# Possibe reason not to expect dual buffers?



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Just a theory maybe one of you smart guys can answer:

Since DTV plans to "push" PPV content on to your R-15s, being able to switch to that tuner/buffer would mean you could view/access that ppv without paying for it. if you knew when it was being "pushed"


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mikewolf13 said:


> Since DTV plans to "push" PPV content on to your R-15s, being able to switch to that tuner/buffer would mean you could view/access that ppv without paying for it. if you knew when it was being "pushed"


You're assuming that "VOD" pushes would be buffered. This is unlikely. Further, to avoid a number of other issues, it is likely that the content would come down when the receiver wasn't otherwise active.


----------



## morgantown (Nov 16, 2005)

I think that they simply have not figured it out. I don't tend to think this problem is hardware or PPV related in the least.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I agree with morgantown. I'd bet they fully intended on implementing dual live buffers, but it either caused problems they havent been able to sort out yet, or perhaps there was even an issue of patents somehow stepping on Tivo's toes....patent stuff is tricky, and if you get nailed it hurts financially big time...

I'd love to see one decent programmer make an observation about how difficult debugging this kind of software can be. There are way too many posters that think it should take about 5 minutes to fix, and that all the programmers they are using must be complete idiots. Most of those posters dont have any clue at all about programming, but they know alot about complaining...


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 18, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> I'd love to see one decent programmer make an observation about how difficult debugging this kind of software can be. There are way too many posters that think it should take about 5 minutes to fix, and that all the programmers they are using must be complete idiots. Most of those posters dont have any clue at all about programming, but they know alot about complaining...


We need look no further than Blackberry for a prime example of just what you are talking about. Creating dual buffers isn't the issue - doing it in a way that doesn't infringe on a patent is.


----------



## morgantown (Nov 16, 2005)

Boston Fan said:


> We need look no further than Blackberry for a prime example of just what you are talking about. Creating dual buffers isn't the issue - doing it in a way that doesn't infringe on a patent is.


That would be the first time I have heard that dual buffers is "really" a patent issue.

The software behind season passes and suggestions I've heard numerous times. I do think it comes down to DirecTV getting their DVR to do what a DVR is supposed to do first, (consistently record what you want -- when you want) and then add to it over time.

If the dual buffer is a patent issue, then DirecTV should just buy TiVo. On a cash basis it would be a minor impact to their balance sheet.

Not to mention, if they want to truely claim the "best TV viewing experience" it would be one heck of a differentiator. Then add DVR world's best known DVR brand name, and the ability to sell scaled down versions to competitors (concast, etc.)...and make money off of patent infringement lawsuits to boot?

Despite there are some TiVo haters around here, you got to admit it would make sense. Not that I'm holding my breath DirecTV will buy TiVo any day soon...


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Boston Fan said:


> We need look no further than Blackberry for a prime example of just what you are talking about. Creating dual buffers isn't the issue - doing it in a way that doesn't infringe on a patent is.


BS. Site the patent that Tivo or anyone holds that prevents another vendor from offering dial live buffers. This has nothing to do with patents.


----------



## joegrjoe (Mar 17, 2006)

morgantown said:


> I think that they simply have not figured it out. I don't tend to think this problem is hardware or PPV related in the least.


i think it has to do with the active button,

because if you open it, you loose buffering

I think if they would have 3 tuners in the dvr (1 dedicated to only active) 2 dedicated to live tv, I think there would be no problem with dual live buffers then


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

mikewolf13 said:


> Just a theory maybe one of you smart guys can answer:
> 
> Since DTV plans to "push" PPV content on to your R-15s, being able to switch to that tuner/buffer would mean you could view/access that ppv without paying for it. if you knew when it was being "pushed"


Actually, Earl mentioned something similar to this as a possible reason for "reserving" a tuner. I don't recall if it was his own theory or something gotten from his inside contact. It's not all that far fetched to think the second tuner is reserved (when not actually recording something) for the 60GB of hard drive that's reserved.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 18, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> BS. Site the patent that Tivo or anyone holds that prevents another vendor from offering dial live buffers. This has nothing to do with patents.


I can neither site nor cite the patent  , but I do think it makes for interesting speculation.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Touche. 

There's way to much patent crap flowing around and I think it's time to stop spreading what isn't known. I'm just trying to cut down on those that continue to spread the "patent" word without backup.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 18, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> Touche.
> 
> There's way to much patent crap flowing around and I think it's time to stop spreading what isn't known. I'm just trying to cut down on those that continue to spread the "patent" word without backup.


But why? We're all just speculating anyway. It would be a pretty boring discussion without speculation.

None of us is certain what the specific reason is, but there are many good guesses. The patent issue is just as relevant for the sake of discussion as any other, and I think a very intriguing one. There is a reason that so much stuff is floating around regarding patent issues - because there are high profile cases involving patent infringement recently. At least two of these suits specifically involve Tivo (Tivo v. Echostar, and Pause Technology v. Tivo), in addition to the aforementioned Blackberry case.

Software development is a very tricky art, and many developers have written and implemented code only to discover that it infringed on a patent. This especially comes into play when trying to replicate the functions of an existing device (dual live buffers, for instance) in a manner that stays on the right side of the patent issue.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

walters said:


> Actually, Earl mentioned something similar to this as a possible reason for "reserving" a tuner. I don't recall if it was his own theory or something gotten from his inside contact. It's not all that far fetched to think the second tuner is reserved (when not actually recording something) for the 60GB of hard drive that's reserved.


It was my own theory...

And as far as I know... Dual tuners, is not a patent... and I don't think it would be something that could be patented.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I was just offering another explanation that is different than the broken record approach that it must be incompetent programming, which is getting really old. I didnt say it WAS a patent issue, but that perhaps it could be. Even the title of this thread seems to suggest that it might not EVER happen...and until D* comes out and says, we will not be adding that feature ever, anything anyone says otherwise is speculation....Wolffpack, if you're a hot shot programmer, go offer to help D* get it sorted for a nice fee....



As has been said, Tivo fans would love to see the DirecTivo continue on, if D* did choose to buy Tivo, that could be a possiblity. Of course Tivo haters would be up in arms.....FOr those that hate the Tivo interface, plenty of those, AND hate the R15s bugs, there isnt anything else yet, if you have a UTV and like it great, but that s a dead horse, M$ is undoubtedly never getting back into that game, so why continue to scream when you accomplish absolutely nothing...Many dont seem to be very happy with the cable DVR offerings either....so where does that leave us all? Absolutely nowhere....they work most of the time, they seem to be actively trying to fix the bugs, if that cant be seen as a good attempt, maybe a rant forum would be more appropo, cos thats all that is happening to some threads and some posts....


----------



## matty8199 (Dec 4, 2005)

Dual-tuners is not patented by Tivo, the ComCrap Motorola DVR I had before I switched to D* had two live buffers...


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Boston Fan said:


> But why? We're all just speculating anyway. It would be a pretty boring discussion without speculation.


The difference, though, is that patents are public, so we know TiVo doesn't have a patent on dual live buffers.


----------



## Halo (Jan 13, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> Just a theory maybe one of you smart guys can answer:
> Since DTV plans to "push" PPV content on to your R-15s, being able to switch to that tuner/buffer would mean you could view/access that ppv without paying for it. if you knew when it was being "pushed"


There is zero chance that DTV would download unencrypted PPV movies to the hard drive. Why would they circumvent their own security?
The way that they would do it would be to download the raw encrypted video packets AND it's corresponding decryption datastream (which is very small size compared to video). When the person chooses to "buy" the PPV then the decryption datastream would be fed to the access card to decrypt the stored encrypted video packets. That video would then be written to the drive so the person could watch anytime they want.

Most likely the VOD would be downloaded in the middle of the night or at a time when the R15 has 'remembered' that no one will be using it.

If I had to _guess_ why dual live buffers weren't included in the R15 I would say it was time-to-market issue. It's a nice feature, and critical to some users, but it's not needed to fulfill their marketing of a DVR. It's probably one of the more complex sections of code, so rather than delaying the product it was put on the backburner for later. Like I said, thats just a _guess_.



CCarncross said:


> I'd love to see one decent programmer make an observation about how difficult debugging this kind of software can be. There are way too many posters that think it should take about 5 minutes to fix, and that all the programmers they are using must be complete idiots. Most of those posters dont have any clue at all about programming, but they know alot about complaining...


I've done some similiar work at one time. Some things can be very difficult and others pretty easy. I think Series Link is one of the tougher jobs because you would be writing code which has to be able to correctly handle a 'future unknown' which is the guide data. I'm not sure how it works but I could see how a 'string search' could be easily tripped up. A Series Link setup to record "Lost" could be fooled by a guide entry of "Lost Kingdom of Atlantis". Ideally, each show would be identified by a code, and contained in that code would have some identifier bits which would specify First Run, Repeat and other data.
Dual Buffer is another tough one. 
The GUI is tough in that it can appear simple and obvious to the programmer but can be confusing to the user. Best thing is to get alot of opinions and testing done to get it right.

Other things like the "6 second back" inconsistency and the "Do You Want To Delete" bug are just coding errors. They should not be hard to fix (could be wrong). Most likely they have been working hard to fix the Series Link problems because that is what most people complain about and SL is at the heart of DVR functionality. If this last update fixed SL then it's a good bet the less vital problems will be addressed next.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 18, 2006)

walters said:


> The difference, though, is that patents are public, so we know TiVo doesn't have a patent on dual live buffers.


I'm not suggesting that the concept of dual live buffers is patented, but perhaps that there are specific things about Tivo's setup that require caution when a company is developing their own process. In Blackberry's case, it wasn't simply the idea that email was accessible on a handheld device that cause NTP's lawsuit, it was the specific manner in which the process was developed and utilized that caused them to go after RIM.

I have no idea if that is the case here, and have not taken the time to read through all of Tivo's patents :grin:, but still find it an interesting thought.


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Boston Fan said:


> I have no idea if that is the case here, and have not taken the time to read through all of Tivo's patents :grin:


I have. They only have about as many as I do.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Halo said:


> A Series Link setup to record "Lost" could be fooled by a guide entry of "Lost Kingdom of Atlantis". Ideally, each show would be identified by a code, and contained in that code would have some identifier bits which would specify First Run, Repeat and other data.


I cannot speak for the R15 guide data, but the data Tivos use do have unique identifiers. There are identifiers for a series and for each episode of the series. I would hope the R15 uses the same process as opposed to simple text comparison.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Halo said:


> There is zero chance that DTV would download unencrypted PPV movies to the hard drive.


It is unlikely that _any_ of the content on the hard drive is unencrypted.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Boston Fan said:


> I'm not suggesting that the concept of dual live buffers is patented, but perhaps that there are specific things about Tivo's setup that require caution when a company is developing their own process. In Blackberry's case, it wasn't simply the idea that email was accessible on a handheld device that cause NTP's lawsuit, it was the specific manner in which the process was developed and utilized that caused them to go after RIM.
> 
> I have no idea if that is the case here, and have not taken the time to read through all of Tivo's patents :grin:, but still find it an interesting thought.


Spare time reading. It is interesting reading compared to speculation on Tivo's patents.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

walters said:


> I have. They only have about as many as I do.


You have 27 patents?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> I cannot speak for the R15 guide data, but the data Tivos use do have unique identifiers. There are identifiers for a series and for each episode of the series. I would hope the R15 uses the same process as opposed to simple text comparison.


Actually... that is part of the problem.
Each show does have a unique identifier, but there are shows that don't have the Series or Episode identifiers..

(Those that we can't set at Series recordings for example are missing the Series identifier)...

As it has been told to me... 
TiVo has built some "tweaks" to over come the lack of those fields, that the R15 doesn't have yet.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 18, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> Spare time reading. It is interesting reading compared to speculation on Tivo's patents.


Just out of curiousity, what did the 'an' stand for in the search box before 'tivo'?


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 18, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> Spare time reading. It is interesting reading compared to speculation on Tivo's patents.


I gave it an honest shot. I'm going to stick with speculating .


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

CCarncross said:


> You have 27 patents?


No, I have 22. But I have 29 pending applications.

The question regarding "AN": Assignee Name. That's the folks who actually own the patent (in my case, my employer).


----------



## pentium101 (Nov 19, 2005)

Halo said:


> There is zero chance that DTV would download unencrypted PPV movies to the hard drive. Why would they circumvent their own security?
> The way that they would do it would be to download the raw encrypted video packets AND it's corresponding decryption datastream (which is very small size compared to video). When the person chooses to "buy" the PPV then the decryption datastream would be fed to the access card to decrypt the stored encrypted video packets. That video would then be written to the drive so the person could watch anytime they want.


I believe that this is only partially correct.

IIRC, you could only purchase the VOD movie while it was still being offered on the ppv channels. I am quite positive that the saved movie when viewed is never decrypted and stored back onto the drive. IOW, the saved movie would have a short time in which you were able to view it.

If I am correct, should your current card ever become damaged you would not be able to view the purchased VOD movie using a replacement card without having to purchase the VOD movie again.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Boston Fan said:


> Just out of curiousity, what did the 'an' stand for in the search box before 'tivo'?


That would be Assignee Name. As Tivo also purchased some older patents (back from the early 90's) dealing with DVRs.


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> That would be Assignee Name. As Tivo also purchased some older patents (back from the early 90's) dealing with DVRs.


Actually, assignee name is the owner at time of issue. So those 27 you get by searching AN/TiVo are the ones they filed. It doesn't show the ones they've aquired ownership to (I don't believe there is any way in the patent database to do that).


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

walters said:


> Actually, assignee name is the owner at time of issue. So those 27 you get by searching AN/TiVo are the ones they filed. It doesn't show the ones they've aquired ownership to (I don't believe there is any way in the patent database to do that).


You sure about that? Some of those Dxxx,xxx numbers have dates back to the 80's and 90's.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Perhaps I mispoke when i said buffer. What i meant is that you cannot switch easily between tuners. THe only way, I am aware of, to do this is to actualy switch channels to what is on the other tuner.

Since a "push" would use the other tuner, they will never allow you to switch easily as you will come across programming you need to pay for. 

For DTivo users, you know how you occasionally come across the Tivo auto recording a " suggestion" it would be like that.

Also, I have some skepticism to how often the tuner will be able to effectively record many (60MB worth) PPV movies.

unless you a) do not record on two tuners, or b) do not change the channel while recording something else for about 2 hours...the r15 won't have a chance to accept a Push. 

Not saying it won't work. not at all, just saying that it seems to be an awful lot of effort and a waste of disk space when we already have ability to record PPV at our leisure and only pay if we view.


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Wolffpack said:


> You sure about that? Some of those Dxxx,xxx numbers have dates back to the 80's and 90's.


Which? The earliest filed date I see is 1998-04-03 (and it's not a design patent). The earliest priority date I see is 1997-08-28 (also not a design patent). In fact, it's not all that surprising the design patents came later (closer to the actual product release).


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

walters said:


> Which? The earliest filed date I see is 1998-04-03 (and it's not a design patent). The earliest priority date I see is 1997-08-28 (also not a design patent). In fact, it's not all that surprising the design patents came later (closer to the actual product release).


I was looking at the References Cited at the bottom. Guess those don't have anything to do with the patent held by Tivo.


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

morgantown said:


> I think that they simply have not figured it out. I don't tend to think this problem is hardware or PPV related in the least.


Just wondering. Do they have this on the Sky+ box or are they still waiting.

BTW UTV did have dual switchable buffers (if you used the PIP on the UTV and switched back and forth)


----------



## morgantown (Nov 16, 2005)

cabanaboy1977 said:


> Just wondering. Do they have this on the Sky+ box or are they still waiting.
> 
> BTW UTV did have dual switchable buffers (if you used the PIP on the UTV and switched back and forth)


Not to my knowledge.

Glancing at what users are telling folks getting into Sky+ (in general) the following pretty much sums it up. ...It is a comment from today.

"expect it to be a complete pain in the arse from time to time, seeming to have the ability to 'fail' on the recording that you want the most. If you expect it to behave in a fussy petulant manner as any PC does (after all it is just a small computer really), you will get along just fine."


----------

