that's been awhile.

Yeah, TiVo 3rd party deliveries have been pretty bad. I'm not sure how they have done on their own models of late. The Elite came out but no idea what it's scheduled date was. First generation of any models are hard to meet schedule. Whether it's the 1st gen HD, cable card, MPEG4, etc it seems to hard for them to forecast. The first HR2x wasn't exactly a finished product when it shipped.

I'm not so sure people are tired of them. It's hard to be tired of something that's not available and or has out of date SW. I think people are tired of an extra fee but that's a trade off one has to decide on the cable side. On the satellite side it's pretty much a loyalty fee.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"frankygamer" said:


> Other then a flaky Commercial Advance, I don't recall what ReplayTV brought to the table. I did have one but that's been awhile.
> 
> Yeah, TiVo 3rd party deliveries have been pretty bad. I'm not sure how they have done on their own models of late. The Elite came out but no idea what it's scheduled date was. First generation of any models are hard to meet schedule. Whether it's the 1st gen HD, cable card, MPEG4, etc it seems to hard for them to forecast. The first HR2x wasn't exactly a finished product when it shipped.
> 
> I'm not so sure people are tired of them. It's hard to be tired of something that's not available and or has out of date SW. I think people are tired of an extra fee but that's a trade off one has to decide on the cable side. On the satellite side it's pretty much a loyalty fee.


Mrv, collaborative scheduling, no to do lists, one touch record, replaytv zones and more. They had it all literally years before TiVo did in some cases, like mrv. And TiVo still has to do lists, as do all the others out there. Plus, there interface was just plain old better. Probably the best interface ever for a dvr. Way better than even tivos today, for comparable parts. You didn't have to drill through nearly as many things to accomplish anything, like setting up a season pass.

Wasn't exactly finished is an understatement. I had one of the first ones, and I had my hr10 duplicate it for several months....

I can't call the hr10250 first gen. All it did was add hd. It's not like the newest one that added mpeg4 which is a whole other ball of wax. The only thing they really added was ota, which I know was extremely difficult, hence the original hrd500 (I think that's the model ) from Mitsubishi, the first DirecTV box with ota and hd all in one guide was 16 months late. But when your that late on everything, there is something wrong with how you devote your resources.

I think people are tired of them for that exact reason, that they never deliver even close to on time, and other options are far better now with dtv, although not necessarily with cable. What I want to know, is what's going to happen in say a year, when I suspect the only dvr DirecTV will have is the hr34 and the TiVo. Why would anyone choose two tuners over five with mrv? Does TiVo have the guts to say, hey, we want to make an thr34 and spec it out to play nice with all your other equipment, like the nomad? If they do, then I think they have a shot long term with DirecTV. If they don't, it will never be anything more than niche and I don't think DirecTV will ever try and really push them to continue to upgrade the experience. Not that it would do any good, since TiVo obviously only wants to do things like TiVo to go their way instead of within the confines of dtvs way.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Does anyone in this thread know how to use the multi-quote button?


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> They have a long history of being late, and I for one would not be surprised if that's not part if the reason dtv said goodbye to TiVo, because they wanted to have a better product and TiVo just never could deliver on time, and they didn't want to be held hostage to tivos failures. They let them back in now because their failures will cost DirecTV nothing, and their wins will make DirecTV money, so they can't loose anymore in their contract with TiVo.
> 
> And any company with 20 million subscribers will have people that are not happy. It's about how they focus their efforts in the first place.
> 
> ...


DirecTV dropping TiVo could also as easily be argued being about money then providing a better DVR. I personally would rather have waited 9 months for a HR10 then deal with the issues of the HR20.

DTV must have learned something from TiVo or why are they still paying TiVo? The bringing back of the Tivo makes no sense if DirecTV completely re-invented the wheel on their DVR. Obviously they learned something since there is a no sue clause in the agreement.

I was kind of hoping someone would say cable cards were a disaster waiting to happen. The fact that Tivo took something that was a disaster waiting to happen and made 3 generation of DVR's off of it , I would argue, is an impressive feat by TiVo. That easily could have been the end of them.

Since there were 2.5 generations of DTiVo's it's hard for me to say if DTV's first DVR on their own would have been locked down from the OS perspective. Both have a boot PROM and yes early TiVo's had holes. But today to hack a TiVo you have to desolder a PROM. DTV putting the whole OS in the PROM was a smart move but they could also eat the cost of flash vs free HDD space.

I'm fine giving credit where credit is due. DTV has done great things with SWM, DECA, WHDVR, etc, etc.

We're never going to agree but giving TiVo little to no credit for what they've done for DTV is something I don't understand.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Cable Cards aren't that bad... it's the tuning adapters that are a huge problem.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> And why would DirecTV allow a competitor to be on any of their units, TiVo or not. I don't expect to see Netflix, Hulu or anything else ever in a TiVo, if DirecTV itself doesn't launch some sort of collaborative agreement as a whole with one of those companies and add it to all their dvrs, TiVo and non TiVo.


 I don't know why but going theme on why the THR22 doesn't have as many features is because of TiVo not DTV. You just stated it would be dumb to let TiVo to provide a feature DTV does not. This is why I started this thread and it ended up being a who's in control of the THR22 SW. DTV or Tivo. Your actually helping the argument DTV has neutered the TiVo DVR.


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Does anyone in this thread know how to use the multi-quote button?


I don't but the button has intrigued me


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

Anyway, I can't keep posting here. I'm in the minority and don't have the time but it's been fun re-living the history of DVR's. I do appreciate the insight people have provided. Some of the commentary, not so much, but that's the way it is. For fun I did the same thing in the Tivo Commercial thread with my "shipping conspiracy" theory which I based off of nothing.

I just want a satellite TiVo with some sort of show sharing. I really don't care who's is the holdup and if others feel the same way please provide feedback to both DTV and TiVo.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

frankygamer said:


> I don't know why but going theme on why the THR22 doesn't have as many features is because of TiVo not DTV. You just stated it would be dumb to let TiVo to provide a feature DTV does not. This is why I started this thread and it ended up being a who's in control of the THR22 SW. DTV or Tivo. Your actually helping the argument DTV has neutered the TiVo DVR.


Looking back it seems this thread is about a lack of MRV on the THR22. In regards to the other features lacking from the Tivo, I believe I agreed early on that the Tivo was "restricted" by D*



dsw2112 said:


> ...I can think of plenty of reasons they would "hold-back" other features (*and agree that they did*)...


I don't believe the lack of "other" features is indicitave of a D* mandate of no MRV. Personally I think the lack of MRV poses more customer service/technical issues for D*, as it seems that some CSR's/techs are not aware of this shortcoming. In other words, valuable time and effort are spent troubleshooting an issue that can't be fixed. From a customer service stand-point I think it also makes sense that the feature sets of all HDDVR's are similar enough to each other (and this has been D*'s MO to date on the HR2X line.)

Oh, and I used multi-quote


----------



## frankygamer (Jul 1, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Mrv, collaborative scheduling, no to do lists, one touch record, replaytv zones and more. They had it all literally years before TiVo did in some cases, like mrv. And TiVo still has to do lists, as do all the others out there. Plus, there interface was just plain old better. Probably the best interface ever for a dvr. Way better than even tivos today, for comparable parts. You didn't have to drill through nearly as many things to accomplish anything, like setting up a season pass.
> 
> Wasn't exactly finished is an understatement. I had one of the first ones, and I had my hr10 duplicate it for several months....
> 
> ...


MRV and collaborative scheduling are impressive for that time. Hell, I don't think we have collaborative scheduling today.

One can make an argument against a singel 5 tuner DVR. Primarily, being single point failure. Not a very strong argument since reliability has gotten better on all DVR's but losing one HR34 vs one dual tuner DVR may sway some. I completely agree with you on MRV. That's why I started this thread. To get MRV on the THR22. The THR22 has no legs without it.


----------



## Heynonny (Jul 11, 2009)

frankygamer said:


> it's been fun re-living the history of DVR's


I love science fiction with alternative timelines and such.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

frankygamer said:


> DTV must have learned something from TiVo or why are they still paying TiVo? The bringing back of the Tivo makes no sense if DirecTV completely re-invented the wheel on their DVR.


It is basically a no-litigation contract. Neither company can sue the other over patent issues. So DirecTV throws some money TiVo's way and doesn't have to go through what DISH did.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

frankygamer said:


> I was kind of hoping someone would say cable cards were a disaster waiting to happen. The fact that Tivo took something that was a disaster waiting to happen and made 3 generation of DVR's off of it , I would argue, is an impressive feat by TiVo. That easily could have been the end of them.


Let me be a little more specific. Cable cards as when they first came out where a disaster for everyone because they didn't allow for true two way communication. That issue seems to be past us now.

What I was really saying though is that cable card style setup for directv is a disaster waiting to happen. I absolutely love the idea and concept and think its fantastic for cable systems. But sat, that's just somewhere I wouldn't even want to tread water in... I don't think its that big of a feat for Tivo though, as the whole idea is cable cards makes it easy for ALL manufacturers to offer "cable boxes" even built into tv's. If they hadn't taken advantage, then they would be in huge trouble.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

frankygamer said:


> I don't know why but going theme on why the THR22 doesn't have as many features is because of TiVo not DTV. You just stated it would be dumb to let TiVo to provide a feature DTV does not. This is why I started this thread and it ended up being a who's in control of the THR22 SW. DTV or Tivo. Your actually helping the argument DTV has neutered the TiVo DVR.


Nah, I'd split this up into two different categories. Features and services. I think what features is on the thing is completely up to tivo, as long as they fall within the strict realm of directv's requirements for control of the content and copy protection. I think the services, like Netflix and hulu is totally a direct thing. Those two things are completely different realms in my opinion.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Does anyone in this thread know how to use the multi-quote button?


NO! :lol:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Looking back it seems this thread is about a lack of MRV on the THR22. In regards to the other features lacking from the Tivo, I believe I agreed early on that the Tivo was "restricted" by D*
> 
> I don't believe the lack of "other" features is indicitave of a D* mandate of no MRV. Personally I think the lack of MRV poses more customer service/technical issues for D*, as it seems that some CSR's/techs are not aware of this shortcoming. In other words, valuable time and effort are spent troubleshooting an issue that can't be fixed. From a customer service stand-point I think it also makes sense that the feature sets of all HDDVR's are similar enough to each other (and this has been D*'s MO to date on the HR2X line.)
> 
> Oh, and I used multi-quote


I believe you hit the nail on the head about consistency, I'd say DIrectv would have no issue with TIVO having MRV, as long as it also plays nice and works worth non tivo directv equipment, because from a customer support standpoint, that would be a night mare to have the two work completely differently and not work together.


----------

