# Youtube Going Away



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

I did a search on the Youtube app for a video on my HR-44 and a note popped up and said that Youtube was upgrading and my equipment would no longer be able to view Youtube. A discussion on another forum stated youtube was phasing Directv out. My grandkids love this feature, I wonder if Directv will upgrade or is this the end of Youtube on Directv? Sorry if this has been posted before, I searched but didn't find anything.


----------



## lacubs (Sep 12, 2010)

*YouTube Application No Longer Available via DIRECTV*

April 20, 2015

Due to changes in third party software, the YouTube application will no longer be available in the DIRECTV Menu.

This change will occur in multiple phases, beginning with onscreen messaging to customers on Monday, April 20. At that time, customers will still be able to search and view YouTube content, but before their selected video plays, they will see the following message:

*YouTube is upgrading to a newer version, which is not supported by this device or app. To learn more and see how you can watch YouTube, visit youtube.com/devicesupport.*


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

A bit more info: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/217482-will-your-device-lose-youtube-support/#entry3355073


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

For what it did on Directv, I am glad to see it go away from Directv, at least in its current form. 


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

Apparently this is going to affect a lot of older devices also. I checked my Sony Blu-ray and my Vizio smart tv and both had the notification. This is going to cost Youtube a lot of viewers unless these devices can be upgraded. I am not going to buy new tv's and Blu-ray players just to get Youtube.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

If you want a cheap alternative, get a Chromecast for $35 and the free YouTube app for your smartphone, which is "cast enabled" to work with Chromecast.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Oh well ...

Even though I don't like the additional $15.00 monthly fee. I guess at least that's another good thing about deciding to ditch the AM21 and switch my OTA solution to the TIVO Roamio OTA a little over a week ago.

YouTube is still running fine on it ... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Integrated Youtube was pretty much the only thing keeping me from switching my dad to Dish. Too bad they can't update the app.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I don't care for Youtube on TV. Much faster and mo' bettah on my MacBook Pro. But I can also see its appeal for others. 

Perhaps DIRECTV® can put in a few more short attention span channels??


----------



## nuspieds (Aug 9, 2008)

I recently started to watch a YouTube show and I initially streamed it from my tablet to my TV (using Miracast). It worked fine, but would be choppy at times.

Then I switched to using my HR44 and I found the experience much smoother than streaming from my tablet; there was no choppiness whatsoever, so I will miss the app.

However, I have a Slingbox 500 and a few months ago they added a YouTube app, so that's what I shall be using moving forward.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> A bit more info: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/217482-will-your-device-lose-youtube-support/#entry3355073


Based on what you wrote there, I was thinking DirecTV wasn't affected.

Unfortunately, my mother loves this feature.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I don't care for Youtube on TV. Much faster and mo' bettah on my MacBook Pro. But I can also see its appeal for others.
> 
> Perhaps DIRECTV® can put in a few more short attention span channels??


Maybe Vine?


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

I can't believe that many people use this feature, the videos aren't in HD and there are videos I have found on YouTube that I cannot find on the DTV app.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mrknowitall526 said:


> I can't believe that many people use this feature, the videos aren't in HD and there are videos I have found on YouTube that I cannot find on the DTV app.


and no fast forward to skip the boring parts

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

mrknowitall526 said:


> I can't believe that many people use this feature, the videos aren't in HD and there are videos I have found on YouTube that I cannot find on the DTV app.


I can't either, but they do. I would never use it myself, but my elderly parents love it because it's easier for them (no computer, no switching inputs, familiar interface). Believe me, I've tried to get them to use their Roku or computer and switch inputs with one button press on the universal remote, but they always go back to the one on their DirecTV box. They're going to be very unhappy about this.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

I was told that the YouTube app on Direct TV will continue working it will not be affected by the shutdown of the older YouTube app


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> I was told that the YouTube app on Direct TV will continue working it will not be affected by the shutdown of the older YouTube app


By who?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> and no fast forward to skip the boring parts
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


No fast forwarding for one thing, but also piss poor scaling and piss poor original quality to start with. I don't think it will cost Youtube too many viewers. I've never met anybody who even knows they can watch youtube on thier TV... but my sample size is small.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> No fast forwarding for one thing, but also piss poor scaling and piss poor original quality to start with. I don't think it will cost Youtube too many viewers. I've never met anybody who even knows they can watch youtube on thier TV... but my sample size is small.


And piss poor UI. Having to type one letter at a time is annoying, the scrolling is terrible.... You tube with a remote control instead of a keyboard, just plain sucks!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> I was told that the YouTube app on Direct TV will continue working it will not be affected by the shutdown of the older YouTube app


Bonjour


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> I was told that the YouTube app on Direct TV will continue working it will not be affected by the shutdown of the older YouTube app


https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4515/kw/youtube


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Doug Brott said:


> Bonjour


And good day to you, too! 

It's been a while since I tried that, but back to the drawing boards.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

If I'm viewing a YouTube video on my television, it's more likely that I would use my BluRay player than my DirecTV receiver. For starters, better integration. I can pair my BluRay player so that I can select a video on my computer for playback on the BluRay player.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Mark Holtz said:


> If I'm viewing a YouTube video on my television, it's more likely that I would use my BluRay player than my DirecTV receiver. For starters, better integration. I can pair my BluRay player so that I can select a video on my computer for playback on the BluRay player.


If you could nothing from DIRECTV would help facilitate this process.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

Mark Holtz said:


> If I'm viewing a YouTube video on my television, it's more likely that I would use my BluRay player than my DirecTV receiver. For starters, better integration. I can pair my BluRay player so that I can select a video on my computer for playback on the BluRay player.


Most BluRay players older than 3 years will be losing YouTube also.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

Well the YouTube app still works on my DirecTV receiver and it's actually working better than it ever has


----------



## west99999 (May 12, 2007)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> Well the YouTube app still works on my DirecTV receiver and it's actually working better than it ever has


It won't for long.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I had forgotten all about this feature, since we never use it.

How can I know if my Blu Ray player will stop utilizing youtube?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> I had forgotten all about this feature, since we never use it.
> 
> How can I know if my Blu Ray player will stop utilizing youtube?


You'd have to check with the manufacturer. Here's one for Sony, though I couldn't find it on the US site
http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-hn/prd-tvhc/youtube-app-announcement-hv

Panasonic
http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/info/yt/en.html


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

spartanstew said:


> I had forgotten all about this feature, since we never use it.
> 
> How can I know if my Blu Ray player will stop utilizing youtube?


I pulled up the Youtube app on my 4 year old Sony BluRay and searched for a video. The first result was the notice that they were phasing out. The same procedure brought up the notice on my Vizio smart tv.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> Well the YouTube app still works on my DirecTV receiver and it's actually working better than it ever has





west99999 said:


> It won't for long.


Yeah. ..

YT is still functioning on all our (a Genie and 5 DVRs) receivers as well. But I know its not for long.

If you will note in the 2nd post to this thread, the phase out would occur in stages.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> You'd have to check with the manufacturer. Here's one for Sony, though I couldn't find it on the US site
> http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-hn/prd-tvhc/youtube-app-announcement-hv
> 
> Panasonic
> http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/info/yt/en.html


When I go to the Panasonic site, it says to click on the region to see which models are affected and the link doesn't lead anywhere. Guess I'll have to start Googling

Oops, had pop ups blocked.

Yep, it's on there, no support. I don't use it, but my kids use it almost daily. That stinks.

Guess I'll have to figure out how to use the chromecast that's been sitting in the packaging for nearly two years.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> When I go to the Panasonic site, it says to click on the region to see which models are affected and the link doesn't lead anywhere. Guess I'll have to start Googling


It may be blocked by a popup blocker. But here are the models.

Blu-ray Disc™ Players

DMP-B500

DMP-BBT01

DMP-BD60 / 65 / 70 / 80 / 85 / 601 / 605 / 655

DMP-BDT100 / 105 / 110 / 115 / 210 / 215 / 220 / 300 / 310 / 320 / 321 / 350 / 500

Blu-ray Disc™ Home Theaters

SC-BT200 / 203 / 205 / 228 / 230 / 300 / 303 / 330 / 730 / 735

SC-BTT190 / 195 / 196 / 268 / 270 / 273 / 350 / 370 / 490 / 770 / 775

SC-BTX70


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

It'll still work on the PS3, right?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

From what I understand, yes. 

Some of these devices, I don't think it's that they can't be made to work, the companies involved don't want to do it. I think that's certainly the case for the DVRs.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> From what I understand, yes.
> 
> Some of these devices, I don't think it's that they can't be made to work, the companies involved don't want to do it. I think that's certainly the case for the DVRs.


This is where I admit to my difficulty understanding software development in certain areas comes in. With DIRECTV regularly doing firmware updates to its DVRs, what really forbids them from updating the FW to make them compatible with the new YT app?

Is it that they can't do it, or won't do it for their own reasons?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I personally don't see why they couldn't go to the new API. This was actually announced in March of 2014 so there's been time to migrate, unless the DirecTV app requires a deprecated function that's not available in the new API and there is no way around it.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

dpeters11 said:


> You'd have to check with the manufacturer. Here's one for Sony, though I couldn't find it on the US site
> http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-hn/prd-tvhc/youtube-app-announcement-hv
> 
> Panasonic
> http://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/info/yt/en.html


Affected Sony Blu-ray Players will have the following message next to the YouTube app in the video menu (This app will be unavailable after 20 April 15, Please visit youtube.com/devicesupport.).


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Might not there be a financial impediment that Youtube is enacting along with the software changes they are making?


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

In case you're not aware, the x90 series Sony players already had two Youtube apps, only one of which is going away. Just use the other app if you have one of those models.

EDIT: I don't follow your last post, Laxguy. Can you restate more directly? In any case, I think they simply have an obsolete interface they don't want to support anymore. There are a million other devices that do Youtube, so what does it matter.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

linuspbmo said:


> Most BluRay players older than 3 years will be losing YouTube also.


No worries. Mine is only a year old.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

mdavej said:


> EDIT: I don't follow your last post, Laxguy. Can you restate more directly? In any case, I think they simply have an obsolete interface they don't want to support anymore. There are a million other devices that do Youtube, so what does it matter.


I think it's mainly this. I'm not a normal user, but leaving out my DVR, I have 4 other ways of getting YouTube on my TV that will still work. Chromecasts, Rokus or Amazon Fires aren't uncommon. Of course anyone with a second gen Apple TV will be stuck.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

mdavej said:


> EDIT: I don't follow your last post, Laxguy. Can you restate more directly? In any case, I think they simply have an obsolete interface they don't want to support anymore. There are a million other devices that do Youtube, so what does it matter.


Color me skeptical, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Youtube were preparing to charge- maybe for the app, maybe for some content. Or have levels of service where ads come into play more than elsewhere..... But you can subscribe ($$) and avoid them.... Something's up.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> For what it did on Directv, I am glad to see it go away from Directv, at least in its current form.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


I've never used it. I have so many ways to get it I really didn't need D*'s app for it.

Rich


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

Well this sucks. I have a TV in my garage with a DVR. I use YouTube all the time to guide me through projects that I have no prior experience doing. I recently put a new door handle on my truck with the help of a YouTube video on the TV in my garage. I really don't want to have to buy a chromecast for that TV and then get my phone all greasy and dirty.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> No fast forwarding for one thing, but also piss poor scaling and piss poor original quality to start with. I don't think it will cost Youtube too many viewers. I've never met anybody who even knows they can watch youtube on thier TV... but my sample size is small.


Here's one sample for you: I've simply never used it. Don't see the need. Don't understand why D* added it in the first place.

All I ever wanted was a working DVR that was better than a VCR. I didn't want all these bells and whistles. Really.

Rich


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Rich said:


> Here's one sample for you: I've simply never used it. Don't see the need. Don't understand why D* added it in the first place.
> 
> All I ever wanted was a working DVR that was better than a VCR. I didn't want all these bells and whistles. Really.
> 
> Rich


I agree. Too many horns and whistles. And not just with DIRECTV equipment. Same can be said for Home Theater gear.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Color me skeptical, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Youtube were preparing to charge- maybe for the app, maybe for some content. Or have levels of service where ads come into play more than elsewhere..... But you can subscribe ($$) and avoid them.... Something's up.


They already have said that they will create a subscription tier that has a monthly fee

http://news.yahoo.com/youtube-start-charging-viewers-subscription-fee-143227063.html


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Here's one sample for you: I've simply never used it. Don't see the need. Don't understand why D* added it in the first place.


Amen.,


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

The youtube app was a serious disappointment to me for a couple of reasons:
1) A lot of the content I wanted to watch wasn't allowed on the app.
2) The search functionality was terrible, and videos longer than a certain length (I think it was something stupid like 15 mins) could not be located.

I got a much better experience just using my phone or tablet.

I know it's not going to happen because it's totally counter-intuitive to their business plan, but an Amazon Video or Netflix app native to the DVR would be sweet.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

I use it everyday. Looks like a final reason to dump DTV with my two year period is up in October.

The app has become worse and worse as far as search results. Google has been mixing in history of other searches with exact keyword searches for awhile, making you scan through dozens to hundreds of videos to get the one you want.

The app also had a bug never fixed that if a user name had a space in it, it would find no matches when searching for other videos from the same author. Just a couple of quotes added and it would have fixed that.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

My bluray player got an updated YouTube app. I'll probably use it about as much as I did the last one, which is almost never.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well this sucks. I have a TV in my garage with a DVR. I use YouTube all the time to guide me through projects that I have no prior experience doing. I recently put a new door handle on my truck with the help of a YouTube video on the TV in my garage. I really don't want to have to buy a chromecast for that TV and then get my phone all greasy and dirty.


Get a fireTV Stick - it's got it's own remote.


----------



## Bradman (Aug 8, 2011)

spartanstew said:


> It'll still work on the PS3, right?


Yes, and on PS4 and the Xbox platforms.


----------



## mark40511 (Jul 18, 2008)

It's on both my Vizio smart TV's and I LOVE being able to watch playlists. At first when the DIRECTV YOUTUBE APP came out, I was so happy, but I NEVER use it. I didn't even know it was gone!


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

YouTube still available on my DirecTV receiver


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Any device that gets the "https://youtube.com/devicesupport" video as the top result for every search is on the old API and will lose access once Google turns the API off.

It's being done in phases, the messaging with the video began on Monday, in early May all videos will stop working and you'll only get that video, and by the end of May it will be shutdown completely.

http://youtube-eng.blogspot.com/2015/04/bye-bye-youtube-data-api-v2.html


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

So then what if people that watch YouTube on directv going to do to be able to receive YouTube anymore


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> So then what if people that watch YouTube on directv going to do to be able to receive YouTube anymore


They can't receive YouTube via DIRECTV® receivers any longer. Those folks will have to find an alternative to use YouTube.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

Well I tried accessing the YouTube app on my Roku 3 and all its on there is the same video that it's showing on the DirecTV receivers and it says that the YouTube app is no longer available on my Roku


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I'd guess that over 95% of folks who have advanced receivers also have internet. And computers on which to watch YouTube, which is as it started out.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> Well I tried accessing the YouTube app on my Roku 3 and all its on there is the same video that it's showing on the DirecTV receivers and it says that the YouTube app is no longer available on my Roku


YouTube still works on my Roku 2 XD.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Rich said:


> Here's one sample for you: I've simply never used it. Don't see the need. Don't understand why D* added it in the first place.
> 
> All I ever wanted was a working DVR that was better than a VCR. I didn't want all these bells and whistles. Really.
> 
> Rich


Me either. Thats what I have a tablet and laptop for. Give us a PIP toggle already!


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Why does Youtube still work on my parent's HR23? Will it get disabled in a future firmware update?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mdavej said:


> Why does Youtube still work on my parent's HR23? Will it get disabled in a future firmware update?


See KyL416's post here for the explanation;

http://dbstalk.com/index.php?/topic/217492-Youtube-Going-Away#entry3356345

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mdavej said:


> Why does Youtube still work on my parent's HR23? Will it get disabled in a future firmware update?


One day it will stop working. Searches will go out first. Then DIRECTV® will do an update to remove the icon.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> Well I tried accessing the YouTube app on my Roku 3 and all its on there is the same video that it's showing on the DirecTV receivers and it says that the YouTube app is no longer available on my Roku


You need to update the YouTube app on your Roku3. They issued an update a while back to move to the new API.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

My Roku Therese YouTube app is the current and it still says the same thing


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

3


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

I'm watching YouTube on my Roku3 right now and unlike my DIRECTV boxes or iPad, the YouTube app is not showing the youtube.com/devices video as my first video.

What version of the Roku software do you have? I have 6.2 Build 3332.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

6.3 Build 4523


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

So why does it say wat it say


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

You cal also see You Tube I n KODI type boxes.


Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I haven't used this feature since getting Chromecast. It's much easier to type (or speak) to the YouTube app on the phone, pull up the video and hit the little cast icon. Chromecast takes care of changing the TV's input via HDMI-CEC. When done, power cycle the Genie, and it takes care of switching the input back via HDMI-CEC.


----------



## sabrewulf (Sep 4, 2011)

Id say its gone today. Will miss it I did like just laying back in bed and watching youtube. But at least I have the laptop anyhow.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

The YouTube app that was on my Roku 3 is no longer there its gone and its not available on the channel store either anymore


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Follow the instructions for the Roku on http://youtube.com/devicesupport

You have to power down your Roku 3 by unplugging the power cable, once you plug it back in the updated YouTube app will be installed.

I don't have a Roku, so I can't really help you more than that, my guess is that Roku is one of those devices that just have a standby mode so the only way to power it down is to unplug it.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> The YouTube app that was on my Roku 3 is no longer there its gone and its not available on the channel store either anymore


Working here.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

KyL416 said:


> I don't have a Roku, so I can't really help you more than that, my guess is that Roku is one of those devices that just have a standby mode so the only way to power it down is to unplug it.


Good guess.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

YouTube App is no longer in the Extras Menu. Allow Web Videos is no longer listed in System Info and Parental Controls.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> YouTube App is no longer in the Extras Menu. Allow Web Videos is no longer listed in System Info and Parental Controls.


Yep;

And mines and I imagine many others were still working when they removed it... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Actually as of a few days ago YouTube pulled the plug on the old API so the only thing you got was the https://youtube.com/devicesupport video


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

KyL416 said:


> Actually as of a few days ago YouTube pulled the plug on the old API so the only thing you got was the https://youtube.com/devicesupport video


IIRC, the last time I checked it was two days ago and it was still working.

And just assumed it still was today, but DIRECTV maybe felt why wait for the inevitable and just went ahead and removed the app now wholesale whether it had stopped functioning by now on peoples' boxes or not.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

HoTat2 said:


> And just assumed it still was today, but DIRECTV maybe felt why wait for the inevitable and just went ahead and removed the app now wholesale whether it had stopped functioning by now on peoples' boxes or not.


Nope, the old API is dead, Google pulled the plug since you last accessed it, there's several other threads created by people attempting to access it prior to the app being removed:
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/217663-youtube-on-hr24-500/
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/217681-genie-updated-now-youtube-is-not-working/

Basically any video you accessed would give you the not supported video. It was really fun watching 3FM's webcam this morning, they usually have the music video for the current song playing on a monitor behind the DJ, today the only thing playing was the not supported video on a loop.


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

I did that and it still isn't there


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DBSSTEPHEN said:


> I did that and it still isn't there


If you're lamenting problems with your Roku 3, a Roku forum would surely be a more appropriate venue.

https://blog.roku.com/blog/2015/02/24/a-faster-youtube-experience/


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> YouTube App is no longer in the Extras Menu. Allow Web Videos is no longer listed in System Info and Parental Controls.


So what will they do with the "MENU 8" shortcut now?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

TheRatPatrol said:


> So what will they do with the "MENU 8" shortcut now?


PIP :rotfl:


----------



## Maldez (Feb 5, 2014)

mrknowitall526 said:


> I can't believe that many people use this feature, the videos aren't in HD and there are videos I have found on YouTube that I cannot find on the DTV app.


The reason I loved using Youtube via DTV is there was a wealth of hard-to-find content on just about any subject you could imagine. I loved that almost any ID program that had ever been aired had been put on Youtube (by somebody) whenever the whim struck me. Granted it's not HD and you can't rewind or fast-forward, but it was very welcomed, nonetheless.

And if I really liked what I was watching, I could easily burn it to my DVR.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Maldez said:


> And if I really liked what I was watching, I could easily burn it to my DVR.


I was under the impression that you could not record YT content. Did that changed eventually?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

peds48 said:


> PIP :rotfl:


We could only hope. 

I say move the "SWIM/Internet connected" toggle screen from the DASH button to "MENU 8" and make the DASH button a one button on/off toggle.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

TheRatPatrol said:


> So what will they do with the "MENU 8" shortcut now?


Right now it's deactivated.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> PIP :rotfl:


Closed Captioning?


----------



## Yakuman (Sep 12, 2009)

I don't think it matters that much that the app is gone. For one thing, it was hopelessly outdated. For another, there are countless other ways to get YouTube on your TV.

If this is a big deal, one might consider cutting the cord and getting rid of the monthly bill.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Closed Captioning?


Missed the boat, completely.... TheRatPratol fully understands....


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Yakuman said:


> If this is a big deal, one might consider cutting the cord and getting rid of the monthly bill.


Could not agree more.... Those that were watching YT regularly on DIRECTV®, they were paying a bill for something that can be had for free on an streaming box.


----------



## Maldez (Feb 5, 2014)

peds48 said:


> I was under the impression that you could not record YT content. Did that changed eventually?


Maybe I mislead you. I didn't record the YT content to my DTV hard drive, but to another recorder I have wired into my system. How could you be prevented from recording Youtube content, if your Directv signal is passing through your recorder?

Had I known earlier that YT wasn't going to work on DTV I would've gone bonkers saving stuff to disk,


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Maldez said:


> Maybe I mislead you. I didn't record the YT content to my DTV hard drive, but to another recorder I have wired into my system. How could you be prevented from recording Youtube content, if your Directv signal is passing through your recorder?
> 
> Had I known earlier that YT wasn't going to work on DTV I would've gone bonkers saving stuff to disk,


That makes sense, kind of. There are tons of software on the net that let you off load YT content to a PC/Mac in a much better quality than DIRECTV®


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Could not agree more.... Those that were watching YT regularly on DIRECTV®, they were paying a bill for something that can be had for free on an streaming box.


I've seen multiple comments that claim they are going to cancel DirecTV over this, which I'm actually surprised at. But probably shouldn't have been, I've seen the same comments when a channel is added or other change.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Maldez said:


> Had I known earlier that YT wasn't going to work on DTV I would've gone bonkers saving stuff to disk,


A video titled "https://youtube.com/devicesupport" with millions of views has been the top search result for everything since April 20th. If you watched it or visited that url it would have told you that support would be ending in the very near future.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> I've seen multiple comments that claim they are going to cancel DirecTV over this


And they should, as it looks like YT was their primary viewing choice.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

YouTube wasn't my primary viewing source, but it was certainly a viewing source that I appreciated having. 

If the 10 or 15 channels I regularly watch, plus the NFL Sunday Ticket, and an NBA package are ever available for online streaming, then I'll probably cancel Directv. Until then, I'll keep it. 

It's nuts that everyone is basically saying "the YouTube app sucked anyway, so good riddance." I think it'd be a lot more productive to say "the app sucked, but it was really nice to have YouTube on the TV without changing inputs or even changing remote controls, so hopefully Directv rolls out an updated YouTube app with all the features the last one was missing included this time."


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Human psyches are strange at times. At least mine is. I used Youtube on DIRECTV® maybe twice a year, but am sorry to see it go! Some of us don't like anything taken away, even if it was something we didn't use.


----------



## HaterSlayer (Mar 24, 2010)

BlackDynamite said:


> YouTube wasn't my primary viewing source, but it was certainly a viewing source that I appreciated having.
> 
> If the 10 or 15 channels I regularly watch, plus the NFL Sunday Ticket, and an NBA package are ever available for online streaming, then I'll probably cancel Directv. Until then, I'll keep it.
> 
> It's nuts that everyone is basically saying "the YouTube app sucked anyway, so good riddance." I think it'd be a lot more productive to say "the app sucked, but it was really nice to have YouTube on the TV without changing inputs or even changing remote controls, so hopefully Directv rolls out an updated YouTube app with all the features the last one was missing included this time."


I have an Xbox One and I do this. If I didn't I'd get a chromecast or something just for the HD. If YouTube is that important why not get it a better way?


----------



## Yodaluver281 (Feb 16, 2015)

If watching Youtube on our TV is important to you, get a Roku stick or Fire stick. They're like 40 bucks, the quality is so much better than the DTV app allowed, and you can fast forward and rewind. And if you still have DTV, you can use your credentials to get HBOGO (if you subscribe), WatchESPN, Fox Sports GO (Fire stick only), FXNOW (Roku only), and several other cable channels streaming apps.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

HaterSlayer said:


> I have an Xbox One and I do this. If I didn't I'd get a chromecast or something just for the HD. If YouTube is that important why not get it a better way?


Well I'm actually hoping Directv rolls out an updated app that is just as good as the YouTube app on the Xbox One. Surely they know it's a good idea, which is why they rolled out a YouTube app in the first place.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> YouTube App is no longer in the Extras Menu. Allow Web Videos is no longer listed in System Info and Parental Controls.


Social TV is no longer listed in the TV Apps menu. DIRECTV seems to be in cleaning up mode.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well I'm actually hoping Directv rolls out an updated app


Not going to happen, the new API doesn't support direct access to the video files and requires an embeded web browser that supports HTML5's video elements.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yodaluver281 said:


> If watching Youtube on our TV is important to you, get a Roku stick or Fire stick. They're like 40 bucks, the quality is so much better than the DTV app allowed, and you can fast forward and rewind. And if you still have DTV, you can use your credentials to get HBOGO (if you subscribe), WatchESPN, Fox Sports GO (Fire stick only), FXNOW (Roku only), and several other cable channels streaming apps.


Thank you! It's always good to see new posters offering solutions.......

I'm hardly an official greeter here, but it not already said, Welcome to DBSTalk!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> It's nuts that everyone is basically saying "the YouTube app sucked anyway, so good riddance." I think it'd be a lot more productive to say "the app sucked, but it was really nice to have YouTube on the TV without changing inputs or even changing remote controls, so hopefully Directv rolls out an updated YouTube app with all the features the last one was missing included this time."


I am sometimes surprised myself on how lazy we have gotten that we consider changing inputs or using two remotes a chore...

Now I can change my DIRECTV® channels from my wrist, no remote control needed. Awesome...


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> I am sometimes surprised myself on how lazy we have gotten that we consider changing an inputs or using two remorse a chore...
> 
> Now I can change my DIRECTV® channels from my wrist, no remote control needed. Awesome...


How do you change channels from the wrist? I have to get that setup, lol.

Is it an android watch or apple watch or something?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> How do you change channels from the wrist? I have to get that setup, lol.
> 
> Is it an android watch or apple watch or something?


AppleWatch

http://www.directv.com/technology/mobile_apps/applewatch


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Thank you! It's always good to see new posters offering solutions.......
> 
> I'm hardly an official greeter here, but it not already said, Welcome to DBSTalk!


We can anoint you as the Official Greeter if you so wish. :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> _*I am sometimes surprised myself on how lazy we have gotten*_ that we consider changing _*an*_ inputs or using two _*remorse*_ a chore...
> 
> Now I can change my DIRECTV® channels from my wrist, no remote control needed. Awesome...


Kinda like proofreading posts, huh? :rolling:

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Rich said:


> Kinda like proofreading posts, huh? :rolling:
> 
> Rich


Posted with Tapatalk for Apple Watch


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Kinda like proofreading posts, huh? :rolling:
> 
> Rich


I'll proofread pst whn evr I pst to grmmar ste. Sites lke ths as the mssge gts across is all tht mattrs.....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Posted with Tapatalk for Apple Watch


Nice....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Posted with Tapatalk for Apple Watch


What happens with Tapatalk? You don't get the chance to see what you've written before it goes out? I really don't know, but I do know some people who use it aren't the kind who would write what I see at times.

Rich


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Rich said:


> What happens with Tapatalk? You don't get the chance to see what you've written before it goes out? I really don't know, but I do know some people who use it aren't the kind who would write what I see at times.
> 
> Rich


Yeah that and another big problem I have with the app is I can't get it to connect over my cellular data network. Only through WiFi.

(Metropcs 4G LTE)

Strangely I can get new post alerts to my subscribed threads over the cell data conn., but must be on WiFi to surf the forum threads or post messages.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah that and another big problem I have with the app is I can't get it to connect over my cellular data network. Only through WiFi.
> 
> (Metropcs 4G LTE)
> 
> ...


And yet, your posts are easily read. So I guess you can proofread what you write before posting? That's the question I want to see answered.

Rich


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Rich said:


> And yet, your posts are easily read. So I guess you can proofread what you write before posting? That's the question I want to see answered.
> 
> Rich


But I can't preview how a post will look with tapatalk as I can on the forum website. And this is really an annoyance when I'm trying to post images and attachments along with text to see if they will appear correctly before I submit it.

And while I'm at it another problem I have with the app is I can't find a way to delete a post once submitted, and must wait until I get to a PC for that. Even using the Google Chrome web browser on my Smartphone, on the website the delete post function won't work at least on this forum for some reason.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> But I can't preview how a post will look with tapatalk as I can on the forum website. And this is really an annoyance when I'm trying to post images and attachments along with text to see if they will appear correctly before I submit it.
> 
> And while I'm at it another problem I have with the app is I can't find a way to delete a post once submitted, and must wait until I get to a PC for that. Even using the Google Chrome web browser on my Smartphone, on the website the delete post function won't work at least on this forum for some reason.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


But you can read the post before you send it out, right? That's what I'd like to know.

Rich


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Rich said:


> But you can read the post before you send it out, right? That's what I'd like to know.
> 
> Rich


Oh sure, I can do that;

You mean you can't do that?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> And yet, your posts are easily read. So I guess you can proofread what you write before posting? That's the question I want to see answered.


I'd rather see posts about Youtube in this thread, or DirecTV in this forum. Whether or not someone proofreads and whether you need to know sounds like a personal problem.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> I'd rather see posts about Youtube in this thread, or DirecTV in this forum. Whether or not someone proofreads and whether you need to know sounds like a personal problem.


Right on. Back to topic.

:backtotop


----------



## mrknowitall526 (Nov 19, 2014)

My uncle just complained about this tonight. Can't believe people actually used this terrible app.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Yakuman said:


> I don't think it matters that much that the app is gone. For one thing, it was hopelessly outdated. For another, there are countless other ways to get YouTube on your TV.


I suppose the same could be said for pretty much every DIRECTV function and feature. As usual, it's whose ox is being gored that matters most.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Missed the boat, completely.... TheRatPratol fully understands....


When choosing between PIP and Close Captioning, it seems like Closed Captioning probably serves more customers and it applies to all boxes, not just the Genies.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

The new smart TVs are making streaming apps through set top boxes obsolete, anyway. The direct TV connection is much faster and allows resolution up to 4k on Youtube and other streaming services. The tiny Samsung remote with its "Tinker Bell" mouse cursor makes streaming menus even easier to use.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> When choosing between PIP and Close Captioning, it seems like Closed Captioning probably serves more customers and it applies to all boxes, not just the Genies.


again, only if you are theratpratrol you would of understand. He knew what I was posting about. Enough said....

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

patmurphey said:


> The new smart TVs are making streaming apps through set top boxes obsolete, anyway. The direct TV connection is much faster and allows resolution up to 4k on Youtube and other streaming services. The tiny Samsung remote with its "Tinker Bell" mouse cursor makes streaming menus even easier to use. I wouldn't care if only Directv lost Youtube but all of the older smart tv's are losing Youtube also. My 3 year old Visio and my 4 year old Sony BluRay lost Youtube. I didn't use it much and it wasn't that good but I still used it on occasion. I think I will get a HDMI plug in like cromecast or maybe one of the new intel computer on a stick plug in. Has anyone used one of those?


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

My post got merged in with Patmurphey's so I'll try again. I wouldn't care if only Directv lost Youtube but all of the older smart tv's are losing Youtube also. My 3 year old Visio and my 4 year old Sony BluRay lost Youtube. I didn't use it much and it wasn't that good but I still used it on occasion. I think I will get a HDMI plug in like cromecast or maybe one of the new intel computer on a stick plug in. Has anyone used one of those?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

linuspbmo said:


> My post got merged in with Patmurphey's so I'll try again. I wouldn't care if only Directv lost Youtube but all of the older smart tv's are losing Youtube also. My 3 year old Visio and my 4 year old Sony BluRay lost Youtube. I didn't use it much and it wasn't that good but I still used it on occasion. I think I will get a HDMI plug in like cromecast or maybe one of the new intel computer on a stick plug in. Has anyone used one of those?


I have a Fire Stick, only issue I've had with it (which is really annoying) is that it will sometimes drop the wifi connection. I have to reboot it. Well that and the fact that I can't use my Harmony remote.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> . Well that and the fact that I can't use my Harmony remote.


I would assume is because the fire stick uses some kind of Zigbee protocol? Because the harmony remotes can emulate any kind of IR signal, even if that means teaching the codes with the original remote.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I have a Fire Stick, only issue I've had with it (which is really annoying) is that it will sometimes drop the wifi connection. I have to reboot it. Well that and the fact that I can't use my Harmony remote.


I have the Fire TV boxes. They don't lose the connection. Not yet, anyway. I did have problems with the Rokus doing that. I'd think the Fire Sticks would use the same technology, no? Mmm, maybe not. One of the reasons I got the Fire TVs was the size of the processor in it. Probably bigger than the stick has?

Rich


----------



## nuspieds (Aug 9, 2008)

peds48 said:


> I would assume is because the fire stick uses some kind of Zigbee protocol? Because the harmony remotes can emulate any kind of IR signal, even if that means teaching the codes with the original remote.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


Fire TV remote is Bluetooth and the Hub-based Harmony remotes can control them; the others can't.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

patmurphey said:


> The new smart TVs are making streaming apps through set top boxes obsolete, anyway. The direct TV connection is much faster and allows resolution up to 4k on Youtube and other streaming services. The tiny Samsung remote with its "Tinker Bell" mouse cursor makes streaming menus even easier to use.


Again, I think the problem is not that there aren't many other and superior ways of picking up internet streaming services like YT. But as trivial as it may seem to others, it's the loss of a convenient integrated feature for some where usually now you have to switch inputs to the TV, grab another remote (or two) in the process to use a third party device/service. Then reverse the process to get back to the DIRECTV receiver is what annoys some people.

I even get this way myself sometimes with having to typically grab for the TV remote to switch HDMI inputs to the TIVO OTA for my off-air channels and recordings and the streaming apps like YT now, then grab the TIVO remote. And then reverse all this to return to the Genie for satellite channels.

And of course on occasion, particularly when I'm half sleep, many times I pickup the wrong remote like the TIVO when it should be the DIRECTV one and vice-versa.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Rich said:


> I have the Fire TV boxes. They don't lose the connection. Not yet, anyway. I did have problems with the Rokus doing that. I'd think the Fire Sticks would use the same technology, no? Mmm, maybe not. One of the reasons I got the Fire TVs was the size of the processor in it. Probably bigger than the stick has?
> 
> Rich


I know the stick doesn't have as much processing power. But the thing is that I can't even reconnect it manually. That doesn't work, but if I reboot, it reconnects itself.


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

I really don't need the ability to stream Netflix, Hulu, Ect, I have a BluRay and smart tv to do that. I would like to be able to browse the internet like a computer without having to buy another laptop. I occasionally hook up my laptop to the tv via the HDMI and use it with wireless mouse and keyboard but I need a cheaper alternative like the Compute Stick from Intel but I don't hear much about them.


----------



## jkseger (Jan 12, 2007)

booooooooo. 

Hopefully, they'll spend the time to update it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

jkseger said:


> booooooooo.
> 
> Hopefully, they'll spend the time to update it.


It won;t happen with the current gui. Its just not possible based on the new requirements from everything I have seen...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I know the stick doesn't have as much processing power. But the thing is that I can't even reconnect it manually. That doesn't work, but if I reboot, it reconnects itself.


I've had that same problem with the Rokus. Haven't seen it with any other of the streamers I've tried. The Fire TV is very stable, much more stable than my Sammy BD players. I kept sending the Rokus back and getting the new ones as they came out, but always had the same problems with them. Thought it was a manifestation of my luck and stopped buying them.

Rich


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

linuspbmo said:


> I did a search on the Youtube app for a video on my HR-44 and a note popped up and said that Youtube was upgrading and my equipment would no longer be able to view Youtube. A discussion on another forum stated youtube was phasing Directv out. My grandkids love this feature, I wonder if Directv will upgrade or is this the end of Youtube on Directv? Sorry if this has been posted before, I searched but didn't find anything.


This happened on my Matricom Midnight KODI box as well. Something about updating You Tube and the device will no longer be supported.

To me this does not make sense because that means less viewers for You Tube.

Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I know a few months back, the YouTube Xbox app was updated to a new look. It looks identical to the YouTube app on Samsung smart TV's now. It has the red bar down the left side that expands to allow you to sign in and view all your playlists, settings, etc. The only issue I have with the new design and it must be exclusive to Xbox, is the back and ok buttons no longer function in this app using my Logitech harmony remote. I now have to use the green or red buttons on the harmony. 

So maybe all the YouTube apps have to look the same now? Like I said the Xbox 360 app looks identical to Samsung Smart TV app.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SeaBeagle said:


> To me this does not make sense because that means less viewers for You Tube.
> 
> Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile app


YouTuber's will find another way to use the service. Is not like there are a few ways to do that.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

SeaBeagle said:


> This happened on my Matricom Midnight KODI box as well. Something about updating You Tube and the device will no longer be supported.
> 
> To me this does not make sense because that means less viewers for You Tube.


If you consider these changes will allow YT to charge for premium content, it makes all the sense in the world.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Again, I think the problem is not that there aren't many other and superior ways of picking up internet streaming services like YT. But as trivial as it may seem to others, it's the loss of a convenient integrated feature for some where usually now you have to switch inputs to the TV, grab another remote (or two) in the process to use a third party device/service. Then reverse the process to get back to the DIRECTV receiver is what annoys some people.
> 
> I even get this way myself sometimes with having to typically grab for the TV remote to switch HDMI inputs to the TIVO OTA for my off-air channels and recordings and the streaming apps like YT now, then grab the TIVO remote. And then reverse all this to return to the Genie for satellite channels.
> 
> And of course on occasion, particularly when I'm half sleep, many times I pickup the wrong remote like the TIVO when it should be the DIRECTV one and vice-versa.


I have a Harmony remote that controls everything, but picking up the Samsung mini remote (smaller than a mouse) and using the Tinker Bell mouse interface to the Smart Hub is faster and easier than any set top box menu system or conventional remote. The TV also takes input from a Bluetooth keyboard for searches, etc. Streaming is directly through Ethernet, not HDMI via a box. Set top boxes are obsolete or streaming, once you have a smart TV. My Roku is gathering dust and I don't use the satellite apps.

I can also mirror any phone apps and there is so-so internet browsing (better when mirroring the phone). Like I said, smart TVs are making set top boxes obsolete for streaming.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

patmurphey said:


> I have a Harmony remote that controls everything, but picking up the Samsung mini remote (smaller than a mouse) and using the Tinker Bell mouse interface to the Smart Hub is faster and easier than any set top box menu system or conventional remote. The TV also takes input from a Bluetooth keyboard for searches, etc. Streaming is directly through Ethernet, not HDMI via a box. Set top boxes are obsolete or streaming, once you have a smart TV. My Roku is gathering dust and I don't use the satellite apps.
> 
> I can also mirror any phone apps and there is so-so internet browsing (better when mirroring the phone). Like I said, smart TVs are making set top boxes obsolete for streaming.


Great, I just need to buy about 10 smart TVs, hope they aren't still spying on people, and then I'll have the same functionality I had a couple weeks ago.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

BlackDynamite said:


> Great, I just need to buy about 10 smart TVs, hope they aren't still spying on people, and then I'll have the same functionality I had a couple weeks ago.


Also in my case what Smart TV does DVR'ing of OTA channels as DIRECTV's AM21 just doesn't work for me any longer?

Thus the need for the TIVO Roamio OTA as another STB connected via HDMI.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Talking about streaming, here...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SeaBeagle said:


> To me this does not make sense because that means less viewers for You Tube.


I suspect that Google is trying to establish better DRM and that's why they're making this move. Better DRM opens the door to pay content.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

harsh said:


> I suspect that Google is trying to establish better DRM and that's why they're making this move. Better DRM opens the door to pay content.


I think that there's also some payment/donation updates as well.


----------



## SeaBeagle (May 7, 2006)

linuspbmo said:


> I did a search on the Youtube app for a video on my HR-44 and a note popped up and said that Youtube was upgrading and my equipment would no longer be able to view Youtube. A discussion on another forum stated youtube was phasing Directv out. My grandkids love this feature, I wonder if Directv will upgrade or is this the end of Youtube on Directv? Sorry if this has been posted before, I searched but didn't find anything.


I get the same crazy message using a Matricom Midnight box. Maybe You Tube wants less viewers so it can shut down.

Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Still got it on my Fire Boxes. I'll try to remember to check the BD players. And that dumb "Smart TV" I've got. 

Rich


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

So does Directv have any plans to add a new Youtube app in the near future? I really need it and miss it. Yes I can always use my Roku or blu-ray player to use Youtube on my tv but it was always much easier to use it on Directv since I didn't have to hook up my Roku or switch inputs on my tv to use it. It's all about convenience when you can just sit down when watching a regular channel and just immediately start using Youtube with a couple of button pushes. If I was tired or sick I wouldn't feel like getting up to set up Youtube on another device and could stay sitting down staying relaxed and play a Youtube video. So that's why I think it's important to still have Youtube on Directv.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

mkdtv21 said:


> So does Directv have any plans to add a new Youtube app in the near future? I really need it and miss it. Yes I can always use my Roku or blu-ray player to use Youtube on my tv but it was always much easier to use it on Directv since I didn't have to hook up my Roku or switch inputs on my tv to use it. It's all about convenience when you can just sit down when watching a regular channel and just immediately start using Youtube with a couple of button pushes. If I was tired or sick I wouldn't feel like getting up to set up Youtube on another device and could stay sitting down staying relaxed and play a Youtube video. So that's why I think it's important to still have Youtube on Directv.


Why do you have to get up? With all the devices and technology available, we never need to get up. I'm disabled and control everything (TV, stereo, Roku, BluRay) from a laptop.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Exactly. Most of us just keep our Rokus or Fires hooked up and have remotes that allow for the changing of inputs. Granted, that may mean a second remote depending on the one you use for DirecTV, but there are options there as well.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mkdtv21 said:


> So does Directv have any plans to add a new Youtube app in the near future? I really need it and miss it. Yes I can always use my Roku or blu-ray player to use Youtube on my tv but it was always much easier to use it on Directv since I didn't have to hook up my Roku or switch inputs on my tv to use it. It's all about convenience when you can just sit down when watching a regular channel and just immediately start using Youtube with a couple of button pushes. If I was tired or sick I wouldn't feel like getting up to set up Youtube on another device and could stay sitting down staying relaxed and play a Youtube video. So that's why I think it's important to still have Youtube on Directv.


You will have to pardon my cluelessness on app development, but I just don't grasp software coding well enough to understand what statments like KyL416's posted awhile back that explains why not to look for YT to ever come back on DIRECTV's boxes.

http://dbstalk.com/index.php?/topic/217492-Youtube-Going-Away#entry3359207

But all I really understand are examples like YT is still working just fine on my TIVO Roamio DVR, so why can't DIRECTV design theirs to so the same?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Why do you have to get up? With all the devices and technology available, we never need to get up. I'm disabled and control everything (TV, stereo, Roku, BluRay) from a laptop.


The big main tv we use only has 3 hdmi inputs one being used for the HR34, the others for the dvd/vcr player and the video game console. When I need to use the blu-ray player or the Roku I have to unhook one of the other devices to use them. From what I've read Hdmi switches are expensive and unreliable so I don't have plans to get one. I have no choice but to have the dvd/vcr player hooked in as the main player instead of the blu-ray because my parents are old and still like to watch old vhs tapes and can't see the difference between blu-ray and dvd. We aren't the richest of people so we can't have all this elaborate set ups. My dad always used the youtube on the Directv box all the time to watch stuff now he doesn't use it all even though I tell him he can use it on the Roku because it requires me setting it up for him since he doesn't know how to set it up himself. You just just have to look at real world situations for all different people. I'm just saying for my situation with my family it was very important to have youtube available on the Directv boxes. My dad would never want to use a laptop or a fancy remote to control different things.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mkdtv21 said:


> The big main tv we use only has 3 hdmi inputs one being used for the HR34, the others for the dvd/vcr player and the video game console. When I need to use the blu-ray player or the Roku I have to unhook one of the other devices to use them. From what I've read Hdmi switches are expensive and unreliable so I don't have plans to get one. I have no choice but to have the dvd/vcr player hooked in as the main player instead of the blu-ray because my parents are old and still like to watch old vhs tapes and can't see the difference between blu-ray and dvd. We aren't the richest of people so we can't have all this elaborate set ups. My dad always used the youtube on the Directv box all the time to watch stuff now he doesn't use it all even though I tell him he can use it on the Roku because it requires me setting it up for him since he doesn't know how to set it up himself. You just just have to look at real world situations for all different people. I'm just saying for my situation with my family it was very important to have youtube available on the Directv boxes. My dad would never want to use a laptop or a fancy remote to control different things.


Does the main tv and the DVD/vcr have any analog legacy ports, composite or component, you can use to free up an HDMI port on the TV for the Roku?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

Yes it does but it looks horrible. My parents don't care but I care when I'm watching a movie with them otherwise when I'm alone I use the blu-ray player to watch ether dvd's or blu-rays.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

mkdtv21 said:


> Yes it does but it looks horrible. My parents don't care but I care when I'm watching a movie with them otherwise when I'm alone I use the blu-ray player to watch ether dvd's or blu-rays.


Which others have you tried? S-Video or component (red, blue, green) is more than enough for DVD/VHS.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Exactly. Most of us just keep our Rokus or Fires hooked up and have remotes that allow for the changing of inputs. Granted, that may mean a second remote depending on the one you use for DirecTV, but there are options there as well.


I never get up to change inputs. That post kinda surprised me.

Rich


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Which others have you tried? S-Video or component (red, blue, green) is more than enough for DVD/VHS.


Only composite and hdmi out works for both vhs and dvd the component only works with dvd.

This is the model of the player in case you wanted to know.

http://www.lg.com/us/home-audio-video/lg-RC897T-dvd-recorder


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mkdtv21 said:


> Only composite and hdmi out works for both vhs and dvd the component only works with dvd.
> 
> This is the model of the player in case you wanted to know.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/home-audio-video/lg-RC897T-dvd-recorder


Yep;

I can identify with that.

Just last year was trying to find a cheap way to connect my sister's old late 90's vintage (but both still in very good working condition) DVD player and a VCR with only S-video and composite outputs through an analog A/V switcher to her HDTV's component inputs. But for some strange reason, all S-video/composite to component converters I could find online are ridiculously expensive. Starting at around $90.00 and up!

Then had a friend find an old GO-VIDEO DVD/vcr combo unit junked on the street somewhere thinking the auxiliary A/V inputs for the VCR portion would internally convert over to the component outputs used by the DVD portion via E-E.

Only to discover as in your case the component output is for DVD playback only. The VCR A/V inputs only loop-thru via E-E to S-video/composite output connectors.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

You know after all this discussion I may just consider using component with the HR34 to free up a hdmi port since we never use 1080p with Directv anyway.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mkdtv21 said:


> You know after all this discussion I may just consider using component with the HR34 to free up a hdmi port since we never use 1080p with Directv anyway.


Not sure what you consider expensive but...

Monoprice is great and I have two Hdmi switches and one 4x2 matrix switch and they are all bullet proof for me. Work excellent and they are very well priced. For your situation I think I'd be worth it.

No way id go component when you don't need to.

The one I'd use (this is a little newer revision than mine) is $28.34 and is Product ID 4088

Here's a link...

http://www.monoprice.com/mobile/Product/Details/4088?mainCategoryId=101&categoryId=10110&subCategoryId=1011002&cpnCd=


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> You will have to pardon my cluelessness on app development, but I just don't grasp software coding well enough to understand what statments like KyL416's posted awhile back that explains why not to look for YT to ever come back on DIRECTV's boxes.
> 
> http://dbstalk.com/index.php?/topic/217492-Youtube-Going-Away#entry3359207
> 
> ...


Think of it more like gas for a car. Dtv and many others work on regular gas. You have to now be using diesel for the new you tube apps to work. TiVo has been using diesel for a while so it ports fine. Many products don't and it would require an entirely new engine to change to it which there's no way dtv will ever do for older machines. Maybe if they move to html gui (that would be diesel) then they might have a way to add it back.

At least that's how I basically understand it all.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mkdtv21 said:


> You know after all this discussion I may just consider using component with the HR34 to free up a hdmi port since we never use 1080p with Directv anyway.


Yeah that'll work;

Brother has an HDTV that stopped working (for some reason) with DIRECTV's HDCP content protection some time ago on an old HR22 here. So he had to switch it to component.

Looks fine and can't tell the difference with HDMI. And like you, he never needs or cares anything about a native [email protected] capability.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

mkdtv21 said:


> So does Directv have any plans to add a new Youtube app in the near future? I really need it and miss it. Yes I can always use my Roku or blu-ray player to use Youtube on my tv but it was always much easier to use it on Directv since I didn't have to hook up my Roku or switch inputs on my tv to use it. It's all about convenience when you can just sit down when watching a regular channel and just immediately start using Youtube with a couple of button pushes. If I was tired or sick I wouldn't feel like getting up to set up Youtube on another device and could stay sitting down staying relaxed and play a Youtube video. So that's why I think it's important to still have Youtube on Directv.


I don't know, but I hope so.

Like you, I appreciated the convenience of it. And with 7 receivers, some of them connected to more than 1 TV, that's a lot of chrome casts/Rokus/Blu Ray players/etc I'd have to get in order to replace that functionality.

That YouTube app wasn't the greatest, but it was still better than nothing. And it was pretty nice having it right there with the same remote and same TV input. Surely they knew this, which is why they added it in the first place. Hopefully they upgrade whatever they need to upgrade and put in a new and improved YouTube app.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

IMHO it won't come to anything other than genies, if it comes back to them.. There's no way they will do a major and total rewrite of the software on the non genies IMHO. There just no reason to. I am wondering if they will even ever decide to go to the html5 GUI they where considering and was mentioned many many months ago.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> IMHO it won't come to anything other than genies, if it comes back to them.. There's no way they will do a major and total rewrite of the software on the non genies IMHO. There just no reason to. I am wondering if they will even ever decide to go to the html5 GUI they where considering and was mentioned many many months ago.


Well seeing as the genies run basically the same firmware as the HR24s with only a few minor differences, there would be no reason to leave them out of any potential upgrade.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> IMHO it won't come to anything other than genies, if it comes back to them.. There's no way they will do a major and total rewrite of the software on the non genies IMHO. There just no reason to. I am wondering if they will even ever decide to go to the html5 GUI they where considering and was mentioned many many months ago.


Is Directv's software development team underpaid? With all the profits Directv's been making they sure seem to be not focusing their money on making well running software. Directv's software firmware is too unified with all their different boxes. They should split it up a little more so that older models will run better if they get the proper development for their type of hardware. Even the HR34 and HR44 should have different versions of firmware since the hardware between them is very different. I am fearful if the new html5 gui comes out, it will only be available on the new Genies that support 4k.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well seeing as the genies run basically the same firmware as the HR24s with only a few minor differences, there would be no reason to leave them out of any potential upgrade.


There is a reason you wouldn't try and install windows 10 this summer on a machine that was built for windows xp. That's kind of what you are suggesting here....

I also think you are confusing what you see with what they actual can and do do. The gui may look similar but they operate completely differently. The hardware is many years older and probably doesn't have the horsepower and abilities to even consider a new html 5 gui, much less be able to make a html 5 based gui work properly without bring everything to a stand still. The hr2xs are maxed out at what they can do right now, and no changing of their gui to a new system that would need more horsepower is going to breath new life into something so old.If you stop and think all the a genie has to do, you realize there's no way it is based on the same firmware as the hr2xs. It is totally different. One look at how it uses tuners alone and you realize this.

Personally I believe if anything them trying to keep the gui for the two devices similar feeling is holding back the genies, and they need to make the break and move on.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mkdtv21 said:


> Is Directv's software development team underpaid? With all the profits Directv's been making they sure seem to be not focusing their money on making well running software. Directv's software firmware is too unified with all their different boxes. They should split it up a little more so that older models will run better if they get the proper development for their type of hardware. Even the HR34 and HR44 should have different versions of firmware since the hardware between them is very different. I am fearful if the new html5 gui comes out, it will only be available on the new Genies that support 4k.


I don't think it has anything to do with the people doing the actual work. I think its the bean counters and the higher ups that buy into focus groups that stunt everything they do...

I agree, the genies need to break away and guess what, they have... They are getting new things that the others won't ever get. But I think they are maxed out with what they will ever do with the non genies. They are definitely not going to remove abilities. And would you spend time rewriting anything on a product that is no longer in development, or would you focus on the product that is your future? Especially when I kind of doubt they could get more out of them anyway. They are tasked with a lot of things to do, and they obviously aren't high powered enough to do them at lightning speed, like an hr44 can. They run better than my local cable company boxes other than time changing channels, and that's not something that can be fixed because its both the nature of satellite and the older hardware in them. The hr44 is known to have better chips that are designed to change channels faster.

You have an interesting idea on the gui being different for 4k units. I kind of doubt it, if they change, i think it will hit all genies. The question I have is should the hr34 be included? Similar to the h20, I think it may be lacking in power to move to the next level, and wouldn't be totally surprised to see it left behind. But I doubt they would want to do that...


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> And would you spend time rewriting anything on a product that is no longer in development


The problem with that is there are so many customers using this old hardware probably more than ones with the latest hardware and I feel it is unfair when they are paying a lot of money that they are being left behind with a problematic experience just because they don't want to buy new hardware. I would be fine with your statement if Directv had a policy where every so often they would provide customers with newer hardware for free and without a contract. This is something better with the cable companies. If you want a new box you can get one for free and without a contract. I would be perfectly fine if we had a higher box rental fee from Directv if it meant we could just call Directv and say we want the new Genie and they would mail it to you and you didn't have to pay for the box and it was guaranteed to be the latest model. Why we still have to pay for equipment from Directv despite us not really owning it is still confusing to me.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mkdtv21 said:


> The problem with that is there are so many customers using this old hardware probably more than ones with the latest hardware and I feel it is unfair when they are paying a lot of money that they are being left behind with a problematic experience just because they don't want to buy new hardware.


So how you suppose DIRECTV® is going to lock its subs to another 2 years. 2 years commitments is their bread and butter.

It looks to me that DIRECTV® is learning how Apple run their business.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> It looks to me that DIRECTV® is learning how Apple run their business.


And who wins in that business model?


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

peds48 said:


> So how you suppose DIRECTV® is going to lock its subs to another 2 years. 2 years commitments is their bread and butter.
> 
> It looks to me that DIRECTV® is learning how Apple run their business.


Why don't cable companies need two years commitment for their customers? It seems that Directv has a hard time getting long term subscribers otherwise they wouldn't need contracts. Every time I ever get on with their customer service they always say thank you for being a customer with us for 9 years with a lot of emphasis. I guess that's out of the ordinary to them.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

peds48 said:


> It looks to me that DIRECTV® is learning how Apple run their business.


I don't get what that means. Any product I've bought from apple didn't require a contract except their phones but that has to do with the cell phone carrier.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> There is a reason you wouldn't try and install windows 10 this summer on a machine that was built for windows xp. That's kind of what you are suggesting here....
> 
> I also think you are confusing what you see with what they actual can and do do. The gui may look similar but they operate completely differently. The hardware is many years older and probably doesn't have the horsepower and abilities to even consider a new html 5 gui, much less be able to make a html 5 based gui work properly without bring everything to a stand still. The hr2xs are maxed out at what they can do right now, and no changing of their gui to a new system that would need more horsepower is going to breath new life into something so old.If you stop and think all the a genie has to do, you realize there's no way it is based on the same firmware as the hr2xs. It is totally different. One look at how it uses tuners alone and you realize this.
> 
> Personally I believe if anything them trying to keep the gui for the two devices similar feeling is holding back the genies, and they need to make the break and move on.


I don't buy that. For one, I'm sure there will be plenty of people who had XP before eventuality getting Windows 10. But that's a bad analogy. A better analogy is there are plenty of people with Android devices from a few generations ago who have the latest version of Android.

I find it disturbing that people on these boards continue to imply that the HR24 is an outdated antique.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Call directv and order 7 DVRs, see what you get. I'll bet you get the exact same thing I got when I called and ordered 7 DVRs, 1 genie and 6 HR24s, and a 2 year contract.

Directv will only let you have 1 genie on your account. If you want more than 1 DVR, you get an HR24.

There's no way Directv would roll out a genie only feature if the HR24 was capable of running it too.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mkdtv21 said:


> Why don't cable companies need two years commitment for their customers? It seems that Directv has a hard time getting long term subscribers otherwise they wouldn't need contracts. Every time I ever get on with their customer service they always say thank you for being a customer with us for 9 years with a lot of emphasis. I guess that's out of the ordinary to them.





mkdtv21 said:


> The problem with that is there are so many customers using this old hardware probably more than ones with the latest hardware and I feel it is unfair when they are paying a lot of money that they are being left behind with a problematic experience just because they don't want to buy new hardware. I would be fine with your statement if Directv had a policy where every so often they would provide customers with newer hardware for free and without a contract. This is something better with the cable companies. If you want a new box you can get one for free and without a contract. I would be perfectly fine if we had a higher box rental fee from Directv if it meant we could just call Directv and say we want the new Genie and they would mail it to you and you didn't have to pay for the box and it was guaranteed to be the latest model. Why we still have to pay for equipment from Directv despite us not really owning it is still confusing to me.


First off, many of them around my area do have 2 year commitments...

Second, the ones that don't have a software and gui system that is still in 4x3 sd and is so awful, it was bad when it was brand new in 2001. And I am not joking about that. Their gui can't hold a candle to even Directv's worst efforts, not to mention they usually can't record more than 20 hours still of hd programming. SO that entire debate is a bit flat for me personally.... Add to that my cable company doesn't even really have better boxes, they all are equally bad, but the ones that do more cost a boat load more...

And I just don't see that very many people are having a truly problematic experience with the hr2xs, and those that are and are calling in and such, are probably more often than not getting genies.... And just about anyone who has been around a while can get a genie for free now, unless they are always calling in and asking for tons of discounts anyway. There's always a few here, but the reality is the vast majority only have one dvr at their house anyway.

And I just don't think they could do much more with the HR2xs anyway, not sure what you think they could do with them? They can not lose any functions, that'd be going even further backwards.. And therefore I don't think they could speed them up either, and I don't know of any other real issues with them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mkdtv21 said:


> Why don't cable companies need two years commitment for their customers?


Cable companies don't typically invest over $900 to sign up a new customer as DIRECTV does.

That said, some cable offers do appear to require 24 month commitments. A big difference is that cable holds their discounts for the entire commitment period.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> I find it disturbing that people on these boards continue to imply that the HR24 is an outdated antique.


It certainly doesn't compare all that well to the other DVRs in the marketplace. That DIRECTV hasn't left the HR21 behind pretty much insures that it will remain hobbled.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I don't buy that. For one, I'm sure there will be plenty of people who had XP before eventuality getting Windows 10. But that's a bad analogy. A better analogy is there are plenty of people with Android devices from a few generations ago who have the latest version of Android.
> 
> I find it disturbing that people on these boards continue to imply that the HR24 is an outdated antique.
> 
> ...


First, not really at all. There is a lot of hardware differences that are far greater than just a couple generations of phone changes. Its several years with of computer advancements. Between the tuners and rvu setup, its a totally different platform really. The where also designed at least five years apart, and the processors inside them are on a whole different platform as well. You also have to remember, they use very specific chips in these. Its not like a computer that uses a more general processor, these are very specifically made to do just certain things. Same with the amount of memory they have. I doubt the old units have any space left for something that would take more memory. One additional simple example, the non genies cant even do more than 2tb hard drives. Its a hardware thing. Yet the genies, its somewhere around 16 TB.

And you realize you just contradicted yourself? They have already rolled out many features, many that the HR2x series cant do. Heck, it cant even do RVU. Its entire design philosophy is also very different. This means its not as simple as rewriting the code for one and it also working on the other. It would be starting from scratch for both sperately. They are totally different under the hood. And it also means they have decided they have already maxed out what these boxes can do without them bogging down and not working properly.

I am not at all suggesting they are antiquated, but I am suggesting that they are maxed out. I think those two statements are quite different.

And the non genies don't have that many years left IMHO. I am guessing they will be on their way out within a few years.

And I assure you that the vast majority of people are fine with just a genie and clients, and do not need or even ask for more dvrs. Which is rather annoying, because the ones that do would be the ones who would want and use multiple genies and care more about having the latest and greatest anyway!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> It certainly doesn't compare all that well to the other DVRs in the marketplace. That DIRECTV hasn't left the HR21 behind pretty much insures that it will remain hobbled.


Yes it does. It compares extremely well against anything else in its class, and outperforms most others. And it has left the hr21 behind.. Heck, they have no basically left the entire HR2x series behind... Stop trying to spin negativity.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mkdtv21 said:


> I don't get what that means. Any product I've bought from apple didn't require a contract except their phones but that has to do with the cell phone carrier.


Not completely. The business I work for can get one year contracts on any phone except Apples. Apple requires a two year contract to get any discount on the phone (the pricing jumps from discounted for two years to full retail for anything less than "two years"). The dollar amount of the discount is the same on a two year contract whether we buy an Apple or an android/windows phone. The carrier isn't giving a deeper discount for Apples. We pay a little more for a one year contract (less discount) but we can't get any discount on an Apple without the two year commitment.

Most of the phones (Apple. Motorola, Samsung) work really good for a year ... some will make it past the two year mark without major complaint. It isn't good when one has had a product one year and they are looking to get rid of it. Cell phones and satellite receivers should not be so disposable.

Fortunately cell phone carriers allow changes every two years (or less for some carriers/customers). One can get a "new customer" deal simply by being out of contract and agreeing to the terms a new customer would be required to accept. Not agreeing to a new customer deal leaves one on grandfathered pricing - which can be good. (My personal cell phone price plan is about ten years old ... the data plan is about five years old. I can't find a satellite/cable provider that lets me keep my price for more than a year - even if I do not update equipment.)

Offering "new customer discounts" every two years would be nice ... and expensive for the satellite carriers. While customers locked into a commitment are good for a carrier (less chance of churn) customers out of contract who stick around anyways without large discounts or costly new equipment installs are very valuable. That is the kind of loyalty companies want ... low cost (to the carrier) customers who will pay price increases and won't leave.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

James Long said:


> It isn't good when one has had a product one year and they are looking to get rid of it. Cell phones and satellite receivers should not be so disposable.


It's just that the technology changes so quickly. Literally every year there's a new version of the galaxy or iphone. If one should stay with a device for a long time they are going to miss out on new features, and ones that may be pretty necessary. With a Directv box I'm OK with having for a while as long as there is still a lot of support for it and not abandonment. It's just all making my mind twirl when some people on here are saying the old hardware is just pointless and should no longer be a focus and then others say people should stick with their old hardware for a while.



James Long said:


> That is the kind of loyalty companies want ... low cost (to the carrier) customers who will pay price increases and won't leave.


You must admit that sounds pretty corrupt but I guess that's the way American businesses are these day's.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mkdtv21 said:


> You must admit that sounds pretty corrupt but I guess that's the way American businesses are these day's.


Not corrupt ... just trying to stay in business. One cannot run a business at a loss and expect to stay in business.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

mkdtv21 said:


> This is something better with the *cable companies. If you want a new box you can get one for free* and without a contract.


Hmm like Comcast (a cable company), which has in the past charged as much as a $99.99 fee to upgrade to the X1 Platform....  They still charge a $49.99 fee in most markets to this day and only recently have reduced it to $19.99 in limited markets (mostly in the NE areas such as the Freedom Region).

http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/comcast-lowers-x1-upgrade-fee/389899

http://stopthecap.com/2014/02/12/comcast-expects-existing-customers-to-pay-49-99-upgrade-fee-for-x1-platform/


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> And who wins in that business model?


obviously, Directv. Reason the make you sign a contract and perhaps a motivation to get subs to upgrade.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mkdtv21 said:


> Why don't cable companies need two years commitment for their customers?


don't know, but some have commitments with some type of deal. Also it sucks to be then when a customer leaves after a month of being installed.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mkdtv21 said:


> I don't get what that means. Any product I've bought from apple didn't require a contract except their phones but that has to do with the cell phone carrier.


 Apple has no issues leaving old technology behind. At some point supporting old technology costs more than losing those who refuse to upgrade.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> First, not really at all. There is a lot of hardware differences that are far greater than just a couple generations of phone changes. Its several years with of computer advancements. Between the tuners and rvu setup, its a totally different platform really. The where also designed at least five years apart, and the processors inside them are on a whole different platform as well. You also have to remember, they use very specific chips in these. Its not like a computer that uses a more general processor, these are very specifically made to do just certain things. Same with the amount of memory they have. I doubt the old units have any space left for something that would take more memory. One additional simple example, the non genies cant even do more than 2tb hard drives. Its a hardware thing. Yet the genies, its somewhere around 16 TB.
> 
> And you realize you just contradicted yourself? They have already rolled out many features, many that the HR2x series cant do. Heck, it cant even do RVU. Its entire design philosophy is also very different. This means its not as simple as rewriting the code for one and it also working on the other. It would be starting from scratch for both sperately. They are totally different under the hood. And it also means they have decided they have already maxed out what these boxes can do without them bogging down and not working properly.
> 
> ...


Yes, the genie has more tuners than the HR2X platform, and it can do RVU. I get that. But that doesn't mean the HR24 can't handle an html5 gui. You're basically saying "That old android phone doesn't have a 1080p video camera, a 1080p display, or a GPS chip, so it's not capable of running the latest version of Android."

The extra features the genie has that the HR2X receivers don't have could easily be disabled in the firmware of the HR2X receivers. And I'm mostly talking about the HR24, not HR21s. Because the HR24 is the receiver directv is still sending out.

I'll say again, directv will not let you have more than 1 genie on your account. If you want more than 1 DVR, they send you 1 genie and the rest are HR24s.

So you're suggesting that Directv would rather lose all their highest paying customers and limit everyone to only 1 DVR total? Just so they could do away with HR24s? Or would they start allowing people to have more than 1 genie when they abandoned the HR24?

There is just no way they'd shaft HR24 customers that way. Especially when many of them just barely got their equipment.

It'd be one thing if HR24 customers were paying less money. But that isn't the case. If you only want 1 DVR, then Directv sets you up with a genie. It's when you want more than 1 DVR (and pay extra for it) that they then set you up with HR24s, and still 1 genie.

If Directv offered a path to upgrade from HR24 to genie, even for a fee, then maybe they'd consider abandoning the HR24. But for right now that's what they're setting all their highest paying customers up with, so there's no way they'd just abandon all of them.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

One thing I've noticed over the past two weeks with YouTube -- the amount of commercials has increased exponentially.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

trh said:


> One thing I've noticed over the past two weeks with YouTube -- the amount of commercials has increased exponentially.


Right in line with being able to offer a premium service with no ads! Just a little boost to incentives to pay up.....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

BlackDynamite said:


> I don't buy that. For one, I'm sure there will be plenty of people who had XP before eventuality getting Windows 10. But that's a bad analogy. A better analogy is there are plenty of people with Android devices from a few generations ago who have the latest version of Android.
> 
> _*I find it disturbing that people on these boards continue to imply that the HR24 is an outdated antique.*_
> 
> ...


I do too. I see nothing wrong with my 24s. And my way of doing D* is far better than anything a Genie can do, I think. Yeah, it's a bit more expensive a month, but if one of my HRs goes down, the others back it up and nothing is ever lost. Can't do that with a Genie and a bunch of...what are we calling them these days, clients?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> It certainly doesn't compare all that well to the other DVRs in the marketplace. That DIRECTV hasn't left the HR21 behind pretty much insures that it will remain hobbled.


Well, I'm glad I don't have any other DVRs to compare them to. I have no problems with the 24s.

Rich


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> *Yes, the genie has more tuners than the HR2X platform, and it can do RVU. I get that. But that doesn't mean the HR24 can't handle an html5 gui. You're basically saying "That old android phone doesn't have a 1080p video camera, a 1080p display, or a GPS chip, so it's not capable of running the latest version of Android."*
> 
> The extra features the genie has that the HR2X receivers don't have could easily be disabled in the firmware of the HR2X receivers. And I'm mostly talking about the HR24, not HR21s. Because the HR24 is the receiver directv is still sending out.
> 
> ...


I think it's more like saying that Android phone doesn't have enough RAM, internal storage space and processor to handle the latest version of Android. This may or may not be the case with the HR24s - I don't know enough about the hardware under the hood to say whether it could support an updated GUI or if it would fall flat on its face. I would assume that an HTML5 GUI would actually be more light weight to operate on older hardware, however it depends on how lean and well-written the code is.

I think the entire fleet of receivers DirecTV supports could use a complete re-write and code optimization to improve the user experience overall. It would open the door for new features if the existing features work better and use less resources. It's unlikely to happen, though.

On your second note, do you know if SD receivers cost the same per month as HD? If so, it would imply DirecTV doesn't care and a receiver is a receiver even if the user experience is far from the same. If not, you definitely have a valid point.

I wonder if DirecTV has any plans to introduce a new dual or triple tuner DVR in the future? Seems like this would be the next likely step since they don't want 2 genies per account and there are people like yourself that want/need more than 5 tuners.

Lastly, I think the point everyone is missing is what exactly would be the benefit for DirecTV to add an updated Youtube app? What would they gain by spending the resources to reinvent the wheel, when most customers would simply invest in a Roku, Smart TV or ChromeCast/Fire Stick? I doubt that they will see a huge churn of their customer base by not offering this. Yes it was nice, but no it's not a deal-breaker.

Should they decide to bring it back, it would make perfect sense to only offer it on newer hardware. Convince customers to upgrade and sign a new contract. Cash flow is king - guaranteed cash flow is even better.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> I think it's more like saying that Android phone doesn't have enough RAM, internal storage space and processor to handle the latest version of Android. This may or may not be the case with the HR24s - I don't know enough about the hardware under the hood to say whether it could support an updated GUI or if it would fall flat on its face. I would assume that an HTML5 GUI would actually be more light weight to operate on older hardware, however it depends on how lean and well-written the code is.
> 
> I think the entire fleet of receivers DirecTV supports could use a complete re-write and code optimization to improve the user experience overall. It would open the door for new features if the existing features work better and use less resources. It's unlikely to happen, though.
> 
> ...


On the Android phone analogy, as you said, the HTML5 gui is likely to require less resources than the current gui. Someone else pointed out that genies can do RVU while the HR24s can't, and implied that was an indication that HR24s weren't capable of an HTML5 gui. I was just pointing out that the 2 things aren't related. If the processor, storage, and memory are insufficient, that would be one thing. But it's pretty hard to argue that unless we know exactly what is required, and also know what is in the HR24s currently. But as we both agree, the requirements for an HTML5 gui are likely to be even less than the current gui.

I don't know if SD receivers are cheaper anymore, but I know they used to be. Do they even have SD receivers anymore? HR24s cost more than genie clients though, so it's definitely not a case of a receiver is a receiver. My HR24s cost me just as much as my genie (got all of them at the same time).

I think if Directv either launched a new receiver and an upgrade path for HR24 customers, or they started allowing multiple genies on an account, either one of those things would kill my resistance. But right now Directv will only allow 1 genie per account, and if you want more than 1 DVR they set you up with HR24s. So I can't see them killing off HR24s before they have another option in place for the customers that use them.

On why they would put YouTube in the receivers, well why did they put YouTube in them in the first place? There must be a good reason because they've already done it in the past. My guess is because they want to compete with other providers and this is one more feature to help accomplish that. But I can't say for sure because I don't know the reasoning behind putting YouTube in the receivers in the first place.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> On the Android phone analogy, as you said, the HTML5 gui is likely to require less resources than the current gui. Someone else pointed out that genies can do RVU while the HR24s can't, and implied that was an indication that HR24s weren't capable of an HTML5 gui. I was just pointing out that the 2 things aren't related. If the processor, storage, and memory are insufficient, that would be one thing. But it's pretty hard to argue that unless we know exactly what is required, and also know what is in the HR24s currently. But as we both agree, the requirements for an HTML5 gui are likely to be even less than the current gui.
> 
> I don't know if SD receivers are cheaper anymore, but I know they used to be. Do they even have SD receivers anymore? HR24s cost more than genie clients though, so it's definitely not a case of a receiver is a receiver. My HR24s cost me just as much as my genie (got all of them at the same time).
> 
> ...


I know my dad still has an SD receiver on his account - I haven't seen his bill but I wouldn't be surprised if he pays the same $6.50 for that receiver as he does his others. Same goes for the clients - you pay the same monthly fee for a client as you do for a receiver. They may cost less up front (and IMO offer less) than a HR24, but they still cost the same monthly - therefore a receiver is still a receiver in terms of monthly costs.

Do you happen to know when the Youtube app appeared on the receivers? I wonder if they didn't add it when SmartTVs were less common (or simply didn't exist) and STBs were looked to more for providing some of that extra functionality (as opposed to using a computer hooked up to the TV). It may have been added before the game systems even offered that functionality. Back at that time, it would definitely be a selling feature because the options simply weren't there. Nowadays you can't buy a new TV without "Smart" functionality built-in to some extent.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> I know my dad still has an SD receiver on his account - I haven't seen his bill but I wouldn't be surprised if he pays the same $6.50 for that receiver as he does his others. Same goes for the clients - you pay the same monthly fee for a client as you do for a receiver. They may cost less up front (and IMO offer less) than a HR24, but they still cost the same monthly - therefore a receiver is still a receiver in terms of monthly costs.
> 
> Do you happen to know when the Youtube app appeared on the receivers? I wonder if they didn't add it when SmartTVs were less common (or simply didn't exist) and STBs were looked to more for providing some of that extra functionality (as opposed to using a computer hooked up to the TV). It may have been added before the game systems even offered that functionality. Back at that time, it would definitely be a selling feature because the options simply weren't there. Nowadays you can't buy a new TV without "Smart" functionality built-in to some extent.


Well I doubt your dad paid as much for that SD receiver as a genie or HR24 costs. Genie and HR24 cost the same amount upfront.

The genie then has an advanced receiver monthly fee, or something like that. The HR24s have a DVR fee, or something like that.

Clients are cheaper to get upfront and have neither of those monthly fees.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Well I doubt your dad paid as much for that SD receiver as a genie or HR24 costs. Genie and HR24 cost the same amount upfront.
> 
> The genie then has an advanced receiver monthly fee, or something like that. The HR24s have a DVR fee, or something like that.
> 
> Clients are cheaper to get upfront and have neither of those monthly fees.


No, I think he probably got it free. I'm not talking up front costs though, I'm talking the mirroring fees for each additional receiver.

I guess I (perhaps mistakenly) understood from your comment than you felt because you paid this same fee or paid more up-front you were entitled to new features on those HR24s. The up-front costs are not applicable in this argument because you aren't paying for future services, you're paying for the hard drive, extra tuner(s) and the DVR ability. You could've got a 7 TV setup for much less with clients (maybe even free), but you wouldn't have the same recording capacity or concurrent program capacity.

As for the advanced receiver and DVR fees, you won't be able to get a client without paying for those. They are per account and are just a combination/rename of the old HD fee and the DVR/WHDVR fee. Since a client is worthless without a Genie, you can't have one without the other. The catch is though, you still pay the additional receiver fee for it.

What I was simply trying to say is that you pay the same monthly fee (at least on the HD side) per receiver or client regardless. In that way, DirecTV views them as identical even though the experience and performance may vary wildly from model to model.

I can understand the frustration with the removal of youtube, but unless DirecTV had something in their contract stating the Youtube playback as part of the agreement, there's no breach and they are technically not in the wrong. You are still able to watch and record TV as well as participate in whole-home with your HR24s. As long as that continues, they are holding up their end up the bargain.

Should they bring it back in the future and offer it only on new equipment (I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't available on current generation Genies), they would incentivize you and others to upgrade by either discounting or offering free replacement receivers in exchange for a new 2 year commitment.

So back to my original point, what's DirecTV's incentive to bring this back on existing hardware?


----------



## linuspbmo (Oct 2, 2009)

rmmccann said:


> So back to my original point, what's DirecTV's incentive to bring this back on existing hardware?


It certainly wouldn't be because their customers wanted it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

linuspbmo said:


> It certainly wouldn't be because their customers wanted it.


Some of their customers do want it, there have even been those that have said they're leaving over it. Whether or not they actually do is different.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> No, I think he probably got it free. I'm not talking up front costs though, I'm talking the mirroring fees for each additional receiver.
> 
> I guess I (perhaps mistakenly) understood from your comment than you felt because you paid this same fee or paid more up-front you were entitled to new features on those HR24s. The up-front costs are not applicable in this argument because you aren't paying for future services, you're paying for the hard drive, extra tuner(s) and the DVR ability. You could've got a 7 TV setup for much less with clients (maybe even free), but you wouldn't have the same recording capacity or concurrent program capacity.
> 
> ...


No, I pay the genie advanced receiver fee for my genie, plus I pay the dvr fee for the HR24s, plus the extra receiver fee, and the whole home dvr fee. The client would not have that extra dvr fee. So the HR24 does cost extra. Plus, as I pointed out, the upfront fee (for leasing the actual equipment) is more for an HR24 than it is for a client. So the upfront fee and the monthly fee are both more.

I never said directv was in breach of contract. What I said was there is no way they're going to abandon the HR24 until they have something else for the HR24 users to move to. The existing HR24 customers are the highest paying residential customers, and the future HR24 customers are the ones who will pay the highest upfront costs for residential customers, then pay the highest monthly amounts as well. They're not going to just throw that away.

As for what benefit it brings directv to upgrade the youtube app, again we have to know the reason they rolled it out in the first place. Once we know why they did that, then we can better answer why they'd consider doing it again.

Do Comcast/Cox/Charter/Time Warner/Verizon/Dish Network boxes have youtube? Do they have other features that Directv might want to offset by adding youtube? Does Google offer anything financially or maybe in advertising if Directv puts a youtube app on their boxes? There are way too many variables that we don't have for us to speculate as to why they'd do it. But if we knew why they did it in the past, then we'd have a good foundation to speculate about why they'd do it again.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

dpeters11 said:


> Some of their customers do want it, there have even been those that have said they're leaving over it. Whether or not they actually do is different.


Exactly. Until we see churn based on the loss of this feature, we simply don't know if it really matters or not. I would say that those of us on these forums don't represent the interests or concerns of the vast majority of customers DirecTV has.



BlackDynamite said:


> *No, I pay the genie advanced receiver fee for my genie, plus I pay the dvr fee for the HR24s, plus the extra receiver fee, and the whole home dvr fee. The client would not have that extra dvr fee. So the HR24 does cost extra. Plus, as I pointed out, the upfront fee (for leasing the actual equipment) is more for an HR24 than it is for a client. So the upfront fee and the monthly fee are both more.*
> 
> I never said directv was in breach of contract. What I said was there is no way they're going to abandon the HR24 until they have something else for the HR24 users to move to. The existing HR24 customers are the highest paying residential customers, and the future HR24 customers are the ones who will pay the highest upfront costs for residential customers, then pay the highest monthly amounts as well. They're not going to just throw that away.
> 
> ...


I didn't realize DirecTV charged a DVR and WHDVR fee on top of the Advanced Receiver fee when you have additional DVRs - that's highway robbery. I know when I had two HR24s, I had the HD fee waived and just had the DVR+WH fee which was like $10/mo. Seems they've changed their tune there. I think we can both agree though that you are NOT getting the same functionality for a client as you do an HR24. The client "borrows" a tuner from the Genie. A HR24 is an independent, dual tuner receiver. Regardless, you are still getting what you are paying for. There isn't a "youtube" fee that you are paying.

I also wasn't trying to imply that they are going to abandon the HR24, but I wouldn't expect much in the way of new features that don't have to do with DirecTV. As long as they are able to watch and record live TV, they are still perfectly functional receivers that do all they are originally intended on doing.

We'll probably never know WHY for certain, but I'd guess it had to do with some customer interest and differentiation at the time. If anyone knows when the app debuted, we could look at existing technology at the time. I don't think I'm that far off base with it being something that wasn't widely available in many devices aside from some more expensive DVD/Blu-ray players or media center computers, which would have made the addition make sense. Maybe you're right though and Google might try to get companies to start including it by sharing ad revenue or something.

As for other carriers - I can only comment on my cable company which deploys your standard "garbage" STBs that barely work as receivers, let alone offer anything in the way of additional features. It does look like the TiVo units offer the ability to install other apps, but we all know these are a cut above the rest in terms of quality and functionality.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> Exactly. Until we see churn based on the loss of this feature, we simply don't know if it really matters or not. I would say that those of us on these forums don't represent the interests or concerns of the vast majority of customers DirecTV has.
> 
> I didn't realize DirecTV charged a DVR and WHDVR fee on top of the Advanced Receiver fee when you have additional DVRs - that's highway robbery. I know when I had two HR24s, I had the HD fee waived and just had the DVR+WH fee which was like $10/mo. Seems they've changed their tune there. I think we can both agree though that you are NOT getting the same functionality for a client as you do an HR24. The client "borrows" a tuner from the Genie. A HR24 is an independent, dual tuner receiver. Regardless, you are still getting what you are paying for. There isn't a "youtube" fee that you are paying.
> 
> ...


I wasn't trying to imply that I'm not getting what I pay for. I probably wasn't very clear on that. I know there has never been a "youtube access" fee on my bill.

I'm just saying they won't abandon the HR24 until it has a replacement. So if they're talking about rolling out a new firmware that has a new youtube app, there is no way it will be a genie only thing.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> I wasn't trying to imply that I'm not getting what I pay for. I probably wasn't very clear on that. I know there has never been a "youtube access" fee on my bill.
> 
> I'm just saying they won't abandon the HR24 until it has a replacement. So if they're talking about rolling out a new firmware that has a new youtube app, *there is no way it will be a genie only thing*.


What about PIP? I don't believe there is any technical reason why this wouldn't work on an HR-24, yet it's a Genie-only feature.

If it does come back, it'll probably be a "next generation" receiver only type of feature, whatever that receiver may be.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> What about PIP? I don't believe there is any technical reason why this wouldn't work on an HR-24, yet it's a Genie-only feature.
> 
> If it does come back, it'll probably be a "next generation" receiver only type of feature, whatever that receiver may be.


Probably because PIP uses an extra tuner. With HR24s only having 2 tuners, someone probably made the call to skip that feature.

I agree that it might be a "next generation" receiver only thing. Where I disagree is when you don't count the HR24 as part of the next generation.

It's the latest and greatest for customers that have more than 1 DVR. It's the one directv is setting people up with if they order more than 1 DVR.

When directv releases a new receiver to replace the HR24, or they start letting people have more than 1 genie on their account, then it won't be the latest and greatest anymore. But right now it is, so it'd be nuts for directv to abandon it before they have a replacement.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Probably because PIP uses an extra tuner. With HR24s only having 2 tuners, someone probably made the call to skip that feature.
> 
> I agree that it might be a "next generation" receiver only thing. Where I disagree is when you don't count the HR24 as part of the next generation.
> 
> ...


It may not have a "replacement" yet, but that doesn't make it next gen equipment - we'll just agree to disagree on this

I have to question what you consider abandonment, however. If DirecTV released a new Youtube app that was only available on the receiver that replaces the HR44, you'd consider this DirecTV abandoning the HR44/HR34/HR24 line? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that DirecTV has abandoned a receiver when they no longer send it out as a replacement for failed receivers and not just when you can no longer lease them as new equipment?

I don't think I've seen a new feature on my H25 receiver since I got it, but I certainly don't consider it abandoned. For that matter - when was the last time DirecTV added anything to their TiVo receivers? Just because it isn't actively receiving new features doesn't mean it's abandoned.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

rmmccann said:


> ......
> 
> I didn't realize DirecTV charged a DVR and WHDVR fee on top of the Advanced Receiver fee when you have additional DVRs - that's highway robbery. I know when I had two HR24s, I had the HD fee waived and just had the DVR+WH fee which was like $10/mo. Seems they've changed their tune there. I think we can both agree though that you are NOT getting the same functionality for a client as you do an HR24. The client "borrows" a tuner from the Genie. A HR24 is an independent, dual tuner receiver. Regardless, you are still getting what you are paying for. There isn't a "youtube" fee that you are paying.
> ......


They do not charge you any different for a genie than they do for a hr24. I don't know why he insinuates having a genie costs more than having a hr24.

The only time you could even try and make that argument is if you have been a customer for over 3 years and are going to a genie, and you did not have MRV before. They will then require that to be on the account. Back in the day they mde that an add on fee, but over three years ago they rolled that (and rightly so) into the simple DVR fee. However, that still comes out to $2 cheaper than what the current regular all encompassing price for having any dvr is today.

There just isn't any difference at all in having a genie or non genie dvr if you have an account with mrv on it. Doesn't matter when you got your account.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> No, I pay the genie advanced receiver fee for my genie, plus I pay the dvr fee for the HR24s, plus the extra receiver fee, and the whole home dvr fee. The client would not have that extra dvr fee. So the HR24 does cost extra. Plus, as I pointed out, the upfront fee (for leasing the actual equipment) is more for an HR24 than it is for a client. So the upfront fee and the monthly fee are both more......


You will need to spell out what you think those fees are because they do not charge a genie fee, never have never will. There must be something wrong with your bill.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> It may not have a "replacement" yet, but that doesn't make it next gen equipment - we'll just agree to disagree on this
> 
> I have to question what you consider abandonment, however. If DirecTV released a new Youtube app that was only available on the receiver that replaces the HR44, you'd consider this DirecTV abandoning the HR44/HR34/HR24 line? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that DirecTV has abandoned a receiver when they no longer send it out as a replacement for failed receivers and not just when you can no longer lease them as new equipment?
> 
> I don't think I've seen a new feature on my H25 receiver since I got it, but I certainly don't consider it abandoned. For that matter - when was the last time DirecTV added anything to their TiVo receivers? Just because it isn't actively receiving new features doesn't mean it's abandoned.


Yes, I would consider that abandoning the HR44/HR34/HR24 if they released a firmware update that added YouTube to a newer receiver but did not release it on those receivers.

If the receiver is capable of rubbing the new firmware, but directv refuses to release it, then they've abandoned that receiver.

You may not have seen a new feature on the H25, but I doubt you saw other receivers get new firmware that added features the H25 was capable of getting. And if you did see other receivers get new features that the H25 did not get, you had an upgrade path to get the new receiver.

That's my point here. There is no way directv will say "we're done with the HR24, no more updates on it, stop all development for it and make a bunch of new features for this other receiver" unless they allow HR24 customers to upgrade to that other receiver. They may still charge for the upgrade, but there needs to be a way to upgrade before you cease all development on it.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> They do not charge you any different for a genie than they do for a hr24. I don't know why he insinuates having a genie costs more than having a hr24.
> 
> The only time you could even try and make that argument is if you have been a customer for over 3 years and are going to a genie, and you did not have MRV before. They will then require that to be on the account. Back in the day they mde that an add on fee, but over three years ago they rolled that (and rightly so) into the simple DVR fee. However, that still comes out to $2 cheaper than what the current regular all encompassing price for having any dvr is today.
> 
> There just isn't any difference at all in having a genie or non genie dvr if you have an account with mrv on it. Doesn't matter when you got your account.


I did not say I paid more for a genie than for an HR24. I said I paid the same. I said the HR24 costs more than a client.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You will need to spell out what you think those fees are because they do not charge a genie fee, never have never will. There must be something wrong with your bill.


Yes there is a genie fee. It's called advanced receiver fee or something like that.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> On the Android phone analogy, as you said, the HTML5 gui is likely to require less resources than the current gui. Someone else pointed out that genies can do RVU while the HR24s can't, and implied that was an indication that HR24s weren't capable of an HTML5 gui. I was just pointing out that the 2 things aren't related. If the processor, storage, and memory are insufficient, that would be one thing. But it's pretty hard to argue that unless we know exactly what is required, and also know what is in the HR24s currently. But as we both agree, the requirements for an HTML5 gui are likely to be even less than the current gui.
> 
> I don't know if SD receivers are cheaper anymore, but I know they used to be. Do they even have SD receivers anymore? HR24s cost more than genie clients though, so it's definitely not a case of a receiver is a receiver. My HR24s cost me just as much as my genie (got all of them at the same time).
> 
> ...


Why do you think a graphics based system would require less processor and memory than a text based one? I am very curios about this. It has more calculations to do and scaling to do.... At least if they do it right and giuve us mutlipel sizes for things like the grid guide and such.

And my point on the fact that the genie does so much more is to show it obviously has a different class of processor to handle all these additional things. That tells you that is has a better base of computational power to do more in the first place. That is how those two things are related.

The new chips have far better specs, including channel changing time and graphics abilities than the ones that are in the two tuner boxes.

I can't understand why you think that just because the hr24 is the latest generation of 2 tuner receivers why it needs to be kept current with anything the genies do, especially knowing they don't have the same physical processors and therefore can't handle the same loads of the firmware. That won;t make the non genies old and left behind. That just maxes them mature. There is NOTHING wrong with them simply being mature.

That's kind of like saying that Apple and android phones no matter when they where designed and built should all have the same gui forever, no matter what type of architecture they where built on.

Personally, I think we will see multiple geneis allowed when several overlaying factors get worked out. If you look at the direction they are going, eventually they will no longer have any hr2xs left to give out and they will have no choice to have multiple genies or some other type of solution (add on genie slave box maybe?) because they will not abandon that market. However, Youtube is something they don't need to keep on all boxes, its not a big enough deal to make it available on machines that aren't the latest.

What I really don't understand is why you seem insistent that not moving the hr2xs to a new gui if the genies get a new gui means they are killing them off. They wont kill off non genies for 15 years or more. They wont hand them out nearly that long, but that's two different things. Not getting new features and guis doesn't mean they have been killed off... Your argument on that to me falls flat in that they already have things the genie can do that aren't only there because its also an rvu machine. Again, Ill point at genie recommends, team searches, etc, to show that. The split between the abilities of genies and non genies happened ages ago...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I wasn't trying to imply that I'm not getting what I pay for. I probably wasn't very clear on that. I know there has never been a "youtube access" fee on my bill.
> 
> I'm just saying they won't abandon the HR24 until it has a replacement. So if they're talking about rolling out a new firmware that has a new youtube app, there is no way it will be a genie only thing.


But simply doing new firmware wont get you the youtube app. It'd need to be a new gui from the ground up.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Probably because PIP uses an extra tuner. With HR24s only having 2 tuners, someone probably made the call to skip that feature.
> 
> I agree that it might be a "next generation" receiver only thing. Where I disagree is when you don't count the HR24 as part of the next generation.
> 
> ...


Actually, as I recall, the chip in the genies specifically states it can do PIP, and I don't believe any of the chip's in the non genies say they can do PIP. Its not a simple matter of how many tuners it uses, its if the chip can support it. Just look at the hr20 and hr21 and newer. The hr20 was built with a chip that could NOT support 3d. The newer ones where. So the hr20 did not receiver 3d ever, it wasn't capable.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I did not say I paid more for a genie than for an HR24. I said I paid the same. I said the HR24 costs more than a client.


Are you talking monthly or upfront? Because monthly they cost the same... Upfront they may or may not be different depending on your account, when you get it etc...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Yes, I would consider that abandoning the HR44/HR34/HR24 if they released a firmware update that added YouTube to a newer receiver but did not release it on those receivers.
> 
> If the receiver is capable of rubbing the new firmware, but directv refuses to release it, then they've abandoned that receiver.
> 
> ...


If you had to create a new gui from the ground up, would you do it to the newest generation of your platform and the one that will be with you going forward, or that AND ALSO again a second time from the ground up for a platform that you no longer produce new, and are simply keeping because its out there and your not going to arbitrarily replace it. One that has a lot of features many are happy with, and is mature? Add to the fact that it likely doesn't have the computing power at all to handle the new gui you are going to bring along. And where do you draw the line if some two tuners could do it, and some couldn't? At a place where its clearly a major difference (genie vs non genie) or where its going to confuse people.. (some models of the hr2x can do it, some cant) (granted I dont believe any of them can physically do anything html 5 based.

Thyere is no question that the frmware in the genies and non genies is differnt from the ground up, they have an entirely differnt system on how they are used internally.

You know, look at tivo. They did not add HTML till just a few years ago, and they did not bring that gui to all their older machines, they brought out new machines for that software. Why do you think they did that?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Yes there is a genie fee. It's called advanced receiver fee or something like that.


No, that is not a genie fee.

Old accounts (older than feb 2012 as I recall) you see a dvr fee for $10 AND a mrv fee for $3 if you have a dvr with MRV or a genie (which always has to have mrv in this case.)

If you got your account after feb 2012 then you had an advanced receiver fee for $15. It was the new name for the dvr and mrv fee rolled into one fee. That's it. They are the exact same, they just changed the name of it, and made it an even $15 for new customers, saving the older customers some money.

There also used to be a hd fee (pre feb 2012), then it was the hd advanced receiver fee (feb 2012 thru july 2014), and now it doesn't exists at all(post july 2014), but for those who don't have that fee at all, they pay the $6.50 for all boxes, including the first one.

If you where a new customer between Feb 2012 and July 2014, and got from the begining HD and DVR then I believe the fee showed up as one line called advancedd reciever fee for $25.

No matter how you slice it, it all came out the same with different names for the dvr fee.. (older customers saved $2 on the dvr fee)

There has never been a separate and new fee for genies. You wont have a genie fee as well as a dvr fee, that doesn't exist. Its the same fee.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Are you talking monthly or upfront? Because monthly they cost the same... Upfront they may or may not be different depending on your account, when you get it etc...


I'm talking about both monthly and upfront. Genies and HR24s cost the same, clients cost less.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> No, that is not a genie fee.
> 
> Old accounts (older than feb 2012 as I recall) you see a dvr fee for $10 AND a mrv fee for $3 if you have a dvr with MRV or a genie (which always has to have mrv in this case.)
> 
> ...


I have a separate DVR fee and advanced receiver fee.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I have a separate DVR fee and advanced receiver fee.


Then that separate advanced receiver fee is for hd service. Either that or you are getting totally screwed and have a major glitch.

No matter how you add it up, if you have had service since before July of 2014, and have a dvr and hd and mrv, (genie or non genies in your system), you should be paying a total of 23 or 25 for all the advanced/dvr/mrv/hd fees, no matter what they are all called on your bill. If you are paying something different, then Id call and get it figured out.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I'm talking about both monthly and upfront. Genies and HR24s cost the same, clients coast less.


Well outlet fees for all three are the same, $6.50 a month, one box in the system is free if you are older than July 2015, all boxes have the fee if its newer than July 2015.

Upfront, it really just depends, there's too many scenarios to say one costs and the other doesn't. For new people, the HR2x cost if you have more than one room, but its free if you are doing one room, and yet in theory Genies cost if you are one room, but are free as are minis if you use more than one room.

If you have one of all and aren't in contract and want to add one, well other than not having two geneis, I imagine you could get a client of a hr2x for free if you talk to the right person. It should be that clients cost less generally, but with csr roulette, I think its to up in the air to make any real determination. And do not forget, wireless ones cost more to usually.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Well outlet fees for all three are the same, $6.50 a month, one box in the system is free if you are older than July 2015, all boxes have the fee if its newer than July 2015.
> 
> Upfront, it really just depends, there's too many scenarios to say one costs and the other doesn't. For new people, the HR2x cost if you have more than one room, but its free if you are doing one room, and yet in theory Genies cost if you are one room, but are free as are minis if you use more than one room.
> 
> If you have one of all and aren't in contract and want to add one, well other than not having two geneis, I imagine you could get a client of a hr2x for free if you talk to the right person. It should be that clients cost less generally, but with csr roulette, I think its to up in the air to make any real determination. And do not forget, wireless ones cost more to usually.


Okay, so put it like this...

Potential customer calls up and says "I want 7 HD DVRs."

Customer service will only let them get 1 genie no matter what they pay, so 6 of them will be HR24s.

Are those HR24s going to cost more or less than if they change their mind and say "Never mind, I'll just take 1 genie and 6 clients"?

The HR24s are going to cost considerably more than the clients, I think we can agree on that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> The HR24s are going to cost considerably more than the clients, I think we can agree on that.


Month one they will pay more to get DVRs than clients ... month two, they are all $6.50 receivers. The (now) $15 advanced receiver fee is the same whether they have clients or DVRs.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Exactly. The upfront costs will be high in that type of scenario, but after that, there is no difference. ETF would also be no different, but of course you're out that initial significant outlay.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

James Long said:


> Month one they will pay more to get DVRs than clients ... month two, they are all $6.50 receivers. The (now) $15 advanced receiver fee is the same whether they have clients or DVRs.


Again, I have the advanced receiver fee plus a DVR fee, and a whole home fee.

In any case, you seem to at least agree that the DVRs cost more up front. So then you agree the customers with DVRs are the highest paying customers.

Now tell me, what company would go out of their way to screw their highest paying customers?

Someone mentioned Apple not supporting old devices. That's true, but Apple is more than happy to sell them a new device. Not only that, but they still support devices for many years after they're sold. You don't buy an iPhone today and find out in a couple months that it won't get the latest OS upgrade. And as we've established, Directv is still pushing HR24s to their highest paying customers today.

Now if there was an alternative, something else we could upgrade to, then I could see that happening. But there's just no way any reputable company will continue selling a device, with no alternative to choose a different device, when they have no intention of supporting that device.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> Again, I have the advanced receiver fee plus a DVR fee, and a whole home fee.


Again, if the grand total of those fees is greater than $25 with HD you have something wrong with your bill.
Otherwise you simply subscribed at a time when the fees were broken out instead of at a time where DirecTV simply charged a $25 advanced receiver fee for all of the above plus HD. Grandfathered.



BlackDynamite said:


> In any case, you seem to at least agree that the DVRs cost more up front. So then you agree the customers with DVRs are the highest paying customers.


The highest paying customers are the one's who keep paying more. Theoretically one could get a Genie and six DVRs and subscribe to Select. Or one could get a Genie and six clients and subscribe to Premier plus Sunday Ticket and the other single sports packages. Who is paying DirecTV more?

If you bought DVRs instead of clients DirecTV already has your money ... they are not going to get a penny more out of you by making the DVRs you already own better. If anything the extra money you paid DirecTV for DVR commits you more to DirecTV. It is harder to walk away after paying more for your initial equipment. The extra money does not buy extra commitment FROM DirecTV.



BlackDynamite said:


> Now if there was an alternative, something else we could upgrade to, then I could see that happening. But there's just no way any reputable company will continue selling a device, with no alternative to choose a different device, when they have no intention of supporting that device.


Support ends once there is a better device. Not immediately ... but there will come a day when regardless of how much a customer paid to get a HR24 DirecTV will stick out their hand and ask for more money to upgrade to the next wiz-bang receiver. And people will pay. Because just like with the iPhone, they are driven to have "the latest and the best" regardless of cost.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Okay, so put it like this...
> 
> Potential customer calls up and says "I want 7 HD DVRs."
> 
> ...


Well sure, but that's an insane amount of rooms and dvrs in the first place. I doubt they have many customers ever ask for that upfront. Heck most those types of installs are probably sold by custom installers while they are setting up an entire house, making those costs a small part of a massive system. And while that would cost more with all those dvrs, they'd have to pay some for that many clients too.

The vast majority of people have one, maybe two dvrs.. Not three four or seven... Which is why a genie and minis suits the needs of the vast vast majority of people.

But yeah, if you are getting far more than a normal amount (anything beyond a four room is defently more than normal, especially that many dvrs since you are close to having issues at that point)

Many people would go with whats the cheapest, and then if needed ask for free upgrades over time too...

But yeah, if you want seven rooms upfront, of course getting more dvrs will cost more than clients. Unless maybe you take a mix and they cut you a great deal. I doubt it, but heck, you never know.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

James Long said:


> Again, if the grand total of those fees is greater than $25 with HD you have something wrong with your bill.
> Otherwise you simply subscribed at a time when the fees were broken out instead of at a time where DirecTV simply charged a $25 advanced receiver fee for all of the above plus HD. Grandfathered.


I didn't get the advanced receiver fee until I got a genie.



James Long said:


> The highest paying customers are the one's who keep paying more. Theoretically one could get a Genie and six DVRs and subscribe to Select. Or one could get a Genie and six clients and subscribe to Premier plus Sunday Ticket and the other single sports packages. Who is paying DirecTV more?


Lol, no. The highest paying customers are the ones who give Directv the most money. If someone spends $2000 their first month and then only spends $50 per month for the remainder of their 2 years, that's still $3150. Someone else who spends nothing up front but pays $120 every month is only paying $2880. I don't think it's possible to only pay $50 per month if you have a bunch of DVRs, but the point is even in that extreme circumstance, they'd still be the higher paying customer.



James Long said:


> If you bought DVRs instead of clients DirecTV already has your money ... they are not going to get a penny more out of you by making the DVRs you already own better. If anything the extra money you paid DirecTV for DVR commits you more to DirecTV. It is harder to walk away after paying more for your initial equipment. The extra money does not buy extra commitment FROM DirecTV.


 If you really think paying more money doesn't buy extra commitment from a company, don't ever go into business management. Paying more absolutely does buy extra commitment from just about any successful business. And if you pay it all in one lump sum, in advance, that's even better.



James Long said:


> Support ends once there is a better device. Not immediately ... but there will come a day when regardless of how much a customer paid to get a HR24 DirecTV will stick out their hand and ask for more money to upgrade to the next wiz-bang receiver. And people will pay. Because just like with the iPhone, they are driven to have "the latest and the best" regardless of cost.


 I agree, support ends when there is a better device. The point is, there is not a better device right now. If Directv was willing to sell someone a bunch of Genies, then I'd agree that support for older devices will likely end. But when Directv says the only option is to get a bunch of HR24s, then they better be willing to support those receivers until they're ready to sell something else.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Well sure, but that's an insane amount of rooms and dvrs in the first place. I doubt they have many customers ever ask for that upfront. Heck most those types of installs are probably sold by custom installers while they are setting up an entire house, making those costs a small part of a massive system. And while that would cost more with all those dvrs, they'd have to pay some for that many clients too.
> 
> The vast majority of people have one, maybe two dvrs.. Not three four or seven... Which is why a genie and minis suits the needs of the vast vast majority of people.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree. Most people will go for the cheaper option. But it doesn't change the fact that these customers are the highest paying. And any company worth anything world be very foolish to just throw away their highest paying customers.

More likely, they'd say "These guys obviously pay top dollar for the latest and greatest, so let's give them and upgrade path and soak them for another 2 grand in upgrade fees." They wouldn't simply say "we're done with your receiver and we don't want to let you upgrade. You can either stay with us or go get the latest and greatest from our competition."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> I didn't get the advanced receiver fee until I got a genie.


It is not all about you. You got your equipment long enough ago that you are not paying current new customer pricing. You are grandfathered.

Today's new customers get hit up with an advanced receiver fee as soon as they get a DVR and it is the same fee that people who get a Genie pay. It is also the same monthly fee that a person with a Genie and six DVRs would pay - one advanced receiver fee per account.



BlackDynamite said:


> Lol, no. The highest paying customers are the ones who give Directv the most money.


You are ignoring the tense. What you just wrote is correct --- paying customers give money. But you seem to want credit for money already given in the past. The highest paying (current and future paying) customers are not those who gave ... it is those who continue to give.



BlackDynamite said:


> If Directv was willing to sell someone a bunch of Genies, then I'd agree that support for older devices will likely end.


A bunch leads to problems with SWM ... but more than one would be an improvement. And as SWM capacity expands more than one becomes more likely.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

James Long said:


> It is not all about you. You got your equipment long enough ago that you are not paying current new customer pricing. You are grandfathered.


I'm not sure how this is even relevant? I'm still paying more than I would be if I'd only got a genie and a bunch of clients instead of a genie and a bunch of DVRs.



James Long said:


> Today's new customers get hit up with an advanced receiver fee as soon as they get a DVR and it is the same fee that people who get a Genie pay. It is also the same monthly fee that a person with a Genie and six DVRs would pay - one advanced receiver fee per account.


I disagree, but I'll concede the point anyway since it doesn't matter. We all agree that DVRs cost more up front.



James Long said:


> You are ignoring the tense. What you just wrote is correct --- paying customers give money. But you seem to want credit for money already given in the past. The highest paying (current and future paying) customers are not those who gave ... it is those who continue to give.


Wait, so what you're implying is a business would rather get less money overall if it's spread out in installments? They wouldn't prefer to get more money overall, and they wouldn't prefer to get it in one lump sum payment up front?

I'm not sure what you're basing that opinion on, but you can be absolutely sure any business out there would definitely prefer to have all the money up front, and they'd definitely prefer to have more overall.

If they get both of those things, it's a home run. And if they do get both of those things, the last thing they'll want to do is tempt that customer to start exploring the competition. Not to mention someone who spends the extra money upfront is also more likely to pay the higher monthly fees for better programming as well.

Imagine you're buying a house, and they tell you how much the mortgage will be by the time you've paid it off. You then tell the mortgage company "I'll just pay cash right now, and I'll pay that full 30 year payoff amount, not just the cash asking price of the house." You're basically saying they'd rather spread that out over the length of the contract than have it all upfront. Scratch that, you're actually saying they'd rather take even less money as long as it's spread out over the length of the contract.

I can guarantee you, that mortgage company would absolutely not say "We normally give out a free steak dinner with every new mortgage. But we recently decided to only give those out for addresses that end in odd numbers, so you don't get one." Heck no. They'd probably say "We give out a free steak dinner with every mortgage, but we're going to give you 10 of them. Tell all your friends about us, and come see us next time you need a mortgage."

And, again, someone who spends top dollar to put a DVR in every room is more likely to spend more on programming than the next guy who just took what he could get installed for free. So actually, the guy who spends more upfront is probably also the guy who spends more per month.



James Long said:


> A bunch leads to problems with SWM ... but more than one would be an improvement. And as SWM capacity expands more than one becomes more likely.


SWM capacity is not and has never been the issue. I have 2 SWM 16s and I still can't get 2 genies. My understanding in the beginning was the billing systems could not handle more than 1 genie per account, maybe something about the advanced receiver fee. I don't know if that was true or not, but that was what someone told me at the time.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Any issue with the Genie is not because of the billing system. There wouldn't be any difference billing wise between two genies and one genie and one dvr.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

What does any of this discussion have to do with YouTube? YouTube changed their format. DirecTV receivers, regardless of the model, were never designed with YouTube as a priority. In fact, I am willing to bet that the vast majority of DirecTV customers never knew that YouTube was available before, and they certainly will not have noticed or cared that it is no longer available. The fact that DirecTV DVRs could show YouTube was a low overhead extra that is not central to DirecTV's business. Now that YouTube has changed their format, and the new format requires more processing power than the old format, why should DirecTV cripple the old boxes even more than they already are by trying to force the new YouTube to run on processers that were not designed for that function in the first place? Why should DirecTV even waste programming time to keep up with third party changes that are not core to DirecTV's business?

What is so difficult to understand about the processers in the HR24 and the HR44 being different? What is so difficult to understand about YouTube not being a priority for DirecTV? I suspect that eventually, all of the HR24s will be retired. By the time that happens, there most likely will be another option to have more than a 5 tuner DVR. I doubt that will be an upgraded two tuner DVR or multiple HR44s on the same install. More likely, there will be a third option that we have not seen, yet. I think the new option will have 4K capability, but I am not sure, nor do I care whether the new option has restored YouTube. I am not paying DirecTV for YouTube, and I certainly will not be paying YouTube for a commercial free version of YouTube. YouTube was a nice-to-have extra while it lasted, but YouTube changed the rules, and now it is gone. End of story.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rmmccann said:


> Until we see churn based on the loss of this feature, we simply don't know if it really matters or not.


Unfortunately, because of ETFs, you don't get particularly quick feedback.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> No matter how you add it up, if you have had service since before July of 2014, and have a dvr and hd and mrv, (genie or non genies in your system), you should be paying a total of 23 or 25 for all the advanced/dvr/mrv/hd fees, no matter what they are all called on your bill.


Keep this in mind next time you feel compelled to argue that various services are no longer charged for.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

BlackDynamite said:


> Lol, no. The highest paying customers are the ones who give Directv the most money. If someone spends $2000 their first month and then only spends $50 per month for the remainder of their 2 years, that's still $3150. Someone else who spends nothing up front but pays $120 every month is only paying $2880. I don't think it's possible to only pay $50 per month if you have a bunch of DVRs, but the point is even in that extreme circumstance, they'd still be the higher paying customer.


I'm only quoting this part because I have a question for the group regarding subscriber costs: What is the total cost to DirecTV to install a new customer? When you consider how much a customer is worth, you have to take into account what it cost you to "win" them.

I'd guess even though you paid more money up front that your installation was significantly more expensive than the guy who gets a Genie, 2 clients and subscribes to premier. You need a SWM32, 6 HR-24s, and a Genie. He just needs a standard SWM8, Genie and 3 clients. It's going to take a few more months of service just to break even on your install vs his.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

harsh said:


> Unfortunately, because of ETFs, you don't get particularly quick feedback.


That's true. Considering ETF it'd be cheaper for most subscribers to pick up a Roku or similar device if Youtube is THAT important to them.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> That's true. Considering ETF it'd be cheaper for most subscribers to pick up a Roku or similar device if Youtube is THAT important to them.


Not only that, but most of the streamers have a much better UI than D*'s had. My Fire TV boxes and my Sammy BD players still have YT on them. Don't use it on them, but they're there and the UI is better than D* had. Meanwhile, my dopey smart Panny plasma has lost YT.

Rich
'


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I'm not sure how this is even relevant? I'm still paying more than I would be if I'd only got a genie and a bunch of clients instead of a genie and a bunch of DVRs.
> 
> ........


You are not paying more monthly... But it sounds like you think you are the way you phrased that.

As for how you acquired all those DVRs vs clients in terms of upfront costs that just depends on how you did it. I thought you have been around a long time, in which case you probably had something other than all the DVRs you have now ages ago. People I know who had other stuff years ago all upgraded slowly and never paid for all their new stuff, they just upgraded as needed and got everything for free. Did you not do that? Many people got free upgrades from SD equipment and hr10-250 etc...

And I would imagine most people who need to start off with seven DVRs probably generally more well off and don't care about the price of any of it because they live in giant houses and don't even consider these conversations we have here abut pricing.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> Keep this in mind next time you feel compelled to argue that various services are no longer charged for.


You get it all for one fee. Period. They do not charge separately for different services anymore. Stop it. Just stop it. You will never be correct on that.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I don't think billing would be an issue for multiple genies, I have a feeling they are already prepared for that. Swim is an issue. While it can be done with what they have now, it's not efficient. The swim13 lnb shows hope. I think that is a big deal. DIRECTV does not want to be installing more expensive swim16 all the time and get back to running four wires to a switch. I think once we see a bigger swim in general availability we will be more likely to start seeing multiple genies allowed. 

Personally I hope slices guess is right and that they can produce and bring to market a swim22. That would be great. But I am starting to wonder if we won't see a "slave genie" that was an add on piece to a genie for more tuners and recording space that was directly controlled by a single genie.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Sorry but disagree that billing isn't the major issue. They have the problem where the Genie accounting system can't enforce the RVU client counts.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

RAD said:


> Sorry but disagree that billing isn't the major issue. They have the problem where the Genie accounting system can't enforce the RVU client counts.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


I would think is more in the software of the Genie rather than billing. Pair clients 1,2 and 3 with Genie #1 and pair clients 4,5 6 with Genie #2. Not a toss up the way it is now....


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

peds48 said:


> I would think is more in the software of the Genie rather than billing. Pair clients 1,2 and 3 with Genie #1 and pair clients 4,5 6 with Genie #2. Not a toss up the way it is now....


The Genie's would need to verify back to the billing system the number, type and MAC address of the clients authorized on the account to enforce the client license issue, so 1/2 code in the Genie and 1/2 in the back end code.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

RAD said:


> The Genie's would need to verify back to the billing system the number, type and MAC address of the clients authorized on the account to enforce the client license issue, so 1/2 code in the Genie and 1/2 in the back end code.


Why not extend the functionality of the WHDVR naming system? When you set up a genie client, select which Genie you want by its "friendly" name in WH - ie "Living Room" or "AV Rack Genie". Then you can manually load balance however you want. It could even have a number next to it indicating in use and free slots (0/3, 1/3, 2/3, 3/3).


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rmmccann said:


> Why not extend the functionality of the WHDVR naming system? When you set up a genie client, select which Genie you want by its "friendly" name in WH - ie "Living Room" or "AV Rack Genie". Then you can manually load balance however you want. It could even have a number next to it indicating in use and free slots (0/3, 1/3, 2/3, 3/3).


A long time ago the friendly name did show up on the server selection screens, they got rid of it.

DIRECTV doesn't care about load balancing, what they care about is someone not having more clients active then what they are paying for. Right now if you have two Genie's you could have four clients for example, but pay for only two by having two connect to one Genie and the other two to the other. That's lost revenue to DIRECTV and until they can handle that accounting they're not going to allow multiple Genie's IMHO.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

To expand further, when you activate a client license, a signal foes out to all genies in your account telling the genie how many clients to allow. So if you activate 3 clients, all genies would get the signal to allow three clients. If you were to have 3 genies that means that you can have up to 9 clients while only paying for 3.

You ask, well DIRECTV® install clients in your home, don't forget you can get clients from a third party dealer.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

RAD said:


> A long time ago the friendly name did show up on the server selection screens, they got rid of it.
> 
> DIRECTV doesn't care about load balancing, what they care about is someone not having more clients active then what they are paying for. Right now if you have two Genie's you could have four clients for example, but pay for only two by having two connect to one Genie and the other two to the other. That's lost revenue to DIRECTV and until they can handle that accounting they're not going to allow multiple Genie's IMHO.





peds48 said:


> To expand further, when you activate a client license, a signal foes out to all genies in your account telling the genie how many clients to allow. So if you activate 3 clients, all genies would get the signal to allow three clients. If you were to have 3 genies that means that you can have up to 9 clients while only paying for 3.
> 
> You ask, well DIRECTV® install clients in your home, don't forget you can get clients from a third party dealer.


Sounds like the exact reason why multiple Genies per account is not allowed. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> To expand further, when you activate a client license, a signal foes out to all genies in your account telling the genie how many clients to allow. So if you activate 3 clients, all genies would get the signal to allow three clients. If you were to have 3 genies that means that you can have up to 9 clients while only paying for 3.
> 
> You ask, well DIRECTV® install clients in your home, don't forget you can get clients from a third party dealer.


Perhaps they need to move to a system where the clients are individually authorized ... activate them like normal receivers with receiver IDs. For software clients there should be some way to identify the one device that can use that license. Or send a list of clients to the Genies on your account and say "you can talk to these devices".


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You are not paying more monthly... But it sounds like you think you are the way you phrased that.
> 
> As for how you acquired all those DVRs vs clients in terms of upfront costs that just depends on how you did it. I thought you have been around a long time, in which case you probably had something other than all the DVRs you have now ages ago. People I know who had other stuff years ago all upgraded slowly and never paid for all their new stuff, they just upgraded as needed and got everything for free. Did you not do that? Many people got free upgrades from SD equipment and hr10-250 etc...
> 
> And I would imagine most people who need to start off with seven DVRs probably generally more well off and don't care about the price of any of it because they live in giant houses and don't even consider these conversations we have here abut pricing.


Yes, I've been around for a while. I had an HR21 and a few SD DVRs. I bought a house and moved a couple years ago. I bit the bullet and upgraded when I moved. I tried to get all genies, but they said there was a limit of 1 per account. I ended up with 1 genie and 6 HR24s.


inkahauts said:


> I don't think billing would be an issue for multiple genies, I have a feeling they are already prepared for that. Swim is an issue. While it can be done with what they have now, it's not efficient. The swim13 lnb shows hope. I think that is a big deal. DIRECTV does not want to be installing more expensive swim16 all the time and get back to running four wires to a switch. I think once we see a bigger swim in general availability we will be more likely to start seeing multiple genies allowed.
> 
> Personally I hope slices guess is right and that they can produce and bring to market a swim22. That would be great. But I am starting to wonder if we won't see a "slave genie" that was an add on piece to a genie for more tuners and recording space that was directly controlled by a single genie.


The SWM is not the issue. If that were the case, then they wouldn't let you get a bunch of DVRs with 2 SWM 16s either. It doesn't make sense for them to say "We won't let you get these DVRs because they require expensive SWM units, but we'll let you get these other DVRs which require the very same expensive SWM units."


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

mkdtv21 said:


> The big main tv we use only has 3 hdmi inputs one being used for the HR34, the others for the dvd/vcr player and the video game console. When I need to use the blu-ray player or the Roku I have to unhook one of the other devices to use them. From what I've read Hdmi switches are expensive and unreliable so I don't have plans to get one. I have no choice but to have the dvd/vcr player hooked in as the main player instead of the blu-ray because my parents are old and still like to watch old vhs tapes and can't see the difference between blu-ray and dvd. We aren't the richest of people so we can't have all this elaborate set ups. My dad always used the youtube on the Directv box all the time to watch stuff now he doesn't use it all even though I tell him he can use it on the Roku because it requires me setting it up for him since he doesn't know how to set it up himself. You just just have to look at real world situations for all different people. I'm just saying for my situation with my family it was very important to have youtube available on the Directv boxes. My dad would never want to use a laptop or a fancy remote to control different things.


I have an HDMI switch in my bedroom because my TV has only two HDMI inputs, but I have a Roku 3, an HR24 DVR, and a DVD player, so two inputs wasn't enough. I bought an HDMI switch that {a} wasn't expensive at all, and {b} works perfectly and seamlessly. You should have no problem with one.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> Perhaps they need to move to a system where the clients are individually authorized ... activate them like normal receivers with receiver IDs. For software clients there should be some way to identify the one device that can use that license. Or send a list of clients to the Genies on your account and say "you can talk to these devices".


They could just use the MAC address since both mini clients or RVU clients have that and the DIRECTV back end systems for clients already have a spot for that info.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RAD said:


> They could just use the MAC address since both mini clients or RVU clients have that and the DIRECTV back end systems for clients already have a spot for that info.


Which is why this isn't an issue. The backend is already there they just haven't implemented it yet. And to make life easy why would they for anyone who only has one genie? Once they have someone with two genies, force them to register each clients MAC address and then all genies on the account will only allow a client to connect if it's not maxed with clients and the MAC address is approved. Store all MAC addresses in every genie in the account. Done and done. I just don't see that being an issue.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Yes, I've been around for a while. I had an HR21 and a few SD DVRs. I bought a house and moved a couple years ago. I bit the bullet and upgraded when I moved. I tried to get all genies, but they said there was a limit of 1 per account. I ended up with 1 genie and 6 HR24s.
> The SWM is not the issue. If that were the case, then they wouldn't let you get a bunch of DVRs with 2 SWM 16s either. It doesn't make sense for them to say "We won't let you get these DVRs because they require expensive SWM units, but we'll let you get these other DVRs which require the very same expensive SWM units."


If all you have is two boxes you can use a swim lnb as long as only one is genie. The minute you have two genies even if all you have is two genies then you have more complex system with a swim16 that costs twice or more to install both parts and labor. I wouldn't undercut that cost.

The day we see a swim 13 or 32 lnb those costs drop tremendously.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> Which is why this isn't an issue. The backend is already there they just haven't implemented it yet. And to make life easy why would they for anyone who only has one genie? Once they have someone with two genies, force them to register each clients MAC address and then all genies on the account will only allow a client to connect if it's not maxed with clients and the MAC address is approved. Store all MAC addresses in every genie in the account. Done and done. I just don't see that being an issue.


It is an issue if the Genie's can't use that information to sync between themselves which Genie has which clients active, so it's still an issue.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> If all you have is two boxes you can use a swim lnb as long as only one is genie. The minute you have two genies even if all you have is two genies then you have more complex system with a swim16 that costs twice or more to install both parts and labor. I wouldn't undercut that cost.
> 
> The day we see a swim 13 or 32 lnb those costs drop tremendously.


If that were the issue, then they'd just charge more for that second genie. Or at the very least, they'd let people who already have the right SWM equipment get more genies.

I could replace 4 of my HR24s with genies and not change anything else, and it would work fine. I could probably change 5 of them with no issues. Just take out the HR24, connect the genie in its place, good to go.

The fact that they won't let me do that leads me to believe the SWM install isn't the problem.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> I have an HDMI switch in my bedroom because my TV has only two HDMI inputs, but I have a Roku 3, an HR24 DVR, and a DVD player, so two inputs wasn't enough. I bought an HDMI switch that {a} wasn't expensive at all, and {b} works perfectly and seamlessly. You should have no problem with one.


It can get even better if you get one of those switches that automatically switches to the active source.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Which is why this isn't an issue. The backend is already there they just haven't implemented it yet. And to make life easy why would they for anyone who only has one genie? Once they have someone with two genies, force them to register each clients MAC address and then all genies on the account will only allow a client to connect if it's not maxed with clients and the MAC address is approved. Store all MAC addresses in every genie in the account. Done and done. I just don't see that being an issue.


That is the rub, you can get away without registering one.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> The SWM is not the issue. If that were the case, then they wouldn't let you get a bunch of DVRs with 2 SWM 16s either. It doesn't make sense for them to say "We won't let you get these DVRs because they require expensive SWM units, but we'll let you get these other DVRs which require the very same expensive SWM units."


To run 7 genies requires 4 SWM16s as compared to two with the set up you've now. Times that for a few million an edit adds up......


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

RAD said:


> It is an issue if the Genie's can't use that information to sync between themselves which Genie has which clients active, so it's still an issue.


Right on!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

peds48 said:


> It can get even better if you get one of those switches that automatically switches to the active source.


I don't doubt it. I use a Harmony remote, so every time I select an activity--watch TV, watch Roku, or watch DVD, the Harmony selects the corresponding HDMI input, and because of the switch, it shows the active source.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> If that were the issue, then they'd just charge more for that second genie. Or at the very least, they'd let people who already have the right SWM equipment get more genies.
> 
> I could replace 4 of my HR24s with genies and not change anything else, and it would work fine. I could probably change 5 of them with no issues. Just take out the HR24, connect the genie in its place, good to go.
> 
> The fact that they won't let me do that leads me to believe the SWM install isn't the problem.


5 is a stretch...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> I don't doubt it. I use a Harmony remote, so every time I select an activity--watch TV, watch Roku, or watch DVD, the Harmony selects the corresponding HDMI input, and because of the switch, it shows the active source.


You got that best of both worlds...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BlackDynamite said:


> The fact that they won't let me do that leads me to believe the SWM install isn't the problem.


The simple answer may be that they don't want you to have more than one. 
Especially if you are willing to pay for DVRs to get additional tuners/recorders on your system.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RAD said:


> It is an issue if the Genie's can't use that information to sync between themselves which Genie has which clients active, so it's still an issue.


The genies wouldn't need to be able to talk to each other about that. As long as every MAC address that was allowed was listed on each genie there wouldn't be a problem.

Example.

Pay for four clients. Two genies.

Enter all four MAC address into DIRECTV system. DIRECTV system sends all four authorized MAC address to both genies.

Each genie will allow up to four clients to be paired with it as long as they all have one of the MAC addresses it has stored that it knows are authorized.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> 5 is a stretch...


Why is 5 a stretch? 6 genies and 1 HR24 is 32 tuners, right? So 2 SWM 16s should be able to handle that.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> Why is 5 a stretch? 6 genies and 1 HR24 is 32 tuners, right? So 2 SWM 16s should be able to handle that.


A SWM16 can only handle 2 Genies.

6 Genies = 3 SWM16


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> A SWM16 can only handle 2 Genies.


Yep ... only 8 tuners per cable - five tuners on a Genie. Two genies on a cable would be too many tuners per cable.

It is an easy math mistake - 16/5 = 3 plus a spare tuner! 32/5 = 6 plus two spare tuners! But until there are 10 or more tuners available on a single cable it will be one Genie per cable.


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

James Long said:


> But until there are 10 or more tuners available on a single cable it will be one Genie per cable.


Well that is possible now with a DSWM 13 lnb as I have one, but the "Rumors" are the new RDBS lnb will have 20 plus tuners on a single cable ...... May not be true the but definitely possible.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> Why is 5 a stretch? 6 genies and 1 HR24 is 32 tuners, right? So 2 SWM 16s should be able to handle that.


And that's the problem with the swims that we have today. They can only do one Genie per side so it takes A lot more hardware and a lot more installation. If they don't give us a swim lnb that has more than 10 tuners then at most I don't see DirecTV allowing more than to genies on an account. It just gets too complex for the average installer. I don't think they train any of their installers really on running two swim 16s in one system. Not unless an installer actually has that installed to do. Maybe an installer can say if they've ever been trained on that internally.

Oh and as others have said the math isn't right that you've done. A swim 16 is basically two swim8 in one box. It's not 16 channels on one cable. Like I said this is the problem that I think needs to be solved first. you also have to consider the current ceiling of 16 nodes. Realistically if they offered a swim lnb that had 22 channels you could drive four genies and three clients each. You would then hit the exact 16 node limit of Decca. This of course also assumes you will use the built in wireless on a genie to connect to the Internet.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> That is the rub, you can get away without registering one.


As I said anyone with multiple Genies would then be required to have all clients registered.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mexican-bum said:


> Well that is possible now with a DSWM 13 lnb as I have one, but the "Rumors" are the new RDBS lnb will have 20 plus tuners on a single cable ...... May not be true the but definitely possible.


True - I forgot about the LNB and commercial switches.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> If that were the issue, then they'd just charge more for that second genie. Or at the very least, they'd let people who already have the right SWM equipment get more genies.
> 
> I could replace 4 of my HR24s with genies and not change anything else, and it would work fine. I could probably change 5 of them with no issues. Just take out the HR24, connect the genie in its place, good to go.
> 
> The fact that they won't let me do that leads me to believe the SWM install isn't the problem.


First how many people do you really think have a swim 16? I'm sure the vast majority get swim8 lnb systems. Even that allows one genie and one HR24 one non DVR and up to eight clients connected at one time. (Why anyone would ever have more than three is mind boggling for me) second do you know how many people would probably hook up a second genie wrong and cause issues and require a service call? Nightmare city. The vast majority don't realize you can only have one per leg, which seems you didn't realize either.

Just to point out what you would probably do in your situation.

You currently have 17 tuners mixed among seven televisions.

Therefore a set up of four genies and three clients would give you more than you have now in every way. And that would all fit on as I said a theoretical 22 tuner lnb.

The reason I go to that tuner limit is someone did the math and found that should be physically doable with their new dswim technology.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> True - I forgot about the LNB and commercial switches.


Yeah. But those lnbs where only ever in test markets and the world has fallen silent on then. Makes me think a new version is coming as slice has predicted. At a minimum for rdbs service. Hopefully at least 15 tuners too. I like solves math of fitting at least 20. :lol:


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> First how many people do you really think have a swim 16? I'm sure the vast majority get swim8 lnb systems. Even that allows one genie and one HR24 one non DVR and up to eight clients connected at one time. (Why anyone would ever have more than three is mind boggling for me) second do you know how many people would probably hook up a second genie wrong and cause issues and require a service call? Nightmare city. The vast majority don't realize you can only have one per leg, which seems you didn't realize either.
> 
> Just to point out what you would probably do in your situation.
> 
> ...


I will probably never have any clients. If directv ever tries to force them on me, that will be the final straw.

As someone else said, when my DVR goes out, I don't want it taking any other receivers out with it. And I also don't want to miss any recordings because I have a TV on in some other room. And then there's the added storage space you get with multiple DVRs.

So a SWM 16 can't really handle 16 tuners then?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

BlackDynamite said:


> I will probably never have any clients. If directv ever tries to force them on me, that will be the final straw.
> 
> As someone else said, when my DVR goes out, I don't want it taking any other receivers out with it. And I also don't want to miss any recordings because I have a TV on in some other room. And then there's the added storage space you get with multiple DVRs.
> 
> So a SWM 16 can't really handle 16 tuners then?


A SWM16 can handle 16 tuners, that's not the issue. The issue is someone not knowing that each side can only handle 8. If they replace one box with a second Genie, they very well could end up overloading one side.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> .
> 
> So a SWM 16 can't really handle 16 tuners then?


A SWM16 can drive 8 tuners on each of its two outputs. So using Genies as an example, you can drive a Genie, an HDDVR plus a HD box on one side. That is 8 tuners.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

peds48 said:


> A SWM16 can drive 8 tuners on each of its two outputs. So using Genies as an example, you can drive a Genie, an HDDVR plus a HD box on one side. That is 8 tuners.


So I would have no problem upgrading 3 HR24s to genies if Directv would allow it. 4 genies and 3 DVRs without adding or changing any wiring, SMWs, etc.

I don't think the SWM units have anything to do with Directv limiting it to 1 per account. If that were the case, they'd let me at least upgrade to what my existing equipment will support, and let everyone pay for more and bigger SWM units as required.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> I don't think the SWM units have anything to do with Directv limiting it to 1 per account. If that were the case, they'd let me at least upgrade to what my existing equipment will support, and let everyone pay for more and bigger SWM units as required.


Try selling that idea to all the regular Joes that want all for free, including multiple Genies.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

BlackDynamite said:


> I don't think the SWM units have anything to do with Directv limiting it to 1 per account. If that were the case, they'd let me at least upgrade to what my existing equipment will support, and let everyone pay for more and bigger SWM units as required.


While that may not be "THE" reason, it does have some weight in the decision.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> I will probably never have any clients. If directv ever tries to force them on me, that will be the final straw.
> 
> As someone else said, when my DVR goes out, I don't want it taking any other receivers out with it. And I also don't want to miss any recordings because I have a TV on in some other room. And then there's the added storage space you get with multiple DVRs.
> 
> So a SWM 16 can't really handle 16 tuners then?


You'd have more tuners with the same amount of tvs so you can't have any more recording issues than you'd have with all those individual two tuner DVRs.

And if you had four genies... And it worked like I'd suggest the only TV that you wouldn't be able to watch tv on is the one where a box died.

By the way how do your boxes die? Just curios. I always see this argument but for how rare it is for a box to die it just doesn't make much sense especially if you have multiple boxes with tuners and clients. Then you'd never be without TV anyway.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> So I would have no problem upgrading 3 HR24s to genies if Directv would allow it. 4 genies and 3 DVRs without adding or changing any wiring, SMWs, etc.
> 
> I don't think the SWM units have anything to do with Directv limiting it to 1 per account. If that were the case, they'd let me at least upgrade to what my existing equipment will support, and let everyone pay for more and bigger SWM units as required.


With two SWM16s, yes, you'd have the support for 26 tuners for 4 Genies and 3 DVRs, but none of us can say if you'd have to change any wiring. It all depends on how your current DVRs are wired, for example, how many splitters are in your system, how many DVRs are wired off one leg of your existing SWM, etc....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> While that may not be "THE" reason, it does have some weight in the decision.


Exactly. I think there is probably ten reasons why they aren't allowing more than one right now. And swim size is IMHO one of the reasons especially if they know if there are new products coming rant would make it significantly easier.

Just look at how many people and sadly installers that think the number of receivers you can hook up is based simply on if you are using a 4 way it an 8 way splitter!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

E



Drew2k said:


> With two SWM16s, yes, you'd have the support for 26 tuners for 4 Genies and 3 DVRs, but none of us can say if you'd have to change any wiring. It all depends on how your current DVRs are wired, for example, how many splitters are in your system, how many DVRs are wired off one leg of your existing SWM, etc....


Right (though wouldn't it be 32, not 26)? If a Genie and a DVR were on the same side of one SWM, a second Genie couldn't simply be swapped in from the HR2x. That would overload a side.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You'd have more tuners with the same amount of tvs so you can't have any more recording issues than you'd have with all those individual two tuner DVRs.
> 
> And if you had four genies... And it worked like I'd suggest the only TV that you wouldn't be able to watch tv on is the one where a box died.
> 
> By the way how do your boxes die? Just curios. I always see this argument but for how rare it is for a box to die it just doesn't make much sense especially if you have multiple boxes with tuners and clients. Then you'd never be without TV anyway.


4 genies and 3 clients are not as many tuners and not as much hard drive space as 4 genies and 3 HR24s. Plus with the HR24s if one of them dies it doesn't take any other receivers down.

And yes, genies do go down from time to time.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Try selling that idea to all the regular Joes that want all for free, including multiple Genies.


But are the regular Joes going to want multiple Genies?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BlackDynamite said:


> 4 genies and 3 clients are not as many tuners and not as much hard drive space as 4 genies and 3 HR24s. Plus with the HR24s if one of them dies it doesn't take any other receivers down.
> 
> And yes, genies do go down from time to time.


I am comparing against what you have today. Do you not have enough tuners to watch and record everything you and your family like right now? That's my point. Why do you suddenly need to go from 17 tuners to 26?

And yeah a genie could go down but that wouldn't kill clients since you could just pair them with a different genie if you have four genies. So no a genie going down would take any clients with it in this particular situation.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> But are the regular Joes going to want multiple Genies?


I can easily see plenty of people wanting two if they are a large family or have more than four tvs. Why you'd ever have more clients than can be used at once would never make sense to me.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I am comparing against what you have today. Do you not have enough tuners to watch and record everything you and your family like right now? That's my point. Why do you suddenly need to go from 17 tuners to 26?
> 
> And yeah a genie could go down but that wouldn't kill clients since you could just pair them with a different genie if you have four genies. So no a genie going down would take any clients with it in this particular situation.


Yes, a genie going down absolutely would take any clients down that were associated to it. I would then have to go through the trouble of remembering what was associated to it, and re associating the client(s) to other genies. Why would I want to introduce those potential problems? Especially when I'd have fewer tuners and less storage if I went that route?

I can't think of a single reason I'd ever choose a client over a DVR.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> I can easily see plenty of people wanting two if they are a large family or have more than four tvs. Why you'd ever have more clients than can be used at once would never make sense to me.


So is multiple Genies two or more than two? I could see a large family needing two (or more). I guess we need to figure out who the "average Joe" is.


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

I'd take a second Genie if DirecTV would allow it, just to have a backup DVR. Better to lose half my recordings than all of them.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> E
> 
> Right (though wouldn't it be 32, not 26)? If a Genie and a DVR were on the same side of one SWM, a second Genie couldn't simply be swapped in from the HR2x. That would overload a side.


I used 26 because that is the minimum number of tuners needed for 4 Genies plus 3 DVRs, and previously the other poster also mentioned a single SWM16.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> I don't doubt it. I use a Harmony remote, so every time I select an activity--watch TV, watch Roku, or watch DVD, the Harmony selects the corresponding HDMI input, and because of the switch, it shows the active source.


That switch you're using has its own power supply, right?

Rich


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Yes


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rmmccann said:


> I'd take a second Genie if DirecTV would allow it, just to have a backup DVR. Better to lose half my recordings than all of them.


That's wise. If I had a Genie I'd just use it as I do my HRs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Yes


The reason I asked was so that others would know not to buy HDMI switches without their own power supplies. The switches without their own power supplies are cheaper and I know they don't work nearly as well (if they work at all) as the powered switches do. Found that out the hard way.

Rich


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I agree.


----------

