# Tivo looks forward to Liberty



## STEVEN-H (Jan 19, 2007)

NEW YORK, June 4 (Reuters) - TiVo Inc. (TIVO.O: Quote, Profile , Research) said on Monday it expects its relationship with DirecTV Group Inc. (DTV.N: Quote, Profile , Research) to improve after the satellite television provider is taken over by John Malone's Liberty Media Corp. (LCAPA.O: Quote, Profile , Research).

DirecTV said in August 2005 that it would stop marketing TiVo digital video recorders to its customers, focusing instead on boxes made by NDS, a company that is owned by DirecTV's largest shareholder News Corp. (NWSa.N: Quote, Profile , Research) 

But with control of DirecTV expected to pass from News Corp. to Liberty Media later this year, that could be "positive" for TiVo, said its Chief Executive Tom Rogers.

"Liberty is a company that has no ownership interests, now or after the DirecTV closes, in a competing DVR, and that probably changes things," Rogers told a Deutsche Bank investor conference.

Rogers said people he knew at Liberty were fans of TiVo DVRs
Control of DirecTV will be passed to Liberty as part of an $11 billion exchange of cash and assets with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Over 3 million DirecTV customers are also TiVo users.

Investors view TiVo's fortunes as closely linked to its relationships with cable and satellite operators.

Rogers confirmed the first generic cable DVRs with TiVo software will be rolled out in early tests with customers of No. 1 U.S. cable operator Comcast Corp. (CMCSA.O: Quote, Profile , Research) this August in two markets in the New England area. Comcast DVRs are made by Motorola Inc. (MOT.N: Quote, Profile , Research)

Nearly two years ago the two companies first announced they would be working together on the service. The market had speculated integration problems for the TiVo software into the Comcast DVRs may have led to delays. 

"I certainly hope it remains on schedule," said Rogers. "It's largely beyond our control... I can just measure ongoing enthusiasm from Comcast operating people," he said.

Rogers said privately held Cox Communications Inc., the No. 4 U.S. cable operator, will likely roll out its TiVo-enabled Motorola boxes by the end of the year. Analysts expect it may take longer to launch TiVo-enabled boxes in the Cox regions that use Cisco System Inc.'s (CSCO.O: Quote, Profile , Research) Scientific Atlanta DVRs.

Analysts have grown increasingly cool on TiVo's growth potential, noting that its efforts to add features and share its software with cable providers, rather than making its own boxes, have yet to pay off in terms of subscriber gains.

Shares in TiVo closed Monday up 1.6 percent at $6.26 on Nasdaq.


----------



## Duffinator (Oct 25, 2006)

Six months ago I would have been really excited about this. I was a huge TiVo fan and really had hoped DTV and TiVo had kept their partnership alive and healthy. But now that I have my HR20's and have lived with the new software it doesn't matter to me. It's now just a commodity. Six months ago I would have paid a couple of bucks extra to have a TiVo operating software, now I wouldn't.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The part that is scary about all of this is that DirecTiVo users may still represent a majority of all TiVo users.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The relationship may improve, but DIRECTV's gone through the tough part at this point. Would it be in DIRECTV's financial interest to go back to TiVo at this point? I suspect that the answer to that is "no."


----------



## skaeight (Jan 15, 2004)

I really find it hard to believe that directv is going to throw an internally developed box (the HR20 was not developed by NDS) in the garbage in favor of tivo just because people at Liberty are fans of tivo. There is way too much money and time invested in the HR20 already, and quite honestly it works very well.

The future platforms are all built around the HR20, VOD, MPEG4, online scheduling, etc.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I wonder if Malone's DirecTV is considering going back to TiVo out of respect for the strength TiVo could gain from the patent lawsuit against Echostar. If TiVo ultimately wins that suit (after all appeals are exhausted), TiVo most likely will go after the cable companies next. I don't know how much longer the "no lawsuit" agreement between TiVo and DirecTV will last, but it's going to expire at some point ... Maybe Malone just wants to be on TiVo's good side as far as patents are concerned?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

skaeight said:


> I really find it hard to believe that directv is going to throw an internally developed box (the HR20 was not developed by NDS) in the garbage in favor of tivo just because people at Liberty are fans of tivo. There is way too much money and time invested in the HR20 already, and quite honestly it works very well.


It's possible they could do both. Offer the HR20 to the people who don't care about TiVo, and offer TiVo to people who would rather use a TiVo than an HR20. That's what Comcast is doing...



skaeight said:


> The future platforms are all built around the HR20, VOD, MPEG4, online scheduling, etc.


Stand-Alone TiVos offers VOD (of a sorts), so it wouldn't be hard for TiVo to use DirecTV's VOD, the TiVo Series 3 has a MPEG4 decoder built-in for VOD, so nothing new for TiVo, and "online scheduling" has been a STAND-ALONE TiVo feature for years...

~Alan


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

drew2k said:


> I wonder if Malone's DirecTV is considering going back to TiVo out of respect for the strength TiVo could gain from the patent lawsuit against Echostar. If TiVo ultimately wins that suit (after all appeals are exhausted), TiVo most likely will go after the cable companies next. I don't know how much longer the "no lawsuit" agreement between TiVo and DirecTV will last, but it's going to expire at some point ... Maybe Malone just wants to be on TiVo's good side as far as patents are concerned?


This would be the biggest reason that I could see for DIRECTV making amends. However, cost will always be an issue and as long as DIRECTV is steering clear of Patent violations, then it shouldn't be a problem anyway.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

If and when I hear Malone echo Rogers comments, then they have validity. I question whether Malone is even in it for the long run with D*. Rogers made his comments before group of investors. If ever there's a time one would want a positive spin on things, that would be it.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Long run, it simply could be easier for Liberty just to buy Tivo. Then the real fun begins.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

skaeight said:


> I really find it hard to believe that directv is going to throw an internally developed box (the HR20 was not developed by NDS) in the garbage in favor of tivo just because people at Liberty are fans of tivo. There is way too much money and time invested in the HR20 already, and quite honestly it works very well.
> 
> The future platforms are all built around the HR20, VOD, MPEG4, online scheduling, etc.


Well, you know, the HR20 and TiVo are not mutually exclusive. If they can get TiVo software to run on Motorola boxes, it should be comparatively easy to get it to run on the HR20. After all, the HR20 is Linux based, like the Tivo. It really is just a case of the right device drivers. The hard part was getting the TiVo kernel code running in software (all the TiVo hardware has it in firmware and a custom chipset) - but they would have to have done that for the Motorola port.

DirecTV could offer TiVo software on the HR20 the same way Comcast is on Motorola DVRs.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

> But with control of DirecTV expected to pass from News Corp. to Liberty Media later this year, that *could* be "positive" for TiVo, said its Chief Executive Tom Rogers.


Good, now we have TIVO folk wildly speculating on the subject.



> "Liberty is a company that has no ownership interests, now or after the DirecTV closes, in a competing DVR, and that probably changes things," Rogers told a Deutsche Bank investor conference.


Umm, they bought D* and last I checked that included ownership of the HR20 DVR platform......

I love all this speculation regardless of the facts.....


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

To the OP... can you post the link where you got the article from...
----------

As for the article (when I saw it at TCF earlier today).

What else is TiVo, Inc. going to say? It's not like the relationship could get much worse?

From what I read about two weeks ago... the majority of TiVo users are infact still DirecTivo users...

I still don't think it means TiVo is comming back to DirecTV...


----------



## skaeight (Jan 15, 2004)

Alan Gordon said:


> It's possible they could do both. Offer the HR20 to the people who don't care about TiVo, and offer TiVo to people who would rather use a TiVo than an HR20. That's what Comcast is doing...
> 
> Stand-Alone TiVos offers VOD (of a sorts), so it wouldn't be hard for TiVo to use DirecTV's VOD, the TiVo Series 3 has a MPEG4 decoder built-in for VOD, so nothing new for TiVo, and "online scheduling" has been a STAND-ALONE TiVo feature for years...
> 
> ~Alan


The problem with offering two platforms is that d* just went to great lengths to standardize on one platform. One DVR, one UI, etc.

AFA VOD is concerned, the vod code / implementation that tivo currently uses is much different that what the HR20 will use, again the same thing for online scheduling. You are right about the MPEG-4 decoder though. Just because they do these things doesn't mean they'll work with d*'s system.

As someone else stated, Malone doesn't appear to be in this for the long run. I don't see him dumping a ton of money into engineering a new tivo to replace a working product.

Also, if the return to tivo meant an extra $5 / month or something similar to what Comcast will be charging, I would not pay. I've finally used other dvrs enough to realize that tivo is just a pretty wrapper and there are other solutions out there that actually do work.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Facts and speculation aside, TiVo, Inc. is a publically traded company and as such, the CEO can't make statements like that without some basis.

Malone is a financial guy. Regardless of how much D* has invested in their own DVR's, and remember that was RM's investment, not Liberty's, if the number going forward indicate that it would be financially prudent to bring TiVo back vs. continuing the in-house development, then it may very well happen.

I do think any decision will be based on a cost/benefit analysis and not based on giving business to a related entity. But I also think if there is a change to be made, it will need to be made quickly before too many devices are in service.

It has also been speculated that it would take TiVo months to release an MPEG-4 DVR to which I ask:

1) Does anyone have any proof that TiVo did not develop an MPEG-4 DVR in-house?
2) Does anyone know for sure that the TiVo software can not be easily ported to run on the HR20? I know there have been issues with porting it to the Comcast boxes, but maybe that is TiVo's learning experience and the next round will be easier.


----------



## STEVEN-H (Jan 19, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> To the OP... can you post the link where you got the article from...
> ----------
> 
> Sure can:
> ...


----------



## cheerioboy26 (Jun 4, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> To the OP... can you post the link where you got the article from...
> ----------
> 
> As for the article (when I saw it at TCF earlier today).
> ...


Here's a link I read, but I'm a newbie so I can't post URLs 

yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20070604:MTFH39593_2007-06-04_22-43-45_N04203914&type=comktNews&rpc=44


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> 2) Does anyone know for sure that the TiVo software can not be easily ported to run on the HR20? I know there have been issues with porting it to the Comcast boxes, but maybe that is TiVo's learning experience and the next round will be easier.


Anything could be done... I guess it would depend on your definition of easy.
Cost/Time vs ROI

I just find it amazing that with the COMCAST-TiVo they are stuffing it into 5+ year old hardware design.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

skaeight said:


> The problem with offering two platforms is that d* just went to great lengths to standardize on one platform. One DVR, one UI, etc.
> 
> As someone else stated, Malone doesn't appear to be in this for the long run. I don't see him dumping a ton of money into engineering a new tivo to replace a working product.


First of all, I agree with you on the second part as I too feel that Malone doesn't intend on sticking around for the long haul, but I personally don't see why he couldn't just agree to let TiVo build/sell/market TiVo boxes ala current "Stand-Alone" TiVos that work with the DirecTV service. It allows those of us who prefer the TiVo platform to get TiVo, and those who don't, to use a cheaper/leased/less-featured DVR. DirecTV could charge the normal access fee charge, and have NONE of the cost associated with the hardware...



skaeight said:


> Also, if the return to tivo meant an extra $5 / month or something similar to what Comcast will be charging, I would not pay. I've finally used other dvrs enough to realize that tivo is just a pretty wrapper and there are other solutions out there that actually do work.


Different strokes for different folks... I have THREE DirecTiVos and a Stand-Alone Series 2 TiVo. I'm fixing to get a Series 3 to replace the Series 2 Stand-Alone TiVo, deactivating the DirecTiVo with the least amount of space, replacing it with the middle DirecTiVo which will be replaced by the HR10-250 which will lose it's place once the HR20 comes in. I also intend to get a second Series 3 TiVo later to run in tandem with the HR20 since most of my viewing is OTA, I can relegate the HR20 to the cable-only HD channels. However, if DirecTV were to simply offer a MPEG4 capable TiVo, I would just simply replace all three DirecTiVos and start recommending my friends to DirecTV again... I'd also pay a $10 premium over the HR20, but again, different strokes for different folks.

I personally feel that nothing will come of this, and I'll continue dreaming of the day when I can use TiVo for all my DVR-ing needs, or for something better to come along, but reading that there is still hope made me as "giddy as a schoolgirl!" 

~Alan


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I thought of something else ... TiVo is an established and successful supplier of third-party CableCard boxes. Does anyone besides me wonder how long before the FCC and Congress mandate that FIOS providers and DBS providers open up to allow third parties to supply receivers with some "modified" form of a CableCard? I wonder if Malone is "future-proofing" against unpredictable mandates from the Feds to "open up"?


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

drew2k said:


> I thought of something else ... TiVo is an established and successful supplier of third-party CableCard boxes. Does anyone besides me wonder how long before the FCC and Congress mandate that FIOS providers and DBS providers open up to allow third parties to supply receivers with some "modified" form of a CableCard? I wonder if Malone is "future-proofing" against unpredictable mandates from the Feds to "open up"?


i thought they have already started that process of mandating "box" that people can go out and buy and use from provider to provider, for cable at least


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

cb7214 said:


> i thought they have already started that process of mandating "box" that people can go out and buy and use from provider to provider, for cable at least


For cable, they have, and that's my point: How long before they mandate the same for satellite providers?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

drew2k said:


> For cable, they have, and that's my point: How long before they mandate the same for satellite providers?


I forgot some of the arguments on why...

But one of them had to do with the nature of tuning in all the different SATs, and the logistics behind that. Similar arguments on why Switch Video on Cable, won't work with the current Cable-Card models.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I forgot some of the arguments on why...
> 
> But one of them had to do with the nature of tuning in all the different SATs, and the logistics behind that. Similar arguments on why Switch Video on Cable, won't work with the current Cable-Card models.


Thinking about it, that makes sense, because a "universal" DBS receiver would have to work with any satellite at any position and would have to be able to decode any signal ... That would be very tough to achive.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> From what I read about two weeks ago... the majority of TiVo users are infact still DirecTivo users...
> 
> I still don't think it means TiVo is comming back to DirecTV...


This may be one of the reasons for D* actually considering a move of this type. A lot of D*'s DVR subscribers still use a TiVo product. It makes it a lot easier to retain customers when you have a consistent UI from one product to the next.

I would agree however that I don't believe this will happen. D* is too far along in their conversion process. The only way I see this happening is if the Comcast TiVo software is a big hit AND the new TiVo software is easily adaptable to other boxes and easy to maintain.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

Hopefully Liberty just buys Tivo. Lord knows they've been on the block for awhile.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

One way the relationship could conceivably improve without dumping all the work on the HR20 is for DIRECTV to extend parts of the agreements already in place and allow DIRECTV to use the TiVo patents in the HR20. Purely speculation on my part, but perhaps a win-win for both companies?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bafuerst (Feb 18, 2007)

I’ve said it in previous posts and will say it again. No successful publicly traded company large or small can afford to lose customers that it already has. With that said when the people that currently have SD DirecTV Tivo units start getting HDTV's in the next 1 or 2 years they will expect an HD Tivo to replace it and DirecTV will lose current customers without it.

When DirecTV made a decision to create there own DVR and drop Tivo from their future plans they had to know that this alone would cause a backlash, they most likely planned on the HR20 being a good enough product to replace the HD Tivo but it has so far been less then stellar. 

To put it a different way let me try to explain it from a bean counter’s point of view. DirecTV reports its future growth with the belief that the customers they already have will continue to be customers. There is a built in rate of churn that they can predict from past performance but if that rate starts to go up then numbers that have been reported already will need to be restated down (and yes this will happen even as they bring in new customers). This is bad, and is one of many reasons that I believe Murdoch ran from the company as fast as he could. Now that Liberty is the owner, or at least the largest stockholder this future trend can be reversed simply by bringing Tivo back into the fold. Then it can be sold as a premium product, DirecTV makes more money for its shareholders, and everyone’s happy and none the wiser. 

Of course this is just my option, but for DirecTV not to have anticipated this already would indicate poor management, and could be a sign of a bleak future for DirecTV. 

DirecTV needs to at the very least give its customers what they expect and have come to rely on. The DirecTV under Murdoch has not done that. Hopefully Malone’s tenure will turn their thinking around.


----------



## Keeska (Feb 10, 2007)

> they most likely planned on the HR20 being a good enough product to replace the HD Tivo but it has so far been less then stellar.


Maybe not stellar but the UI is 100 % better then the TiVO UI. We waited a long while to trade our UltimateTV's for HD boxes and managed to avoid a DirecTV TiVO. (We tried the stand alone TiVO - had to give it away and had a hard time finding anyone who would take it.) Hopefully we do not have to go back to the UTVs plus HD cable.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

This is great news, even if way off in the future. I can't wait to have TIVO back, including its most important feature, the recording feature. Even yesterday, my HR20 skipped a recording, while my backup trusty HR10 TIVO got it right. Bring back TIVO!


----------



## simonkodousek (Feb 20, 2007)

jal said:


> This is great news, even if way off in the future. I can't wait to have TIVO back, including its most important feature, the recording feature. Even yesterday, my HR20 skipped a recording, while my backup trusty HR10 TIVO got it right. Bring back TIVO!


I agree with you completely. I also wish that Time Warner started providing the TiVo interface on it's boxes...


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> One way the relationship could conceivably improve without dumping all the work on the HR20 is for DIRECTV to extend parts of the agreements already in place and allow DIRECTV to use the TiVo patents in the HR20. Purely speculation on my part, but perhaps a win-win for both companies?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


This is exactly what I was going to suggest. Just think how complete TP would be with overcorrection on the hr20. BOING BOING!!!!!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

IMHO, getting TiVo back onto DIRECTV is wishful thinking.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

brott said:


> The relationship may improve, but DIRECTV's gone through the tough part at this point. Would it be in DIRECTV's financial interest to go back to TiVo at this point? I suspect that the answer to that is "no."


brott,

I disagree...the HR20 is far from through the hard part. The last 10% of any project is the "hard" part and that is where they're stuck. Someone at D "MAY" say..."We are a programming distribution company not a hardware design company and we should focus on our core business."

They may be spending way more resources and garnering way more customer ire than the HR20 project ever saved.

You never know...D could end up buying Tivo....stranger things have happened.


----------



## msmith (Apr 23, 2002)

DirecTV is getting close to losing me due to the lack of Tivo support with their MPEG-4 HD plans.

The Verizon FIOS folks just installed conduit in my neighborhood - I expect that FIOS TV could be a reality in a month (the surrounding blocks that have aboveground utilities already have it). I'm about ready to go to FIOS with Tivo Series 3.

And so DirecTV will lose a nearly 10-year customer because FOX dumped Tivo.


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

brott said:


> IMHO, getting TiVo back onto DIRECTV is wishful thinking.


Yeah, it makes FAR too much sense. They'll NEVER do it. :nono:


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

simonkodousek said:


> I agree with you completely. I also wish that Time Warner started providing the TiVo interface on it's boxes...


 Not going to happen. TW is spending a ton of money designing their own in-house system, Navigator, to replace SARA and Passport. They're going to standardize all TW franchises on Navigator. It's already in use in a number of cities.

As for Comcast and Tivo, it was first announced in March 2005 and it's still not live in the wild. I found this quote from Tom Rogers of Tivo: "the Comcast TiVo trials will continue into early summer with a commercial launch plan for August. The commercial launch will be in parts of our New England division, including Metro Boston, Southeast Massachusetts and New Hampshire." 2 1/2 years from announcement to limited launch is not encouraging and doesn't bode well for other cablecos to go that route.


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

stogie5150 said:


> Yeah, it makes FAR too much sense.


Not to me. TiVo represents old tech to me now. The menus, guide etc. were all horrible. The speed never improved over three different hardware releases.

The HR20 is a great receiver. No need to go back. I can't wait to get rid of my other TiVo in the bedroom!


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Tom_S said:


> Not to me. TiVo represents old tech to me now. The menus, guide etc. were all horrible. The speed never improved over three different hardware releases.
> 
> The HR20 is a great receiver. No need to go back. I can't wait to get rid of my other TiVo in the bedroom!


That's my question what are the improvements of the new Tivo?.Do they equal or are they superior to the features of the R15&the HR20?.Or is Tivo bypassing improvements just because they have a name?.If they are that's one hell of a gamble.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

msmith said:


> And so DirecTV will lose a nearly 10-year customer because FOX dumped Tivo.


And they will sign up 3 new customers to replace you. No Tivo just doesn't hurt DirecTV. It hasn't so far and won't in the future.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Maybe the reason Rogers says "TiVo is looking forward to Liberty" is because they're about to take it in the rear from Time-Warner.

link


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Look guys, all this was is the CEO of a troubled company saying that the relationship with the new owners of DirecTV should be better. Well duh, how could it not? It doesn't mean a thing other then to try to keep their stock price up.

There are millions of D* customers out there with a non Tivo DVR. There are probably more HR20s in the field then HR10s at this point. DirecTV does *not* need Tivo at all and they know it. Just like Time Warner doesn't need Tivo and so forth. The people getting DVRs now are the "unwashed masses" that have never had a DVR before. If it works like a digital VCR that is all they expect. Comcast is going to have a *really* hard time getting anyone to pay extra per month for a DVR simply because it's got Tivo on it (assuming it actually rolls out and works).

People leave providers and jump ship all the time. It's called churn. Not having Tivo for the past 2 years has not increased churn for DirecTV. In fact this last quarter they had the lowest churn rate in a long, long time.



Tom Robertson said:


> One way the relationship could conceivably improve without dumping all the work on the HR20 is for DIRECTV to extend parts of the agreements already in place and allow DIRECTV to use the TiVo patents in the HR20. Purely speculation on my part, but perhaps a win-win for both companies?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I think Tom has the right answer here. If DirecTV were to do anything it would be to license some patents. They will have to eventually anyway since their mutual "we won't sue each other" agreement with Tivo is up in a couple years. Tivo has to leverage the patents they have into some income and this would be an excellent way to do it.

*If* an MPEG4 capable DirecTivo were to be started *today* it would be at least a year or more before it would be available. The HR20 is well on it's way already and by then there would be no reason for a Tivo version. If the HR20 was still a pile then I'd say there is a chance. But the HR20 is to the point of just about any other DVR/consumer device out there. There are a few with problems, but for most it's working fine. Same goes for Tivo, there are some with problem, but for most it's working fine. You can say the same for the Dish Network ViP series.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

bidger said:


> Maybe the reason Rogers says "TiVo is looking forward to Liberty" is because they're about to take it in the rear from Time-Warner.
> 
> link


And this is a big thing that those getting a S3 like it's the promised land refuse to see. Switched Video is here and will roll out quickly over the next couple years. Cable card is nearly dead. The S3 will be a real expensive OTA tuner sooner then people expect.

And that's actually why I never got an HR10 for $800+ a couple years ago. I knew it would be obsolete so I waited and got the HR20 when first available.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

To me this looks like maybe it's wishful thinking on the part of the Tivo CEO. I don't see where he's said that Liberty has contacted Tivo about this happening.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

bonscott87 said:


> Switched Video is here and will roll out quickly over the next couple years.


TWC is saying that they plan to have SVD rolled out by the end of the year, so unless Tivo can figure out how to get the S3's upgraded to work on that system they'll have a bunch of ticked off customers.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> *It's possible they could do both. Offer the HR20 to the people who don't care about TiVo, and offer TiVo to people who would rather use a TiVo than an HR20. That's what Comcast is doing...*
> 
> Stand-Alone TiVos offers VOD (of a sorts), so it wouldn't be hard for TiVo to use DirecTV's VOD, the TiVo Series 3 has a MPEG4 decoder built-in for VOD, so nothing new for TiVo, and "online scheduling" has been a STAND-ALONE TiVo feature for years...
> 
> ~Alan


This makes no sense. Why muddy the waters?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

At some point, the cable and satellite industry might be forced to concede that choice for the customers is a good thing (just like the phone industry...). Don't like the TiVo choices for your DIRECTV service, get the Sony DVR. Or the HR20.

Have a Samsung DVR for satellite and tired of DISH network? No problem, it works on the DIRECTV system too.

Or your TV is cable card 3.0 ready? Just hook that puppy up to Dish, you've got service. 

Companies that stick to entirely proprietary equipment/options get marginalized over time. Companies that allow innovation and growth via competition can excel. (They also need to keep other things in order too.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Unfortunately I think that D*'s brining all their boxes in-house goes hand-in-hand with the equipment lease model. They don't want to try to manage the leasing of multiple brands of D* equipment from multiple sources. Allowng a D* branded TiVO woud be competing with themselves at this point.

I personally think it kind of sucks. D* is not an electronics manufacturer and trying to be is not the most efficient way to do things. It almost certainly isn't the best thing for the subscribers. This is the age of outsourcing and it seems the D* is intent on bucking this trend.

Imagine if your cell phone provider suddenly decided to make their own phones and lease them to you? Do you think they would do it better than LG or Samsung or Nokia? The price of the phones would go up (sound familiar?) and the development and QA in brining products to market would suffer (also familiar)

Sadly though, having already started down this road of trying to own and control all aspects of the DBS chain (Hardware AND Content) I believe the days when multiple manufacturers made D* compatible boxes (Samsung, RCA, Sony) are probably gone forever.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

HarleyD said:


> Unfortunately I think that D*'s brining all their boxes in-house goes hand-in-hand with the equipment lease model. They don't want to try to manage the leasing of multiple brands of D* equipment from multiple sources. Allowng a D* branded TiVO woud be competing with themselves at this point.
> 
> I personally think it kind of sucks. D* is not an electronics manufacturer and trying to be is not the most efficient way to do things. It almost certainly isn't the best thing for the subscribers.
> 
> ...


I think it has a lot less to do with the leasing aspect, then the SUPPORT aspect of it.

Look at the Cell Phone's... most of their software features are disabled by the carriers... why, mostly because of support reasons... they don't need multiple models out there that can do different things.

Same would be true if you start have multiple models of DVRs out there.
Who would be responable for the support?

Would the vendors of those systems, start to charge the full actuall price it takes to build these DVRs? Since they would not get a subsidation based off the subscriptions?

Would Sony truelly support a DVR, for a service that they don't control.
Or would it be a lot of "It's DirecTV issue", then "It's a Sony issue".

We are going to see a lot of that when the VOD kicks in... there is only so much that can be done with the networking aspects.... Should DirecTV be responsible for setting up your home network?, but that is a key piece to the VOD puzzle.....

There are some other aspects to it as well...
How often do you look up your device for a service, and find out a feature you want to use... is only available on "another" device.

What if they did open up to Sony, TiVo, and other DVR makers... who is to say that you will be able to access all the features? 
Like VOD, Showcases, or even the Music / Media services, and any other future ones (online scheduling)...

Take for example the Series 3 TiVo on Comcast via Cable-Card, you can not access On-Demand, or any other feature that requires it to talk back to the home end.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Well, maybe but it's not a new idea to have multiple manufacturers producing D* equipment. It's the way things used to be. You used to be able to choose among several brands of D* compatible hardware.

Anytime choice is eliminated, it usually ends up to be not in the best interest of the end users (you and I).


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

HarleyD said:


> Unfortunately I think that D*'s brining all their boxes in-house goes hand-in-hand with the equipment lease model. They don't want to try to manage the leasing of multiple brands of D* equipment from multiple sources. Allowng a D* branded TiVO woud be competing with themselves at this point.
> 
> I personally think it kind of sucks. D* is not an electronics manufacturer and trying to be is not the most efficient way to do things. It almost certainly isn't the best thing for the subscribers. This is the age of outsourcing and it seems the D* is intent on bucking this trend.


Actually, D* does not manufacture any equipment, unlike the Hughes era, when the DBS service was on outgrowth of their electronics manufacturing core business. However, they do manage multiple "brands" (manufacturers) of receivers-they're just all branded "DirecTV".



HarleyD said:


> Imagine if your cell phone provider suddenly decided to make their own phones and lease them to you? Do you think they would do it better than LG or Samsung or Nokia? The price of the phones would go up (sound familiar?) and the development and QA in brining products to market would suffer (also familiar)


The D* model for providing equipment is not much different from that of the cell phone companies. The major difference is that the cell phone providers co-brand the phones, while D* brands all its receivers with the "DirecTV" name, much as Sears used to do with Kenmore appliances.



HarleyD said:


> Sadly though, having already started down this road of trying to own and control all aspects of the DBS chain (Hardware AND Content) I believe the days when multiple manufacturers made D* compatible boxes (Samsung, RCA, Sony) are probably gone forever.


D* boxes are made by:

Thomson (RCA) (-100)
Samsung (-200)
Philips (-300)
? (I'm drawing a blank here) (-500)
LG (-600)
Pace (-700)
(Hughes used to be a manufacturer but has been absorbed into Thomson.)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

-500 Humax

There is also -800 which I think is Asus... but not sure


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Blitz68 said:


> This makes no sense. Why muddy the waters?


Because "choice" can be a good thing.

For instance, right now, DirecTV and Dish Network are my only choices, but should I move, Mediacom would be a possibility, and next year, AT&T probably as well.

With a TiVo, I'd choose DirecTV without even thinking about the other companies, but with the more "generic" HR20, I don't have as much of a reason to stay with DirecTV, and would be more "open" to trying out other services such as Mediacom or AT&T...

Choosing a TV provider is different for every person, both in judging what's important to them, and the choices they have available to them.

I have four things I take into account.

PQ - Channel Lineup - Price - User Experiences (STB Functions)​
The PQ's probably about even on all the services, the HD channel lineups are fluctuating, but the SD's about the same, and it's only a matter of time before the HD's do as well. Price, that's about the same, but User Experiences greatly differ...

The only DirecTV receiver I had for years was the first-generation RCA DSS receiver, and it was alright... I didn't really have any problems with it, but it was just a way to watch the channels. I later upgraded to a newer system so we could get the service in two rooms, and the receiver was replaced with an AWFUL RCA receiver... which thankfully broke a year later, and upgraded to a Sony receiver that remains to date, the best non-DVR receiver I've used. Shortly thereafter, I got a Hughes HTL-HD receiver which was a disappointment after using the Sony receiver. Not long after that, I got a TiVo and quickly went out and replaced it with another TiVo (moving the first one to another room), and was lucky enough to get the HR10-250 (HD-TiVo) almost two years ago... and have never looked back.

I've played around with the DISH508, DirecTiVo (SD), DirecTiVo (HD), TiVo Series 2 (SD Stand-Alone), HR20, and will be getting to play with my first TiVo Series 3 next week. So far, the Series 2 stand-alone BLOWS all the others out of the water (with a lot more features than the DirecTV ones). The TiVo experience, to me, is TV my way, and the HR20 and DISH508 are just digital VCRs. I do like the HR20 better than the 508, and I hear Dish has really improved their DVRs, but the user-experience is just "ehh."

The HR20 is just fine, and most people will like it just fine, but I would still love for DirecTV to, if not replace the HR20, at least offer a "premium" service for people who want a better user experience... or allow TiVo to create a DirecTiVo that works with the DirecTV service...

In fact, with the article on SkyReport.com today about AT&T and Dish Network, DirecTV REALLY needs something to differentiate themselves from Dish Network, and TiVo could help...

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

HarleyD said:


> Well, maybe but it's not a new idea to have multiple manufacturers producing D* equipment. It's the way things used to be. You used to be able to choose among several brands of D* compatible hardware.
> 
> Anytime choice is eliminated, it usually ends up to be not in the best interest of the end users (you and I).


BINGO!!

~Alan


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

True but the homogenized outsourcing of the actual assembly of D*'s proprietary designs to an assortment of manufacturing facilities isn't quite the same thing as diverse and varied products and designs coming to market from multiple manufacturers.

The HR20-100 and HR20-700 come from different manufacturers, but make no mistake...it is D*'s baby. All they did was outsource the assembly to some folks who happne to do that sort of thing. To call that "multiple manufacturers producing D* equipment" would be misleading at best.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

drew2k said:


> Thinking about it, that makes sense, because a "universal" DBS receiver would have to work with any satellite at any position and would have to be able to decode any signal ... That would be very tough to achive.


Drew,

Not really all that tough...we used to do that all the time back in the BUD days. You do have to be able to move your dish though.


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

My first thought was "Halleluja" but then I remembered just how much money I have sunk into this "DVR" and I realized that I cannot afford to trade up even if D* goes back to TiVo.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> The HR20 is just fine, and most people will like it just fine, but I would still love for DirecTV to, if not replace the HR20, at least offer a "premium" service for people who want a better user experience... or allow TiVo to create a DirecTiVo that works with the DirecTV service...


So what if that new DirecTivo can not access some of the future DirecTV features, because it is not compatible with them... and for what ever reason... (either side of the equation, DirecTV or TiVo, Inc)....

Such as VOD, The Media Features, DirecTV's online scheduling, Interactive features (such as Sunday Ticket, HotPass, ect)...

Woudl that make a difference, to pay more for the "premium" service of having the TiVo system.

I point out some of those, as that is the case right now... with the "premium" service of having a Series 3 TiVo unit... you can't access OnDemand, or even use some of the "TiVo" features like MRV....


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

> *If* an MPEG4 capable DirecTivo were to be started *today* it would be at least a year or more before it would be available. The HR20 is well on it's way already and by then there would be no reason for a Tivo version. If the HR20 was still a pile then I'd say there is a chance. But the HR20 is to the point of just about any other DVR/consumer device out there. There are a few with problems, but for most it's working fine. Same goes for Tivo, there are some with problem, but for most it's working fine. You can say the same for the Dish Network ViP series.


The frequency of national releases of the HR20 software would seem to indicate there are quite a few bugs to be worked out. They know they have serious problems and are scrambling to fix them. I've had the HR20 four months and there have been three national patches....that's not exactly the sign of stable and working.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> The frequency of national releases of the HR20 software would seem to indicate there are quite a few bugs to be worked out. They know they have serious problems and are scrambling to fix them. I've had the HR20 four months and there have been three national patches....that's not exactly the sign of stable and working.


I love that argument...

Just because they decide to push smaller updates, in increments...
Doesn't indicate there are SERIOUS problems and SCRAMBLING to fix them.

It was over a month between the last two national releases... which means the gap is getting LARGER...

And you are going to see another National Release soon, followed by another, followed by another.... not because of bugs persay, but because they are going to be introducing new features to the box.

So instead of doing it in one MASSIVE update, they have opted to do it in smaller increments.

So just because there have been frequent software updates, doesn't necessarily denote there are a rash of SERIOUS issues with the box, and they are scrambling.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So what if that new DirecTivo can not access some of the future DirecTV features, because it is not compatible with them... and for what ever reason... (either side of the equation, DirecTV or TiVo, Inc)....
> 
> Such as VOD, The Media Features, DirecTV's online scheduling, Interactive features (such as Sunday Ticket, HotPass, ect)...
> 
> ...


That is exactly the situation with cable today and TiVo. I have Comcast in my house (primarily for the internet) as well as DirecTV. I have many times contemplated the S3 which is far superior to the crappy SA8300 Comcast rents me. But the S3 does not do On Demand (my primary use of the SA8300 along with recording the few channels I do not get from DirecTV in HD) and may be useless as a cable box if Comcast goes to switched video. And the cost.

While I love TiVo, I like the HR20 at this point (and love that DirecTV is responsive to issues with it) but don't see the S3 as a viable solution for me with Comcast. Maybe Verizon, but they have far less On Demand.

p.s. I would love Tivo to come back to DirecTV just for the choice but Tivo would have to do some updating from the base interface on the HR10. It has been fairly reliable over the years but it is aging and needs some new features (and I don't mean Amazon or Kid Zone).


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So what if that new DirecTivo can not access some of the future DirecTV features, because it is not compatible with them... and for what ever reason... (either side of the equation, DirecTV or TiVo, Inc)....
> 
> Such as VOD, The Media Features, DirecTV's online scheduling, Interactive features (such as Sunday Ticket, HotPass, ect)...


VOD could be nice, but I have 3mbps DSL (hopefully 6mbs by the end of the year) has a tendency to start cutting off occasionally after heavy uses... so I personally would probably not have much use for VOD. Besides, my TiVos are always filled up with stuff to watch that I've recorded from the channels I pay for, so I probably wouldn't have time to deal with VOD that much.

By Media Features, I'm assuming you mean the network function? If so, Stand-Alone TiVos already have this function, and I've used it with music and photos before (works better than the PS3 streaming too). I've read something about the TiVo Series 3 streaming video, but I won't know for sure until next week...

TiVo already has on-line scheduling for their stand-alone systems.

Interactive Features! DirecTV started interactive features not long after they started (Wink provided the service), and they kept it for years. I used it quite a bit to check the weather and I missed it when they stopped, but now that I have DSL, I doubt I'd ever use the interactive features on the HR20.

Most of the above can be done by simply allowing TiVo to provide DirecTV with FULL-FEATURED TiVos... and I'm sorry, but I would be surprised if TiVo and DirecTV couldn't come up with an EASY way of making VOD work on a NEW full-featured TiVo.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Woudl that make a difference, to pay more for the "premium" service of having the TiVo system.


I'd pay a premium for a DirecTV-crippled TiVo, but if people at Liberty are really TiVo fans, they would allow TiVo to not pull any punches.



Earl Bonovich said:


> I point out some of those, as that is the case right now... with the "premium" service of having a Series 3 TiVo unit... you can't access OnDemand, or even use some of the "TiVo" features like MRV....


Again, OnDemand means very little to me as having a DVR gives me all the OnDemand I need... (although I am interested in playing with DirecTV's VOD once I get the HR20), as far as MRV goes, that's an issue with the cable companies, so all Liberty would have to do is grant TiVo with its blessings, and it wouldn't be a problem for a DirecTV TiVo... of course, whether or not they would do that since they've made no hints about the HR20 getting it either...

~Alan


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

STEVEN-H said:


> [...]But with control of DirecTV expected to pass from News Corp. to Liberty Media later this year, that could be "positive" for TiVo, said its Chief Executive Tom Rogers.
> 
> "Liberty is a company that has no ownership interests, now or after the DirecTV closes, in a competing DVR, and that probably changes things," Rogers told a Deutsche Bank investor conference.[...]


Much ado about nothing, IMO. Right now any speculation by Tivo about a new arrangement is just wishful thinking on their part, intended to be positive PR for Tivo shareholders. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Rogers wasn't just responding to a question from the audience at this conference, and it wasn't part of his prepared speech.

I'm a Tivo fan as much as the next guy, but until I see a statement from Mr. Malone or Liberty Media that they'd like to resume talks with Tivo, I can't get very excited by this 'announcement'. Just my .02. /s


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

At the end of the day, it is what it is.

Would I like it to be different? Yes, that and about a million other things in this world.

A competetive market for D* compatible products isn't my biggest problem to be sure.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Alan (instead of quoting your post).

You are one of 16,000,000 subscribers.
How many do you think have the same feelings on each of those items?
Would it be enough to justify the development costs, time, and support ?

Who is to say that even a Liberty sponsored TiVo unit, would not be limited in what it can do? There are a lot of factors that go into the reasons why some of the "TiVo SA" features, where never put on the DirecTiVo units. 

So you would be willing to pay TiVo, Inc... for access to those premium services.... how many would be? And would it be enough to justify the development, production, and support for such a system?

And your reference to Wink... that is a good example, on WHY... multiple systems are a problem. Wink was only available on certain RCA boxes (and maybe one or two others), but not universally available. So while you may have used it, I didn't as I only had it on one box in the house, so never really got into using it.


----------



## topcats69 (Oct 5, 2004)

brott said:


> This would be the biggest reason that I could see for DIRECTV making amends. However, cost will always be an issue and as long as DIRECTV is steering clear of Patent violations, then it shouldn't be a problem anyway.


Could be also they want to add some patented stuff to the hr20 and pay some fee to tivo for using using there intellectual property. like dual buffers etc.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

topcats - dual buffers are not TiVo intellectual property.

Their property in the D* area consists of:
Auto correction when coming out of fast forward
Suggestions

I think that's it...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

topcats69 said:


> Could be also they want to add some patented stuff to the hr20 and pay some fee to tivo for using using there intellectual property. like dual buffers etc.


They wouldn't have to pay TiVo, Inc. a dime for dual buffers..
As TiVo, Inc doesn't have a patent (nor does anyone else), have a patent on dual buffers.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

KenS,
Like Earl said, the HR20 releases are no longer emergencies or the like. They're tune up type things.

The HR20 performs far better than what I'd been led to believe. I was a TiVo guy, going back to the original DSR6000, which only had one active tuner. I love TiVo. But I just sold my 2 HR10-250's, for which I paid $999, on eBay.

But the HR20 more than satisfies the needs of my family and me. Plus, the MPEG-4 locals are of extremely good quality. I can't tell the difference between MPEG-4 HD and OTA! (You can really see the difference between MPEG-2 Channel 82 (pretty good) and my local NBC (WCAU-HD, 10 - superb!). 

Sure - lack of DLB is a royal pain, but everything else works so well that it hasn't really been a factor. Of course, I'm not watching the NFL nowadays either


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Alan (instead of quoting your post).
> 
> You are one of 16,000,000 subscribers.
> How many do you think have the same feelings on each of those items?
> Would it be enough to justify the development costs, time, and support ?


Of the HD package, I personally care very little for ESPN-HD, ESPN2-HD and DiscoveryHD Theater... but I'm aware these are very popular.

I care very little for Interactive Services. I care very little for VOD. I was liking the Game Room idea until I found out you had to pay for it.

I'm not even going to guess out of how many of those subscribers would have the same feelings as me... but depending on how you do it, the justification costs/time/support wouldn't be that bad. For instance, TiVo is already used to DirecTV versions of TiVo, they already have a MOSTLY-full featured HD TiVo (TiVo Series 3), so I would think most of the development costs and time are already done. Also, if DirecTV didn't want to, they could allow TiVo to develop and support their own "DirecTV" TiVos (ala CableCard Series 3). Heck, when we were on Pegasus, we had to get our TiVo service from DirecTV (Pegasus didn't provide that service).



Earl Bonovich said:


> Who is to say that even a Liberty sponsored TiVo unit, would not be limited in what it can do? There are a lot of factors that go into the reasons why some of the "TiVo SA" features, where never put on the DirecTiVo units.


No where whatsoever, but a lot of the features mentioned were ones you brought up comparing the HR20 to a "possible" TiVo. My point was simply that DirecTV could ALLOW these features. Also, as I said, if Liberty does indeed have TiVo fans among their ranks, then they may be aware of the features that TiVo offers.



Earl Bonovich said:


> So you would be willing to pay TiVo, Inc... for access to those premium services.... how many would be? And would it be enough to justify the development, production, and support for such a system?


Yes! I already commented on this...



Earl Bonovich said:


> And your reference to Wink... that is a good example, on WHY... multiple systems are a problem. Wink was only available on certain RCA boxes (and maybe one or two others), but not universally available. So while you may have used it, I didn't as I only had it on one box in the house, so never really got into using it.


I have THREE DirecTV boxes. All three TiVos, but I'm fixing to deactivate one of them (and store it), and get a HR20. Only one of the units would be Interactive, and I have NO intention of replacing the other TiVos (I'd have a revolt). The only other DirecTV customer I know (DirecTV doesn't have locals, Dish does) has pre-interactive receivers. Plus, even with the Dish Network people I know, they don't update their receivers every few years or so, meaning that MOST of those 16 million subscribers you mentioned, probably doesn't have interactive capabilities, or does on a mix of their boxes.

Also, with Liberty Media having financial interests in OpenTV, who's to say that DirecTV's current interactive features will last that long either?

*Look,* I don't know what would make DirecTV start looking at TiVo again, if they even are in the first place, and I've made it clear that as much as I want it to, I really don't see this happening. I'm just excited by the possibility of it as it would keep me a "DirecTV fan" instead of a "DirecTV subscriber."

~Alan


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> topcats - dual buffers are not TiVo intellectual property.
> 
> Their property in the D* area consists of:
> Auto correction when coming out of fast forward
> ...


Tho I can't prove it, I'm to understand TiVo has some 80+ patents. Several of which are court tested in TiVo's favor.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl, don't get your panties in a bunch. Sounds like you own stock directly in the HR20. What's it to you if D* ever offers some type of Tivo based unit? Lighten up.

As an aside, something I haven't seen mentioned, yet I could see as a great help to D* would be for Tivo to port their software to the R15 platform. From reading old R15 threads the R15 processor runs Linux. I'd guess the DBS tuners are the same and probably HDTV can have a reasonable SD DVR that does what it's suppose to do.

Tivo could probably port their software to the R15 quicker than NDS can some out with the next patch. In the end, what would it hurt? D*(Liberty) tells Tivo to go ahead and may or may not pay for it. If it's important to Tivo, hey, Liberty can provide the specs on the R15 and let Tivo foot the bill for a port. If Tivo gets it working then Liberty can work a deal.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> Earl, don't get your panties in a bunch. Sounds like you own stock directly in the HR20. What's it to you if D* ever offers some type of Tivo based unit? Lighten up.
> 
> As an aside, something I haven't seen mentioned, yet I could see as a great help to D* would be for Tivo to port their software to the R15 platform. From reading old R15 threads the R15 processor runs Linux. I'd guess the DBS tuners are the same and probably HDTV can have a reasonable SD DVR that does what it's suppose to do.
> 
> Tivo could probably port their software to the R15 quicker than NDS can some out with the next patch. In the end, what would it hurt? D*(Liberty) tells Tivo to go ahead and may or may not pay for it. If it's important to Tivo, hey, Liberty can provide the specs on the R15 and let Tivo foot the bill for a port. If Tivo gets it working then Liberty can work a deal.


Where do you see my panties in a bunch? (besides it is a g-string... hard to bunch up).

Just becuase I continue to point out the "other side" of the arguments and foster the discussion to see the "entire picture", don't think I am upset about this.

I am a DirecTV subscriber first, DVR user second... always have been...
I spent almost 6 years, participating at TCF on the TiVo side of the world... purchase over a dozen DTiVo's for myself... and countless others I helped get hooked on the DVR/TiVo over the many years. I was #5 to get an HR10-250, and did my first review on an R10....

I am not anti-TiVo... I am just anti-GiveMeTiVoAsNothingElseCouldEverBeAsGood


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I am not anti-TiVo... I am just anti-GiveMeTiVoAsNothingElseCouldEverBeAsGood


I really had to comment on this as I wanted to make sure people know that I am also "anti-GiveMeTiVoAsNothingElseCouldEverBeAsGood" as I would personally love for DirecTV (or Dish Network, or everybody) to get a DVR that would blow TiVo out of the water.

I just don't think the HR20 (or anybody else's DVR) is in TiVo's league, or will ever be. I used to hope that DirecTV's media center might be, but unless somebody new comes along, I don't expect it anytime soon...

~Alan


----------



## oldguy1 (Aug 22, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> I really had to comment on this as I wanted to make sure people know that I am also "anti-GiveMeTiVoAsNothingElseCouldEverBeAsGood" as I would personally love for DirecTV (or Dish Network, or everybody) to get a DVR that would blow TiVo out of the water.
> 
> I just don't think the HR20 (or anybody else's DVR) is in TiVo's league, or will ever be. I used to hope that DirecTV's media center might be, but unless somebody new comes along, I don't expect it anytime soon...
> 
> ~Alan


I, for one, am very happy wth the HR-20 and the features D* is putting in it. Every week they release new software with fixes and improvements.

I will be very happy when there are more HD channels.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Here's a perspective that may ring true to those who are trying to survive the post Rupert DirecTV:

TiVo is trying to assure that world that they haven't lost over half of their customer base forever with the split with DirecTV. Every step they take is measured to keep their stock price as high as possible.

I'm betting that TiVo is betting on a buy-out and they need to cash in every user they can before they cash out.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

harsh said:


> Here's a perspective that may ring true to those who are trying to survive the post Rupert DirecTV:
> 
> TiVo is trying to assure that world that they haven't lost over half of their customer base forever with the split with DirecTV. Every step they take is measured to keep their stock price as high as possible.
> 
> I'm betting that TiVo is betting on a buy-out and they need to cash in every user they can before they cash out.


So... what you are saying is... it probably won't be long until someone starts a "Liberty Media Buying TiVo?" thread pops up! 

~Alan


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> I just don't think the HR20 (or anybody else's DVR) is in TiVo's league, or will ever be.


I completely disagree. Even though I really don't see it happening, if DirecTV were to discontinue the HR20 and force everyone back on to a Tivo platform, I would leave. I had Tivo for years before I got an HR20, and even though the HR20 isn't even a year old yet, I already feel that it blows Tivo out of the water.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Something nobody has mentioned yet is that competition drives innovation. If someone else is putting out more sophisticated products you had better keep up or get left behind.

If the HR20 is the only HD DVR that a D* subscriber can use, how good do they really need to make it? Just good enough to keep you from jumping to another provider, that's how good.

Do you really think your telephone would be as feature rich as it is today if we continued to only be able to buy telephones from the phone company? No. A free market drove the development of the telephone into what it is today.

I give D* credit for continuing to crank out updated software for the HR20, but they are really only working to deliver what was advertised 9 months ago.

There really is no impetus for them to do anything groundbreaking or superlative with it because it is the only game in town. VOD? Do you think they would be working to deliver it if other providers didn't already offer it?

They are only working to compete...not to innovate.

And we, the subscribers, are the ones who will be poorer for it. D* is devolving from true cutting edge content providers into Satellite Cable. They grow more complacent and indifferent with the passage of time.

They are still better overall than the other content providers but the gap is definitely narrowing.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I love that argument...
> 
> Just because they decide to push smaller updates, in increments...
> Doesn't indicate there are SERIOUS problems and SCRAMBLING to fix them.
> ...


No, the mess that I deal with on these three boxes and the other posts on this forum indicate that there are serious bugs. Unless, of course not being able to reliably record isn't considered serious.

Perhaps you're right they're not going to rush to fixing the bugs. It's certainly easier to implement new features if you don't have to worry about really making them work.

I know..it works great for you.

I know their CSR group is great as well.

or...my favorite..."Well, it's much better than it was.."

All the issues people report are hardware issues (which I guess don't count) or their imagination.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> I give D* credit for continuing to crank out updated software for the HR20, but they are really only working to deliver what was advertised 9 months ago.


Aside from CIR, what exactly are they still working to deliver that was advertised 9 months ago? Media Bridge wasn't advertised, VOD wasn't advertised, online scheduling wasn't advertised.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> No, the mess that I deal with on these three boxes and the other posts on this forum indicate that there are serious bugs. Unless, of course not being able to reliably record isn't considered serious.
> 
> Perhaps you're right they're not going to rush to fixing the bugs. It's certainly easier to implement new features if you don't have to worry about really making them work.
> 
> ...


I am not discrediting you and the issues you are having.

But saying that they are rushing out these national releases as a basis for the argument that their are SERIOUS CRITICAL issues with the box... is what I disagree with.

And while it may appear on the surface "easier" to implement new features.... they are just as challenging... as you need to add the features, with out negative effects on other items in the box... or have to change those, to get new things to work.

Some of the bugs that you have been having (namely your wiggles)... If you can't reproduce it on command... on another system, it gets significantly more difficult to find and debug... heck "fixing" it is the easy part, finding the reason is the difficult part.

What if they setup 100 systems in their test lab, and setup the Wiggles to record in ever fashion possible... and none of them fail.
What does that say? Hardware issue? Not necessarily... it just says there is some other factor, that can't be replicated on their systems... that your system is experiencing.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

If there were REALLY serious problems with H20's and HR20's, Thompson wouldn't have made over 1,000,000 of the boxes. And they are one of the manufactures of two that do H20's and the second supplier for the HR20's. Something with serious problems wouldn't be selling in those numbers.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

RAD said:


> they are only one of the manufactures of the three that do H20's


There are only two H20 manufacturers. Thomson and LG.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Jeremy W said:


> There are only two H20 manufacturers. Thomson and LG.


DOH, I had the R15 on my mind, I'll fix it. Thanks


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Aside from CIR, what exactly are they still working to deliver that was advertised 9 months ago? Media Bridge wasn't advertised, VOD wasn't advertised, online scheduling wasn't advertised.


This is from D's annual report....

ntroduce Video-on-Demand Services. We plan to introduce VOD services in 2007 for subscribers that have the new DIRECTV Plus® DVR and DIRECTV Plus® HD-DVR. We expect the service, named DIRECTV On-Demand, to have over 1,000 offerings of top programming from the major broadcast and cable networks, as well as movies that can be accessed from a customer's receiver, and programming that will be downloaded through a broadband connection.
------
Obviously, 2007 isn't over yet...but they're certainly claiming they are going to do VOD. They also talk about sharing content throughout the home and a new media server in 2008.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Ken S said:


> This is from D's annual report....


An annual report to investors is FAR from advertising. The features I mentioned STILL aren't being advertised.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Aside from CIR, what exactly are they still working to deliver that was advertised 9 months ago? Media Bridge wasn't advertised, VOD wasn't advertised, online scheduling wasn't advertised.


Well rock solid recording and playback of programming and trickplay for starters.

It does some odd and undesirable things on occasion (audio dropouts & cancelled recordings) and trickplay "works" but it is more contentious and troublesome than what some other DVR products deliver.

But, there is a spiffy white GUI so I guess it's all good.

The box isn't "bad". It's a lot better than it was and I expect it will improve even more.

But I don't believe it will ever be what it could be if there was someone else directly working to develop an even BETTER unit and competing head-to-head with it.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> I don't believe it will ever be what it could be if there was someone else directly working to develop an even BETTER unit and competing head-to-head with it.


I don't see any evidence to support this argument. It is very apparent that DirecTV is working extremely hard to make the HR20 work the way it's supposed to. It's a totally different DVR now than it was in September, and by its one year birthday it will be even more different. How exactly would competition make a difference?


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> An annual report to investors is FAR from advertising. The features I mentioned STILL aren't being advertised.


They STILL don't work either.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> They STILL don't work either.


Media Bridge works. VOD and online scheduling aren't supposed to work yet.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I am not discrediting you and the issues you are having.
> 
> But saying that they are rushing out these national releases as a basis for the argument that their are SERIOUS CRITICAL issues with the box... is what I disagree with.
> 
> ...


Earl,

I know all about software and hardware testing. I know it's not easy. Although it's much easier in D's case because it's a virtually a closed system. D controls all the input (Remote control/front panel), the data (sat feeds). Sure there are a few places where outside data can sneak in...OTA and the network items...but that's pretty limited.

Try testing an online service dialing out with 1,500 different modems, etc. Try rolling out an OS that is supposed to work on any "PC" compat machine...including the one that someone builds in their garage out of parts.

I would hope that D can emulate many more than 100 boxes in their testing.

Can anyone say that D did a good job of quality testing on this machine before release? I mean with a straight face?

My comment about rolling out features rather than fixing bugs was facetious. Although, developers would rather work on features any day than fixing bugs...that's work...that's hard work.

The problem with doing numerous patches is every time you patch a system that requires a reboot you take a risk. You risk "bricking" the system and you, more importantly, you risk your customer's data.

To roll back to the original topic...It would be nice if Tivo was able to market a box that fully worked with the D system. In the days of the BUD you could choose from any number of receivers and then had to buy a decoder (I can't remember the name of those pink boxes) to get "pay" programming.

But...Tivo isn't magic...any number of companies could produce a quality DVR with high-end features...if they want to.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't see any evidence to support this argument. It is very apparent that DirecTV is working extremely hard to make the HR20 work the way it's supposed to. It's a totally different DVR now than it was in September, and by its one year birthday it will be even more different. How exactly would competition make a difference?


OK, right off the top of my head...

How about a wireless ethernet feature. Nobody else can come up with a box incorporating that so neither will D*. Sure would be nice though since many of us have our router/hub in the office, not in the room with our big screen HDTV.

DLB. You don't care, sure. But enough people do care that in an open market someone (not necessarily TiVO either) would deliver that feature. And D* would be much more likely to follow suit in order to continue to compete.

PIP. HR20 doesn't have it. Never will. If there was competition within the D* subscriber market someone would offer it and again, D* would need to follow suit to compete.

Or they could get out of the STB/DVR game altogether and let the people that design and manufacture electronics for a living slug it out to provide the best box possible. That would be my preference


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> How about a wireless ethernet feature.


How about not raising the price of the box for people who don't need it? You can buy a wireless adapter for it if you need it, but I have an Ethernet jack right behind my TV and I'm glad that I didn't have to pay for wireless that I wouldn't even use.


HarleyD said:


> DLB.


No comment.


HarleyD said:


> PIP.


Cool feature. Would I ever use it? Not after the initial "playing around" phase.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> PIP. HR20 doesn't have it. Never will. If there was competition within the D* subscriber market someone would offer it and again, D* would need to follow suit to compete.


I believe the Tandberg MPEG-4 encoders D* uses support autocreation and delivery of PIP subchannel streams. It might actually be harder for D* to design a remote that supports PIP than it would be to add that functionality to the HR20! :lol: /s


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve said:


> The Tandberg MPEG-4 encoders D* uses support autocreation and delivery of PIP subchannel streams. It might actually be harder for D* to design a remote that supports PIP than it would be to add that functionality to the HR20! :lol: /s


Maybe the encoders do... but it would have to be the decoder chips in the HR20 that would have to be able to work with that.

And I am pretty sure BROTT and some others dug around, and the current chip in the system is only able to decode 1 MPEG-4 stream at a time.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> The Tandberg MPEG-4 encoders D* uses support autocreation and delivery of PIP subchannel streams.


The problem is that the HR20 can only decode one MPEG4 stream at a time.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And I am pretty sure BROTT and some others dug around, and the current chip in the system is only able to decode 1 MPEG-4 stream at a time.





Jeremy W said:


> The problem is that the HR20 can only decode one MPEG4 stream at a time.


Had no idea there was a h/w limitation. Scratch that idea! /s


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> An annual report to investors is FAR from advertising. The features I mentioned STILL aren't being advertised.


You're quite wrong...it's the most serious type of advertising you can do. They also include it in their prospectus and in some investor presentations.

Here ya go...here's a press release from 2005..but I guess it doesn't count either.

here's a snppet you can read the whole thing if you want from the link below..

The DIRECTV Home Media Center, which will be available by the end of this year, will allow for networking throughout the house. DIRECTV customers with the Home Media Center will be able to share, move and view content from room to room.

The networked system's advanced middleware architecture will support additional functions via its broadband connection. Examples are support for personal computer connectivity, scheduling DVR recordings from the Internet, photos from wireless phones and video-on-demand. It is also MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 compatible, and as with all DIRECTV receivers, the product software can be upgraded via satellite.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=660038&highlight=

here's a piece of an article from the WSJ including a quote from a VP at D.

Satellite-TV Firm
Prepares to Offer
Video Downloads
By ELLEN SHENG
February 23, 2006

DirecTV Group Inc. is preparing to launch a broadband-video service before the end of the year.

The service will start with a library of 2,000 videos, company executives said yesterday at an annual investor meeting in New York. Customers with a DirecTV Plus digital-video recorder will be able to order programs "on demand" from their television sets or remotely through a Web site. The videos would then be downloaded onto the DVR and be available for viewing later in the day or the following day.

It won't be streaming real-time, but "it'll be faster than Netflix," said Eric Shanks, executive vice president of entertainment.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> An annual report to investors is FAR from advertising.


An annual report is in large part advertising aimed at luring prospective investors and retaining current investors. If relating all of the SEC mandated information was all that was required, they would be sending out spreadsheets printed on newsprint. Such is not to say that the annual report is a tool for attracting subscribers, but it is every bit an attempt to get someone to share some of their money with the company.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> How about not raising the price of the box for people who don't need it? You can buy a wireless adapter for it if you need it, but I have an Ethernet jack right behind my TV and I'm glad that I didn't have to pay for wireless that I wouldn't even use.
> 
> No comment.
> 
> Cool feature. Would I ever use it? Not after the initial "playing around" phase.


See, you're missing the point.

You wouldn't have to pay for the feature if you didn't want it. A true open market of D* receivers and DVRs would drive the creation of low end units and high end units as well as of course intermediate units. Different feature sets for the different markets, users and prices. You could CHOOSE what features you did or did not want to have/pay for.

I know it seems like a wild idea but it seems to have worked for a few things like DVD Players, Televisions, Stereos, Household Appliances, Automobiles, Blenders, Coffee Makers, MP3 players, Computers, Cameras, Printers and Telephones.

Call it a hunch, but I think the idea could catch on.


----------



## MercurialIN (Jul 17, 2006)

I've loved TiVo since my first stand alone TiVo back in 2001 but I have to admit I am feeling better about having to give it up (couldn't find a satellite receiver that was still compatible with the stand alone TiVo, the TiVo never stopped working) because I'm learning to like the HR 20 pretty well. I still miss TiVo suggestions (I know most people hated them, but you could always turn them off you know) and of course DLB. 

I think I'd probably want to keep the HR 20, however the best of both worlds for me was if they offered a new TiVo-Directv box to replace the much detested (by me, only my opinion) R 15. That's the box I'd give up in a nano second.

A comment Earl made got me to thinking, I'd actually like it if when VOD becomes available if D* would provide a service (yes I know it would be for a fee) to hook up a network for those of us that don't know how nor have anyone available to do it for us. My D* was installed by a professional installer, the HR 20 and R 15 too, so if it wasn't outrageously expensive it would be worth paying an installer to have VOD, down the road.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The problem is that the HR20 can only decode one MPEG4 stream at a time.


I haven't stated this before now, but the HR20 could decode two MPEG4 streams, but it would need to be done with a software codec on on the main CPU (the BCM7038). The decoder chip (BCM7411) will only decode a single MPEG4 stream at a time, but theoretically, I guess two could be done - very unlikely that it will work perfectly, though.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And I am pretty sure BROTT and some others dug around, and the current chip in the system is only able to decode 1 MPEG-4 stream at a time.





Jeremy W said:


> The problem is that the HR20 can only decode one MPEG4 stream at a time.


Actually now that I think about it, since the PIP stream would be separately encoded and contain so much less data, I wonder just how much processor bandwidth would be required to decode it into the PIP window, if trickplay didn't need to be supported? It's not like D* would need to process a second, full-bandwidth MPEG-4 stream and scale it down.

Or it might even be encoded as MPEG-2.

Here's what the EN-5990 brochure says:

Simultaneous Picture-in-Picture Video Service Encoding
• Simultaneous encoding of low resolution version of main video service.
• MPEG-4 AVC real-time encoding.
• Main Picture-in-Picture (PIP) 192 x 192 to full D1 SD resolution.
• A secondary PIP of 96 x 96 pixels is also generated.
• Single box solution for PIP functionality in IPTV applications.

Here's what the EN-8090 release says:
the main HD full resolution channel, 
a secondary version of the main channel running up to full SD resolution, allowing operators to internally convert HD content to SD to also deliver their services to SD-only set-top-box consumers 
a third "micro" channel for use in Picture-in-Picture, mosaic, and alternate/multi-view applications

/s


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

brott said:


> I guess two could be done - very unlikely that it will work perfectly, though.


Horrors!

We wouldn't want to see something on the HR20 that didn't work perfectly now.


----------



## toy4two (Aug 18, 2006)

this is great if it happens. I *LOVE* my TIVO, HR20, not so much.

A Corolla is good enough, but I want a Lexus and would be willing to pay more for it.

Dual tuner, ad skip, over shoot, and that wonderful UI, <drool>, I have a six pack for Malone if he can court TIVO.

Maybe the TIVO won't be crippled like the HR20 which can't even pull in all the OTA stations we get in San Diego from Mexico, no technical reason it can't be done, other than an oversight by the engineers that there is tons of high quality free HD being broadcast out of Mexico to San Diego and other border towns.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> I know it seems like a wild idea but it seems to have worked for a few things like DVD Players, Televisions, Stereos, Household Appliances, Automobiles, Blenders, Coffee Makers, MP3 players, Computers, Cameras, Printers and Telephones.


Aside from telephones, none of those devices you mentioned are tied to a service. Even when DirecTV used to allow different manufacturers, nobody did anything really innovative with their receivers. You're just assuming that innovation will occur, when there is no data to support that. DirecTV gave up on separate manufacturers for a reason.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

brott said:


> I haven't stated this before now, but the HR20 could decode two MPEG4 streams, but it would need to be done with a software codec on on the main CPU (the BCM7038).


Do you honestly believe that the BCM7038 is powerful enough to decode MPEG4 using a software codec? It's only 300MHz, and it's got to worry about running all of the regular apps at the same time. I think it would be impossible.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Do you honestly believe that the BCM7038 is powerful enough to decode MPEG4 using a software codec? It's only 300MHz, and it's got to worry about running all of the regular apps at the same time. I think it would be impossible.


See my post above. The PIP channel may not be MPEG-4. /s


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve said:


> Actually now that I think about it, since the PIP stream would be separately encoded and contain so much less data, I wonder just how much processor bandwidth would be required to decode it into the PIP window, if trickplay didn't need to be supported? It's not like D* would need to process a second, full-bandwidth MPEG-4 stream and scale it down.
> 
> Or it might even be encoded as MPEG-2. /s


It sounds you are confusing the decoding of MPEG4 with then displaying that stream onto your TV. The HR20 takes an already encoded (and likely encrypted) stream and decodes it for viewing on your TV. There is no "re-encoding" nor transcoding, the TV takes the decoded signal directly. So the PIP stream could be theoretically any DIRECTV or OTA source and therefore at any incoming bandwidth.

Now, I know some research has gone into the chips inside the HR20. And an earlier technical document did indicate that the chips could only decode 1 MPEG4 stream. But, none of the current documents have that restriction.

And here is the big kicker. The Vip622 has the same chips inside and can do PIP on any channel without restriction. So somehow the chips can support the processing load. If the Vip622 does it via software decoding, then I can understand if DIRECTV chooses not to; they are likely reserving the CPU for other features. But if the decoding chip can handle two MPEG4 streams, I do not understand why DIRECTV doesn't consider PIP as an option.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> See my post above. The PIP channel may not be MPEG-4


It would have to be MPEG4. It's coming from the MPEG4 encoder, and being sent down in the stream with other MPEG4 content.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> And here is the big kicker. The Vip622 has the same chips inside and can do PIP on any channel without restriction.


I thought that the Vip622 had two decoder chips?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It would have to be MPEG4. It's coming from the MPEG4 encoder, and being sent down in the stream with other MPEG4 content.


Even still, the "micro" MPEG-4 stream might be decodable by the main CPU. It really wouldn't contain much data and trickplay wouldn't need to be supported.

I did think for a minute after reading the Tandberg specs that the microstream might be MPEG-2, or even unencoded. /s

EDIT: The 5900 "add-on" to the 5990 MPEG-4 encoder D* uses that would be required to generate PIP is, in fact, an MPEG-2/WMV9 encoder, not MPEG-4.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> It sounds you are confusing the decoding of MPEG4 with then displaying that stream onto your TV. The HR20 takes an already encoded (and likely encrypted) stream and decodes it for viewing on your TV. There is no "re-encoding" nor transcoding, the TV takes the decoded signal directly. So the PIP stream could be theoretically any DIRECTV or OTA source and therefore at any incoming bandwidth.


Agree. I may not have made it clear that the Tandberg Encoder would be creating the MPEG-4 PIP "micro" stream, which would not require much processor bandwidth to decode. /s


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I thought that the Vip622 had two decoder chips?


I don't think it does, but I am not certain. The pictures I've seen do not appear to have two; but they were not comprehensive. It is possible another one could have been hidden somewhere.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve said:


> Agree. I may not have made it clear that the Tandberg Encoder would be creating the MPEG-4 PIP "micro" stream, which would not require much processor bandwidth to decode. /s


Ok, now I follow your thrust. So if DIRECTV wanted they could include a hidden PIP subchannel along with the main channel (and use a bit more bandwidth), and the reduced bandwidth would then be within the realm of the HR20's to decode. So while this would create a small window PIP, this wouldn't allow a real Side-by-side PIP--the stream would look terrible, i'm guessing.

Nonetheless it is an intriguing possibility.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ok, now I follow your thrust. So if DIRECTV wanted they could include a hidden PIP subchannel along with the main channel (and use a bit more bandwidth), and the reduced bandwidth would then be within the realm of the HR20's to decode. So while this would create a small window PIP, this wouldn't allow a real Side-by-side PIP--the stream would look terrible, i'm guessing.
> 
> Nonetheless it is an intriguing possibility.
> 
> ...


I wonder if DirecTV knows this is possible ... as they currently provide a "bonus cam" PIP window on YES 622 with interactive features, showing the Yankees game full screen and a small PIP window following the dugout. When you activate the "bonus cam" now, the channel actually changes from 622 to a channel in the 1900s or 9900s (I can't remember which), and that channel has the PIP window superimposed over the game. You naturally end up losing your buffer because of the channel change, and it's slow as molasses switching channels. Due to bandwidth issues, this bonus cam is only available on the SD YES channel.

Now if DirecTV went with the "SD" PPIP approach Steve describes, they could just pop up the PIP window over either the SD or HD YES channel and the buffer would be preserved ... AND they would save the bandwidth used by the hidden channel currently used to show the fake PIP bonus cam window!

So get on this, DirecTV!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ok, now I follow your thrust. So if DIRECTV wanted they could include a hidden PIP subchannel along with the main channel (and use a bit more bandwidth), and the reduced bandwidth would then be within the realm of the HR20's to decode. So while this would create a small window PIP, this wouldn't allow a real Side-by-side PIP--the stream would look terrible, i'm guessing.


Yup. I was thinking small window PIP all along, with no trickplay. Just enough to keep an eye on the game while the show or movie was on.

Boy, have we hijacked this thread! :lol: /s


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And I am pretty sure BROTT and some others dug around, and the current chip in the system is only able to decode 1 MPEG-4 stream at a time.


Do you know what processor/chip set the HR20 uses? Link to BROTT's findings?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> Do you know what processor/chip set the HR20 uses? Link to BROTT's findings?


Off the top of my head...
No, but you can look at the pictures from the review... as there is where Brott got the chip numbers and then googled it.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

bto4wd, here's the review thread Earl was talking about: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=61862


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

This is a funny thread.

Guys going into deep technical detail on something that will probably never happen (PIP).

And others claiming that D* hasn't delivered on something they said would happen in 2007 only halfway thru the year. And bashing them for it. Oh, even better, bashing them for not delivering something they said they would deliver NEXT year.

Others saying competition (by adding Tivo back in) will bring lower prices. How is that working with the S3?

Very funny.

p.s. I loved my Tivos. I bragged about my Tivos. The HR20 is not yet blowing the doors off the Tivos (which have had their share of issues, btw). But it is close. Add half of our Top 10 requests and it will be way above the TiVo. At this point, it is edging ahead (and I am using both an HR10 and HR20 side by side...this is not conjecture by someone who won't even try the HR20 out.)


----------



## jbstix (Dec 29, 2005)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> KenS,
> The HR20 performs far better than what I'd been led to believe. I was a TiVo guy, going back to the original DSR6000, which only had one active tuner. I love TiVo.


"one active tuner" What are you referring to here? Dual tuners/Dual buffers?
If so, my DSR6000 still has, and has always had dual tuners/dual buffers... (after the first software update I think) hard to remember back that far.

It's a little off topic, but I don't understand what you are talking about here...


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> This is a funny thread.


You said it.

I especially like the case for bringing back multiple vendors for the various set top boxes. Does anyone realize the costs for the increased levels of customer service and technical support to adequately staff the idea? Make no mistake about it, whether they sell the hardware or not, D* is responsible for the tech support. So to get this wonderful myriad of choices in hardware we get to experience rate hikes that look more like the Cable Co's and probably experience a significant slowdown in the addition of content.

It is a lot like the mobile phone biz in this country, Verizon Wireless is the most profitable provider and consistently adds more net customers every quarter than any other player. Yet despite being generally despised by the tech savvy for the way they have implemented a standard UI and cripple desired features (which saves them big bucks in the customer service and tech support divisions and increases revenue streams in certain areas) the predictions of their imminent demise have yet to come true, and has now seen their competitors copying some of their policies to keep up.

As for the comments of TIVO's top dog at the investor meeting, do you think it was maybe a plea for help as they have yet to find a business model anywhere as successful (profitable) as the one they had with D* and they have had no luck finding an interested party to buy them, patent portfolio notwithstanding?


----------



## rlnoonan (Jan 6, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Add half of our Top 10 requests and it will be way above the TiVo.


I agree. In fact, for me at least, add DLB alone to the HR20 and I would be willing to forget all about my Tivo.

I still have my DirecTivo unit for the my SD TV and I still love it because it just works and has DLB. However, after six months of having the HR20 I've come to like many of the features on the HR20 better.

That being said, the original point of this thread interested me just because I'd love for some competition to push D* to implement DLB on the HR20. Tivo being "let back in" seems pretty unlikely though.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

I would only like DLB if they could make them 90 minutes not 30.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Time for :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Albie said:


> You said it.
> 
> I especially like the case for bringing back multiple vendors for the various set top boxes. Does anyone realize the costs for the increased levels of customer service and technical support to adequately staff the idea? Make no mistake about it, whether they sell the hardware or not, D* is responsible for the tech support. So to get this wonderful myriad of choices in hardware we get to experience rate hikes that look more like the Cable Co's and probably experience a significant slowdown in the addition of content.


Reintroducing TiVo in an integrated MPEG4 HD DirecTV receiver is not going to "break the bank".

DirecTV is CURRENTLY supporting multiple vendors (Hughes, Samsung, Philips, RCA, etc.) with multiple interfaces (TiVo, Ultimate TV, RCA, Philips, Samsung, etc.).

The CSRs CURRENTLY have to deal with tech support on all of these various boxes, and this support would continue until EVERY "non-standard**" was replaced, which is a VERY long-term prospect.

** With "standard" being: D10, D11, R15, H20, and HR20


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

It may not "Break the Bank" but it is simply not needed.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom_S said:


> It may not "Break the Bank" but it is simply not needed.


Agree. I really don't see how paying any amount of money, no matter how insignificant, for the development of another Tivo-based unit in the future can benefit D*.

D* has already paid for the bulk of the development costs for the HR20 and is now projecting that manufacturing costs will drop to $300 per unit this year. To help offset these costs, the monthly DVR fee is now funnelling into D*'s pockets, instead of Tivo's.

As much as I love Tivo-based units, if I was a D* shareholder, I'd have to vote with my head, and not my heart, against any new deal with Tivo. Just my .02. /s


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

How nice for you folks who don't want anything more than what you already have.

How sad that some of you actively oppose anyone else getting what they want or simply term it as "not needed" merely because you don't want it.

I happen to think VOD is a big waste as is CIR since I manage pretty well with my Favorites. Should I openly complain about these things being addressed for folks that want them because I don't want D* costing me money by investing resources in features I don't want and to heck with those that do want it?

I see shortcomings and desirable features that a mere download will not deliver to DirecTV Plus equipment and I am not the only one. I really dislike the idea that the basic hardware platform is as good as it will get...take it or leave it. This take it or leave it attitude was one of the biggest reasons I left cable in the first place. They openly did not care, because they felt they did not have to. This is what I was referring to when I said D* was becoming Satellite Cable. They seem to be becoming content and are settling into this same mindset.

I balk at the idea of only four choices in D* equipment.


One type of SD STB
One type of SD DVR
One type of HD STB
One type of HD DVR

There is absolutely zero chance that only one type of a given unit is going to meet everyone's needs and I am disappointed by the pious dismissal of folks who want something more/different that is being displayed by some of those who happen to be satisfied with the current feature set.

"I got mine...the heck with you." What a swell position to take.

And let me proactively address the "well go somewhere else if you don't like it" response. I still think D* is the probably the best content provider out there, but that's a low bar to clear.

It is still reasonable to point out shortcomings, want things to get better and be dissatisfied if they do not.

But, whatever. It's already quite apparent where the prevailing winds blow around here...and in El Segundo.


----------



## CobraGuy (Apr 23, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> I had Tivo for years before I got an HR20, and even though the HR20 isn't even a year old yet, I already feel that it blows Tivo out of the water


You have got to be kidding me. Other than HD...which is why I got the HR-20...I can't think of a thing the HR-20 does that is superior to Tivo...and it in fact lacks several things...such as stability. Myabe it's just the features I use compared to the ones you use. 



Jeremy W said:


> I don't see any evidence to support this argument. It is very apparent that DirecTV is working extremely hard to make the HR20 work the way it's supposed to. It's a totally different DVR now than it was in September, and by its one year birthday it will be even more different. How exactly would competition make a difference?


Yes...they are working hard which is the reason I hold most of my criticisms to myself. However, your last sentence in that quote is simply amazing. If that were true, we would all be driving the same boring car, watching the same tv, using the same refridgerator, NASCAR wouldn't exist, my God...the list is endless. Competition is the heart of our economy and in fact is what gave us satellite television in the first place.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

bto4wd said:


> Do you know what processor/chip set the HR20 uses? Link to BROTT's findings?


The chipset is Broadcom

There is a 7038 for the main CPU. There is also a decoder chip added the 7411. I suspect that the 7038 does all of the MPEG2 decoding and the 7411 does all of the MPEG4 decoding, but it is possible that everything is coded such that the 7411 does 100% of the decoding.

In any event, a lot of work would be required to even make PIP testable. I'm with Jeremy in thinking that it will be nearly impossible to get it to work.

Tom, does the DN receiver need to decode MPEG4? I'm sure that PIP will be much more likely if there is only MPEG2 streams to worry about.

As for the OS that is in use: Linux version 2.4.29-uclibc-brcm


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

HarleyD said:


> How sad that some of you actively oppose anyone else getting what they want or simply term it as "not needed" merely because you don't want it.


That is not exactly what I meant. I am putting myself in the position of DirecTV management. If I have a product that performs well and that I have sunk a great deal of money and time into it why would I feel the need to start again? If it is only to offer another version of similar hardware with almost identical features(which may cannibalize my current offering) then it is not only unnecessary but downright foolhardy. Car companies try to offer various cars for different markets and try to avoid at all costs two in the same market with identical features because it does not make sense.

I want a DVR that works. I got that now. Would a TiVo unit be "better"? Who knows? I would rather DirecTV put their money into newer and faster hardware for HR20 version 2.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Albie said:


> I especially like the case for bringing back multiple vendors for the various set top boxes. Does anyone realize the costs for the increased levels of customer service and technical support to adequately staff the idea?


 They have R15's out there manufactured by three different vendors and HR20's manufactured by two different vendors, each with a different version of the OS. This is, and has been D*'s SOP.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> There have R15's out there manufactured by three different vendors and HR20's manufactured by two different vendors, each with a different version of the OS. This is, and has been D*'s SOP.


The R15's run on the same OS..
The HR20's run on the same OS..

Suttle differences in the overall software, but in general...

The software on an R15-100/300/500 are the same
The software on an HR20-100/700 are the same


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

CobraGuy said:


> I can't think of a thing the HR-20 does that is superior to Tivo


Oh Really? 
How about better grid guide(with resized picture, very nice). 
Speed, Speed, Speed- The TiVo for all it's strengths has always been a slug when performing the simplest of tasks. 
Caller ID, why was this never there?

This is only a few, I have to go back to work now, but you get the picture. To say "you can't think of a thing" is a ridiculous statement.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I think most people here are thinking too short term. If someone has an expertise in an area and they can develop and meet your needs do you really need to do it yourself. There are people on this forum who still think the TIVO unit is better and others that thing the D* is better. My personal experience with the Tivo units that I've had is that they have been more reliable and smoother than the HR20 that I have. The HR20 has features that are better and that don't exist. However, the amount of time and releases that it has taken D* to get a usable box is excessive and terrible. 
Maybe a junction of the two companies in the future (probably at least 2 hardware/software versions down the line) can merge D* great ideas and Tivo's ability to implement and make use of some of the Tivo patents that make its units easy to use.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

CobraGuy said:


> You have got to be kidding me. Other than HD...which is why I got the HR-20...I can't think of a thing the HR-20 does that is superior to Tivo...and it in fact lacks several things...such as stability. Myabe it's just the features I use compared to the ones you use.


IMHO, the HR20 isn't that bad, and I came from a HR10-250 and two SDDVR40's. The number one thing that the HR20 does better is speed of the guides, the HR10-250 was very slow and even with the new 6.x software it still is slow. YMMV but I had to do a complete reformat of my HR10 due to rebooting problems, haven't had to do that with the HR20. How's the CID working on your HR10, working fine on my HR20.

Everyone has their opinions, mine is I like the HR20 and except for DLB don't miss my Tivo's at all.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

CTJon said:


> My personal experience with the Tivo units that I've had is that they have been more reliable and smoother than the HR20 that I have. The HR20 has features that are better and that don't exist. However, the amount of time and releases that it has taken D* to get a usable box is excessive and terrible.


How many releases of software did it take for Tivo to get the boxes stable? I seem to remember folks over on tivocommunity that weren't very happy with the boxes and b*tching about how long it took to get the dual tuners enabled in the software.

Could the HR20 have been better at first release, probably, but then it would have been delayed further and ticking off folks that couldn't record MPEG4 channels. Can't make everyone happy.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

CobraGuy said:


> I can't think of a thing the HR-20 does that is superior to Tivo





Tom_S said:


> Oh Really?
> How about better grid guide(with resized picture, very nice).
> Speed, Speed, Speed- The TiVo for all it's strengths has always been a slug when performing the simplest of tasks.
> Caller ID, why was this never there?
> ...


And some more...

Disk space usage meter
Interactive (NFL ST interactive totally rocks)
MPEG4 capable
Speed
*Smart* padding where two overlapping shows on the same channel only take up 1 tuner instead of 2 on a Tivo (this is HUGE)
Speed
Can access menus/guides while watching a recorded program
Speed
VOD (we'll see but sounds pretty cool)
Speed
One line guide
Speed
One touch recording (I mean come on, I can setup 20 series links in the amount of time it would take me to setup 3 on a Tivo)
Instant reorder of prioritizer
Speed

Oh, did I say speed? 

There are more. There was a recent thread that asked people what they liked about the HR20. Search for it.

About the only advantage that Tivo has is DLB. And I don't care about that one myself.
Advanced wishlists
Functioning CIR

Hmmmm, that's about it.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The R15's run on the same OS..
> The HR20's run on the same OS..
> 
> Suttle differences in the overall software, but in general...
> ...


Why are there differences? Couldn't D* have told the manufactures to all build the boxes the same way, at least as far as the components to be used, so there isn't this software difference between all the versions? It seams this is running counter to D*'s plan to have common hardware out there. While th GUI/user interface can be exactly the same on all the platforms due to the subtle differences in the code it can lead to different problems/issues between the different models of the same box, making support harder.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

brott said:


> The chipset is Broadcom
> 
> There is a 7038 for the main CPU. There is also a decoder chip added the 7411. I suspect that the 7038 does all of the MPEG2 decoding and the 7411 does all of the MPEG4 decoding, but it is possible that everything is coded such that the 7411 does 100% of the decoding.
> 
> ...


I did some googling and the add-on to the Tandberg EN5990 MPEG-4 encoders D* reporteldy uses that would be required to generate the simultaneouls PIP stream is called the EN5900. It does not support MPEG-4 encoding, just MPEG-2 and WMV9. So if D* used this to simulatneously encode and transmit a PIP "micro" stream, the HR20 would need to decode a mini-window of MPEG-2. Perhaps not out of the realm of possibility. /s


----------



## jonaswan2 (Oct 29, 2005)

RAD said:


> Why are there differences? Couldn't D* have told the manufactures to all build the boxes the same way, at least as far as the components to be used, so there isn't this software difference between all the versions? It seams this is running counter to D*'s plan to have common hardware out there. While th GUI/user interface can be exactly the same on all the platforms due to the subtle differences in the code it can lead to different problems/issues between the different models of the same box, making support harder.


So what if the company has a way to cut cost by using the resources that _they_ have?

The OEMs or whatever you would call them, still have to follow (I'm sure) very specific guidelines. I would be almost positive that the only major differences in the OS's are the drivers.

I mean do all Vista computers run the same OS? Yes, but don't they most of them have different hardware?

Just some bad ideas I had off of the top of my head


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jonaswan2 said:


> So what if the company has a way to cut cost by using the resources that _they_ have?
> 
> The OEMs or whatever you would call them, still have to follow (I'm sure) very specific guidelines. I would be almost positive that the only major differences in the OS's are the drivers.
> 
> ...


OK, I came from an IT background. You can build a 'common' image of a system like Windows that accounts for different drivers and the same build runs on all the hardware platforms that have the drivers you've included. So if it's just drivers why doesn't D* just include them for the two different HR20's or three different R15's and be done with it? The current setup has to be taking additional resources at D* to build/test/distribute/maint these different versions for the same model boxes. As I said, it appears to run contrary to D*'s goal to having common platforms.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

RAD said:


> OK, I came from an IT background. You can build a 'common' image of a system like Windows that accounts for different drivers and the same build runs on all the hardware platforms that have the drivers you've included. So if it's just drivers why doesn't D* just include them for the two different HR20's or three different R15's and be done with it? The current setup has to be taking additional resources at D* to build/test/distribute/maint these different versions for the same model boxes. As I said, it appears to run contrary to D*'s goal to having common platforms.


But you still needed to test that image on the different systems, that had the slightly different software, to make sure those drives did in fact work and run the way you were expecting it to.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But you still needed to test that image on the different systems, that had the slightly different software, to make sure those drives did in fact work and run the way you were expecting it to.


Of course you need to test, but at least there would be one version of code that worked on all R15's, one for the two H20's and one for the two HR20's vs. the 7 different versions of software D* has not for three types of boxes.


----------



## jutley (Oct 11, 2006)

This is kinda like watching a tennis match.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The R15's run on the same OS..
> The HR20's run on the same OS..
> 
> Suttle differences in the overall software, but in general...
> ...


But why? The differences are enough that there ARE different OS versions for each platform?

There were ump-teen different manufacturers of the SD DTivo but they all have the same specs and run the same software. The only version differences were to differentiate the manufacturer


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

RAD said:


> IMHO, the HR20 isn't that bad, and I came from a HR10-250 and two SDDVR40's. The number one thing that the HR20 does better is speed of the guides, the HR10-250 was very slow and even with the new 6.x software it still is slow. YMMV but I had to do a complete reformat of my HR10 due to rebooting problems, haven't had to do that with the HR20. How's the CID working on your HR10, working fine on my HR20.
> 
> Everyone has their opinions, mine is I like the HR20 and except for DLB don't miss my Tivo's at all.


Speed has been an issue with Tivos, particularly with the HR10. But look at the hardware it's running on. Two to three years old. SD Tivos have what, 48MEG of memory and the HR10 only had 64M IIRC. I believe the R15 had 64M and I have no idea what the HR20 has.

Now, imagine Tivo software version 7.x running on the HR20 hardware. You'd have speed, you'd have Wishlists, you'd have a 30 second SKIP and you'd have DLB. I'd love to see two HR20s side by side, one running DVR+ OS and the other the Tivo OS.


----------



## mr anderson (Oct 6, 2006)

bto4wd said:


> But why? The differences are enough that there ARE different OS versions for each platform?
> 
> There were ump-teen different manufacturers of the SD DTivo but they all have the same specs and run the same software. The only version differences were to differentiate the manufacturer


I love directv and all...but your logic is flawed in that you assume too much of DirecTV in that they think things through before doing them.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

RAD said:


> OK, I came from an IT background. You can build a 'common' image of a system like Windows that accounts for different drivers and the same build runs on all the hardware platforms that have the drivers you've included. So if it's just drivers why doesn't D* just include them for the two different HR20's or three different R15's and be done with it? The current setup has to be taking additional resources at D* to build/test/distribute/maint these different versions for the same model boxes. As I said, it appears to run contrary to D*'s goal to having common platforms.


Correct. If the HR20 is running a Linux kernel it has the ability to detect devices and load the proper drivers. If the only differences between the versions are drivers, that's not a tough fix.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

mr anderson said:


> I love directv and all...but your logic is flawed in that you assume too much of DirecTV in that they think things through before doing them.


:lol: Just trying to give them credit.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

What I really do not understand is that IF....BIG IF....Tivo ported their software to the R15 and HR20 platform and D* offered two software options for their hardware (as Comcast and COX appear to be ready to do) why do the HR20 "lovers" here insist on posting reason after reason why the HR20 is better than Tivo?

If you like the HR20 great. If you can still have that GUI and that software how does D* offering a Tivo option effect you? If I like Tivo software (Wishlists, DLB, reliability and the interface) and I choose to pay even a higher monthly fee to use Tivo software how does that effect you? or the DVR+ software?

IF...again BIG IF....D* makes the financial/marketing decision to offer two software platforms that would be better for all D* subscribers, wouldn't it?

Maybe I'm being too simplistic here but typically more choices/options = better choices/options.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> Correct. If the HR20 is running a Linux kernel it has the ability to detect devices and load the proper drivers. If the only differences between the versions are drivers, that's not a tough fix.


So you should include the overhead, of having to detect the hardware at boot up time... load the correct drivers, and then start.

Or... have a multi-tiered structure, that knows EXACTLY what drivers to load for that particular platform, and only include the drivers for that hardware set... and no unnecessary extra "bloat" to the build, that is pushed to the box.

You guys are making it sound like the versions are astronomically different, and coded 100% individually.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> What I really do not understand is that IF....BIG IF....Tivo ported their software to the R15 and HR20 platform and D* offered two software options for their hardware (as Comcast and COX appear to be ready to do) why do the HR20 "lovers" here insist on posting reason after reason why the HR20 is better than Tivo?
> 
> If you like the HR20 great. If you can still have that GUI and that software how does D* offering a Tivo option effect you? If I like Tivo software (Wishlists, DLB, reliability and the interface) and I choose to pay even a higher monthly fee to use Tivo software how does that effect you? or the DVR+ software?
> 
> ...


I could really give to $0.02 if TiVo is re-introduced to DirecTV... The ONLY concern I have is that if it impacts the feature sets, or delays things.

What if this new "premium" TiVo is not capable of running a certain feature...
Do they wait to roll it out, until TiVo, Inc... can make it capable of running that feature... or do they just not have that feature all together.

Other then that... I really don't care if TiVo comes back into the fold or not.


----------



## tjs107 (Jun 3, 2007)

Please bring tivo back. I had the r15 and absolutely hated it. I purchased a TiVo from ebay and couldn't wait to activate it. It simply works! My mom has an hd set and a new hr20 so I can play with it. To be completely honest it still has trouble with the skip back 6 sec feature, which is flawless on my 2 TiVo's. I do like the small live tv screen the DTV receivers do and there are a couple of other things. If they could incororate features from both into one... it would be a great machine. Having said all of that....PEASE BRING BACK TIVO!!!!

When is the deal between News Corp and Liberty Media to be finalized?

TJS


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So you should include the overhead, of having to detect the hardware at boot up time... load the correct drivers, and then start.
> 
> Or... have a multi-tiered structure, that knows EXACTLY what drivers to load for that particular platform, and only include the drivers for that hardware set... and no unnecessary extra "bloat" to the build, that is pushed to the box.
> 
> You guys are making it sound like the versions are astronomically different, and coded 100% individually.


If, as you say, the differences are only based on the particular drivers being loaded, then why doesn't the HR20-700 and HR20-100 get a new CE at the same time? If it's only drivers, and those are coded in the source with conditional #include statements, all that should be required is to compile the -700 version and compile the -100 version. Both of which would be available for a CE download. But that's not how it has worked.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I could really give to $0.02 if TiVo is re-introduced to DirecTV... The ONLY concern I have is that if it impacts the feature sets, or delays things.
> 
> What if this new "premium" TiVo is not capable of running a certain feature...
> Do they wait to roll it out, until TiVo, Inc... can make it capable of running that feature... or do they just not have that feature all together.


Of course you're making the assumption here that the DVR+ software would have these new features coded, tested and in production before Tivo could do the same. If the DVR+ developers and the Tivo developers were given specs on a new D* offering, one could also ask the question "would that feature be delayed if the Tivo software were ready to go but the DVR+ software wasn't".

Tivo and their developers have been coding DVR software for at least 10 years. D*'s DVR+ developers have been been coding DVR software for what....3 years?

Neither I nor yourself can answer those questions. I just don't think it's wise to make the assumption that IF Tivo and D* were back in a relationship, the Tivo software would be lacking. I'm only basing this on the current history of the HR20 software and what I've read on this forum.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Steve said:


> To help offset these costs, the monthly DVR fee is now funnelling into D*'s pockets, instead of Tivo's.


Actually, once I get an HR20, I'll still have two TiVo's on my account, and I won't get rid of them until DirecTV forces me to... and I'm sure there will be many like me who will have a "mixed" DVR household...

~Alan


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

bto4wd said:


> If, as you say, the differences are only based on the particular drivers being loaded, then why doesn't the HR20-700 and HR20-100 get a new CE at the same time? If it's only drivers, and those are coded in the source with conditional #include statements, all that should be required is to compile the -700 version and compile the -100 version. Both of which would be available for a CE download. But that's not how it has worked.


What he said

Of course we don't know exactly what the differences are in the code for the individual boxes, but to the outside observer you would think that if it's only drivers that's different why the lag time between CE's on the various boxes? It's not that hard to recompile the code if all that's changed is the drivers.

But now we're back to my original question, why are there differences in the hardware at all that would require different versions of the compiled code? The the OEM's to use the same components and the problem has gone away. IMHO, having a different hardware base just makes things more difficult in the long run.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> If, as you say, the differences are only based on the particular drivers being loaded, then why doesn't the HR20-700 and HR20-100 get a new CE at the same time? If it's only drivers, and those are coded in the source with conditional #include statements, all that should be required is to compile the -700 version and compile the -100 version. Both of which would be available for a CE download. But that's not how it has worked.


Haven't the R15's gotten on the same CE cycle? (granted this past release, there was a late minute scratch with the R15-100, but it was added just a few days later).

And the H20's?

What makes you think that after they work with the HR20-100 a little while longer, it won't be on the same cycle as the others?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

RAD said:


> Of course we don't know exactly what the differences are in the code for the individual boxes, but to the outside observer you would think that if it's only drivers that's different why the lag time between CE's on the various boxes? It's not that hard to recompile the code if all that's changed is the drivers.
> 
> But now we're back to my original question, why are there differences in the hardware at all that would require different versions of the compiled code? The the OEM's to use the same components and the problem has gone away. IMHO, having a different hardware base just makes things more difficult in the long run.


As to to the first point:
As I have explained a few times in the CE threads, right now.
We have over 1,000 people testing the -700 CE... 
The added overhead of running the -100 CE for the marginal additional people, is what is keeping it right now from the CE process.

As shown with the national releases... the HR20-100 national release, was pushed on a few weeks after the -700 was finished... and that was primarily done, simply because it segmented the population, and was a staggered rollout to limit any unexpected issues.

As for why different OEM's and different components... that is a question, I don't have the answer too... and probably never will. That is an issue for DirecTV to maintain, and frankly... unless someone askes here in the forum... they don't even realize that they have different parts on the inside.


----------



## jheda (Sep 19, 2006)

IMHO, the HR-20 is at this point superior in its GUI to the TIVO..except i long for DLB..........I now go back to my SDDirecttivo and find it outdated in many ways.....as one clubmember put it, the hr20 is DLB from erasing TIVO from our memory...


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What makes you think that after they work with the HR20-100 a little while longer, it won't be on the same cycle as the others?


If the difference is just drivers, what would they have to work with? As you describe all that should be required is "make hr20-700" and then "make hr20-100". Unless these updates/patches are actually changing driver code. Now if the delay with a -100 CE is due to debugging the drivers, why on Earth would D* allow a new manufacturer to deviate from the -700 chipset platform causing new drivers to be developed and an extended debug cycle.


----------



## HoosierBoy (May 25, 2007)

I have been a long time D* sub and have owned receivers from Sony to Hughes to TIVO's both SD and HD. Now, the family is getting used to the HR20's.

I as an average sub, i would like for them to pick a platform and stick with it. Work with until it is the best it can be and upgrade as their technology improves. When the D* engineers have to ensure a change in the newest platform doesn't impact someone's TIVO, that new platform can't be the best it can be. 

On top of that, it does get costly to try to stay updated with the newest recievers available.


----------



## jheda (Sep 19, 2006)

Welcome Hoosier boy!!!

theres a new member thread if you havent discoverd it, very welcoming and useful. Also consider joining for $15 and become a talk member!!

OK, back on topic.....


HoosierBoy said:


> I have been a long time D* sub and have owned receivers from Sony to Hughes to TIVO's both SD and HD. Now, the family is getting used to the HR20's.
> 
> I as an average sub, i would like for them to pick a platform and stick with it. Work with until it is the best it can be and upgrade as their technology improves. When the D* engineers have to ensure a change in the newest platform doesn't impact someone's TIVO, that new platform can't be the best it can be.
> 
> On top of that, it does get costly to try to stay updated with the newest recievers available.


----------



## HoosierBoy (May 25, 2007)

Thanks for the welcome and I will consider joining the Club!


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

tjs107 said:


> Please bring tivo back. I had the r15 and absolutely hated it. I purchased a TiVo from ebay and couldn't wait to activate it. It simply works! My mom has an hd set and a new hr20 so I can play with it. To be completely honest it still has trouble with the skip back 6 sec feature, which is flawless on my 2 TiVo's. I do like the small live tv screen the DTV receivers do and there are a couple of other things. If they could incororate features from both into one... it would be a great machine. Having said all of that....PEASE BRING BACK TIVO!!!!
> 
> When is the deal between News Corp and Liberty Media to be finalized?
> 
> TJS


Suggest you read post #1.This is a spin by Tivo's CEO and until you hear something from Directv.That's all it is is spin.

Maybe someone needed to sell some Tivo stock.Talk a little spin,stock prices go up. Sell the stock!.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Steve said:


> I did some googling and the add-on to the Tandberg EN5990 MPEG-4 encoders D* reporteldy uses that would be required to generate the simultaneouls PIP stream is called the EN5900. It does not support MPEG-4 encoding, just MPEG-2 and WMV9. So if D* used this to simulatneously encode and transmit a PIP "micro" stream, the HR20 would need to decode a mini-window of MPEG-2. Perhaps not out of the realm of possibility. /s


Very interesting ...


----------



## Babalax (Apr 26, 2007)

jheda said:


> IMHO, the HR-20 is at this point superior in its GUI to the TIVO..except i long for DLB..........I now go back to my SDDirecttivo and find it outdated in many ways.....as one clubmember put it, the hr20 is DLB from erasing TIVO from our memory...


Not for this user. I want MY TIVO back!


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Babalax said:


> I want MY TIVO back!


Well, you're in the wrong place.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Well, you're in the wrong place.


What ta heck does that mean? :eek2:

I thought this was a D* forum. I wasn't aware, although I've seen plenty of evidence, that this is a D*/HR20 lovers forum.

Someone wants their Tivo back so they're not welcome here? They're in the wrong place? Geez, you guys are quite a bunch.

I can now see why this forum is just an extension of D*. They appear to have paid enough to whoever needs to be paid to own this forum. What a shame. I was hoping that the negative comments I've seen elsewhere about DBSTalk were just disgruntled members. But from your post I see that just ain't so.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bto4wd said:


> Someone wants their Tivo back so they're not welcome here? They're in the wrong place? Geez, you guys are quite a bunch.


Of course he's welcome here, just like everyone else. I'm just saying that most of the people here don't share his opinion. TCF is the place to go for the Tivo love-fest.


----------



## Babalax (Apr 26, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Well, you're in the wrong place.


Well excuuuuuse me!
I thought this discussion was about the possibility of getting Tivo back w/DirecTV. Other posters have said the same thing. How/why am I in the wrong place?
Guess I shouldn't ask you where to go, huh? 

PS Just read your post... where can I find "TCF" so I can go and gush all about my dearly departed Tivo?
And be nice, I'm just a chick.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Why does wanting a stable DVR with Tivo features make it a "lovefest"?

If the HR20 had DLB, was stable, didn't have the reported audio dropouts and lip sync problems and had wishlists (or a workable autorecord) I'd be all for it. But it doesn't. I just want a DVR that provides me with the functions I currently get from my 2+ year old HR10.

Last I knew DBSTalk was a D* forum that included Tivo. Might I suggest that all of you HR20 lovers go to forums.directv.com and have your little love fest in the appropriate vendor centric forum. I still don't know why the CE testing isn't going on over there compared to this forum. Isn't this suppose to be a vendor neutral forum?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

Babalax said:


> Well excuuuuuse me!
> I thought this discussion was about the possibility of getting Tivo back w/DirecTV. Other posters have said the same thing. How/why am I in the wrong place?
> Guess I shouldn't ask you where to go, huh?
> 
> BTW I'm a chick


 People were just trying to explain that the Tivo Community Forum is a place where hardcore Tivo fanboys (and fangirls) feel more comfortable. In fact, discussion of the HR20 is not allowed there. www.tivocommunity.com Interestingly, there's a lengthy thread there started by the same Tivo-Liberty comments as are being debated here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=354424

ps: you're welcome here


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Babalax said:


> Well excuuuuuse me!
> I thought this discussion was about the possibility of getting Tivo back w/DirecTV. Other posters have said the same thing. How/why am I in the wrong place?
> Guess I shouldn't ask you where to go, huh?
> 
> ...


Keep in mind the D*Fenders are a paranoid bunch. They can't leave a thread alone if anyone posts anything negative about the HR20 or positive about a Tivo. Look at all the posts here in which the poster didn't comment on Tivo or on the possibility of Tivo and D* getting back together. The point of their post was to tell us all how much they loved their HR20. And the HR20 wasn't even part of this thread at all. Bonscott even took time to list all of the advantages he sees in the HR20. Again, this thread is about Tivo and D* in the General Discussion section.

In one breath they say this will never happen and in the next breath they tell anyone that likes their Tivo that they're in the wrong place. Go figure.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

:backtotop (which is a valid topic here in the DirecTV-General Forum)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> Keep in mind the D*Fenders are a paranoid bunch. They can't leave a thread alone if anyone posts anything negative about the HR20 or positive about a Tivo. Look at all the posts here in which the poster didn't comment on Tivo or on the possibility of Tivo and D* getting back together. The point of their post was to tell us all how much they loved their HR20. And the HR20 wasn't even part of this thread at all. Bonscott even took time to list all of the advantages he sees in the HR20. Again, this thread is about Tivo and D* in the General Discussion section.
> 
> In one breath they say this will never happen and in the next breath they tell anyone that likes their Tivo that they're in the wrong place. Go figure.


Sorry... but it goes two ways....
When people say bring back the TiVo because the R15 / HR20 sucks... that introduces it into the conversation.

When people say the HR20 isn't as good as the TiVo, that also introduces it into the conversation (re: bonscott's mini-list)

This is a speculative discussion on a single comment made by the CEO of TiVo... Four other threads with things such as: Will the HR20 now be obsolete, have been posted, that have been refered back to this thread, so the discussion of that single statement.... continues.

I do find it intresting that two day's later, no media outlet has been able to get more details from the person that made the statement.


----------



## morgantown (Nov 16, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> People were just trying to explain that the Tivo Community Forum is a place where hardcore Tivo fanboys (and fangirls) feel more comfortable. In fact, discussion of the HR20 is not allowed there. www.tivocommunity.com Interestingly, there's a lengthy thread there started by the same Tivo-Liberty comments as are being debated here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=354424
> 
> ps: you're welcome here


...and in the interests of fairness TCF (TiVo Community Forum) gets money directly from TiVo and it is TiVo who said they did not want discussions of "other DVR's" on their dime. Some folks over at TCF didn't appreciate it much -- hence why some moved to dbstalk, and many continue to post in both places.

Others, like myself, understand TiVo's position of not wanting to pay for a discussion of a competing product. However, if it were not for DTV -- I'd have never become a TiVo customer. My loyalties are with DTV first, FWIW.

That said, a smart company listens to what their customers want. In the case of TiVo, it is a huge retention tool. Given how much DTV spends in retention incentives (not to mention how expensive it is to get new customers) I would guess re-adding TiVo to the mix would be a net savings to DTV on the plus side -- and a wash on the negative.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

morgantown said:


> ...and in the interests of fairness TCF (TiVo Community Forum) gets money directly from TiVo and it is TiVo who said they did not want discussions of "other DVR's" on their dime. Some folks over at TCF didn't appreciate it much -- hence why some moved to dbstalk, and many continue to post in both places.


Which is a very good point. Tivo funds TCF and wants it kept TCF. My understanding is that DBSTalk is not funded by any DBS provider (Dish or DirecTV). Thus I would expect DBSTalk to be more neutral.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

in addition to that...

TCF is a sister site of DBSTalk.... we both are under the AVS umbrella..
So we are not "competing" for membership and posts.... 

We do have a DirecTV-TiVo section here, however we frequently direct people to TCF for their issues.... simply because that is where the expertise is. They do the same (for the most part) for the DVR+ systems.

The TCF->DirecTV forum for the longest time was the defacto discussion thread for anything DirecTV.... until DBSTalk got a jumpstart with the R15 traffic.

Bottom line.... this is the right forum, and thread to discuss this single statement.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> Which is a very good point. Tivo funds TCF and wants it kept TCF. My understanding is that DBSTalk is not funded by any DBS provider (Dish or DirecTV). Thus I would expect DBSTalk to be more neutral.


The site is neutral, we allow just about any discussion here (there are some limitation).

Hence why you don't see me (or any mod), deleting anti-DirecTV threads, deleting anti-Dish threads, ect.... and frankly (contrary to the belief by a small few that think we are censored), we don't ban people simply because they are anti-any company or have a different opinion on a topic that a mod, admin, or users have.

BUT!!!!!

That doesn't mean our membership base, can't discuss their opinions on the topics... and state their opinions based on other people opinions.

This isn't an wikipedia off-shoot... this is a discussion forum.
Unless your are a CatLover... (just kidding)...


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

Well all the TiVo lovers can wish all they like but it aint gonna happen. I had TiVo for many years, it served it's purpose, and now it's time to move on. I thought D* was crazy for dumping TiVo because it would take a herculean effort to bring a working DVR to market in the time needed. This wound up being true. However, now that the HR20 is here and working damn good IMHO it would be equally stupid to now go back.

After all that expense? Heads would roll that's for sure.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

It certainly seems that the "pro-HR20" folks are very quick to point out all the features that DirecTiVos lack and the HR20 has. They conveniently skip over the fact that many of those features (and more) were actually incorporated in the DirecTiVo software, but were disabled AT DIRECTV'S INSTRUCTIONS!

For example:

1) S2 DirecTiVos all had the ability to play music, video and show pictures from a PC on the local network over 2 years ago. But that software was hidden at DirecTV orders.

2) S2 DirecTiVos all had the ability to transfer recordings between DVRs over a LAN, but again, this was disabled at DirecTV's orders.

3) S2 DirecTiVos had the ability make their "calls home" over the internet, but again, it was disabled by DirecTV.

4) S2 DirecTiVos had the ability to download video to a PC for viewing on the device, but it was disabled per DirecTV's orders.

Had DirecTV continued their support of TiVo and proceeded to the next software version, then they would also have the ability to be programmed via the Web (although such a feature had been a 3rd party option for years) and the ability to download video from Amazon (IOW, VOD).

ALL DirecTiVos could support CID in hardware, and had DirecTV requested it, it could have been added to the software build at any time.

Bottom line is that had DirecTV not abandoned TiVo in favor of NDS, we would today have a HD DirecTiVo that supported MPEG4, and had all the features of the HR20.

So, let's be clear, as the OEM customer, DirecTV made decisions that crippled the DirecTiVo. Why they made those decisions are the source of endless speculation, but little fact.

However, all that being said, the decisions HAVE been made. DirecTV committed themselves to building their own DVR platform. Unlike Cox and Comcast, they have their own development organization built up now. I don't think there is any chance of DirecTV going back to TiVo - it would be fiscally irresponsible and would raise the ire of investors - no matter WHO is running the show.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sorry... but it goes two ways....
> When people say bring back the TiVo because the R15 / HR20 sucks... that introduces it into the conversation.


No one said that in this thread. Some posters did mention the problems the R15/HR20 had and have, but no one in this thread used the "S" word.



Earl Bonovich said:


> When people say the HR20 isn't as good as the TiVo, that also introduces it into the conversation (re: bonscott's mini-list)


That's exactly my point. Why do you feel that when anyone says they like their Tivo more than their HR20 you and others have to jump in with the same old arguments? It's just one persons opinion, that's all. This is a thread about Tivo and D* maybe getting back together. Would you be surprised to find posts in such a thread that a member states they like their Tivo more than their HR20? I wouldn't.

I noticed your "What do you LIKE about your HR20..." thread and I've read portions of it but left it alone. In the five pages of posts there, the only references to Tivo were those in which posters made comments on how they liked a feature on the HR20 over the Tivo. So 5 pages of folks having a HR20 "lovefest" without one Tivo hugger feeling the need to defend it. Five pages of HR20 users posting their opinions without any Tivo users jumping in to defend the Tivo.

I don't have any idea why so many of you cannot resist posting how much you love your HR20 in a thread such as this. The HR20 is D*s HD DVR. This thread was just a comment made by one Tivo executive and look how much it ruffled your feathers. It almost seems like some of you are so insecure you feel the need to defend the HR20 and D* negative post.

Speaking for myself, I don't see it as a competition between the HR20 and the rest of the world as many of you seem to do. As I've stated before, I just want a DVR that works at least as good as my current DVR (which happens to be a Tivo) does. I don't care if it's made by Mattel as long as it does what I want it to do. If D* and Tivo get back together, great. If D* gets the HR20 & R15 (I don't need a HD DVR in every room) working properly, great.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Tom_S said:


> I had TiVo for many years, it served it's purpose, and now it's time to move on.


That statement won't sit well with the TFBs, but I'm living it as well.

I bought my first standalone TiVo in Oct. 2000 and my first D-TiVo six months later. Did Lifetime on both. Went to S2 models for both and got an HR10 in Aug. 2005 for $299-$100MIR.

I bought a MCE 2005 PC in April 2006 and got the HR20 in Sept. that year. I now find I use both a *lot* more than the comparable TiVo units. I sold off both my standalone TiVos and will retire one, if not both, of my D-TiVos in August.

I don't require the hand holding that TiVo seems to always want to provide. I also don't want to have to wait until TiVo decides they will carry the webcasts I want when I'm perfectly capable of doing that on my own. I don't want to pay TiVo several hundred dollars plus service costs to receive ATSC brdcsts when I can just add a tuner card to my PC or the HD Home Run box. Maybe others want TiVo to do those things for them and will pay, but I won't.

TiVo's a fine DVR platform, but I gotta say, it's just a bit overrated, IMO.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Babalax said:


> where can I find "TCF" so I can go and gush all about my dearly departed Tivo?


http://www.tivocommunity.com/


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bto4wd said:


> Why do you feel that when anyone says they like their Tivo more than their HR20 you and others have to jump in with the same old arguments? It's just one persons opinion, that's all. This is a thread about Tivo and D* maybe getting back together. Would you be surprised to find posts in such a thread that a member states they like their Tivo more than their HR20? I wouldn't.


So basically we (as in the entire user base) should allow anyone to state an opinion, with no response to that opinion? Then what is the point of the reply button?

After a thread get's past it's second page, I am not surprised about any direction a thread goes.



bto4wd said:


> I noticed your "What do you LIKE about your HR20..." thread and I've read portions of it but left it alone. In the five pages of posts there, the only references to Tivo were those in which posters made comments on how they liked a feature on the HR20 over the Tivo. So 5 pages of folks having a HR20 "lovefest" without one Tivo hugger feeling the need to defend it. Five pages of HR20 users posting their opinions without any Tivo users jumping in to defend the Tivo.


Thank you for noticing... but go back to Septemeber, and look at other threads, listing why the TiVo was so much better....
If a "Tivo Hugger" wanted to start a thread, in the TiVo forum... asking what they liked about their TiVo... I would expect the same thing, from the HR20 huggers.



bto4wd said:


> I don't have any idea why so many of you cannot resist posting how much you love your HR20 in a thread such as this. The HR20 is D*s HD DVR. This thread was just a comment made by one Tivo executive and look how much it ruffled your feathers. It almost seems like some of you are so insecure you feel the need to defend the HR20 and D* negative post.


And it equally amazes me, when people want to attack those that post something contrary to what they post... and it ruffles their feathers.
You are quick to point out contents of the thread.

The discussion of bringing TiVo BACK to DirecTV, does most definently have to include the discussion of the R15/HR20... why... because it most certainly would have some sort of impact to that unit.

And again... *IT IS A DISCUSSION FORUM*. You can't have a discussion, unless you discuss the other side of the discussion.... if there wasn't more then one side of the conversation, then it is a lecture or speach... not a discussion.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Titan25 said:


> So, let's be clear, as the OEM customer, DirecTV made decisions that crippled the DirecTiVo. Why they made those decisions are the source of endless speculation, but little fact.


The "fact" that DirecTV even made these decisions isn't a fact at all. You keep posting it like it is, but you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> The "fact" that DirecTV even made these decisions isn't a fact at all. You keep posting it like it is, but you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support it.


In fairness... it is true that DirecTV probably does have the final say of what is in the software.

But what is missing, is the rest of the story on why those features are not there. 
Was it purely because DirecTV didn't think they were necessary? 
Were they considered to be a security risk (with regards to the video content features) that is a bigger concern for the Digital Signal? 
Did TiVo, Inc want more money to provide those features?
And so...

The answer is... none of know... none of us were in those meetings... we don't have all the facts around the decisions that were made.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So basically we (as in the entire user base) should allow anyone to state an opinion, with no response to that opinion? Then what is the point of the reply button?


Whatever blows your hair back.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Thank you for noticing... but go back to Septemeber, and look at other threads, listing why the TiVo was so much better....


But, back in September, as many threads indicate here, that was a legitimate argument. And it isn't happening any longer.



Earl Bonovich said:


> And again... *IT IS A DISCUSSION FORUM*. You can't have a discussion, unless you discuss the other side of the discussion.... if there wasn't more then one side of the conversation, then it is a lecture or speach... not a discussion.


I agree. But when members add a post such as "Then you're in the wrong place" it goes beyond being a discussion. And that post was what got me going on this line of discussion.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> In fairness... it is true that DirecTV probably does have the final say of what is in the software.


Of course. But Titan25 paints a picture where Tivo was ready to give the features away to DirecTV with open arms, but the evil overlords at DirecTV would have none of it. Could this have been the scenario? Sure. Was it? I doubt it. Like you said, we just don't know.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

bto4wd said:


> But when members add a post such as "Then you're in the wrong place" it goes beyond being a discussion.


How does informing a new member of a place where their opinions might be more welcome, go beyond being a discussion?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The "fact" that DirecTV even made these decisions isn't a fact at all. You keep posting it like it is, but you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support it.


There is ample anecdotal evidence, however, for most of the statements passed off as "fact". Up through at least version 6.3, TiVo software was sent to the DVRs with all of the features tht were found on stand-alone receivers, but these features were disabled. The fact that there were disabled was discovered extremely enthusiastic TiVo FanBoys (aks "hackers") at a certain different database forum where deals could be found. With some work, these enthusiasts posted instructions to enable the dormant features. This supports the supposition that DirecTV told TiVo to disable the features.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

bto4wd said:


> Whatever blows your hair back.


Really? That's your response? Now read what you wrote a moment later ...


> But when members add a post such as "Then you're in the wrong place" it goes beyond being a discussion.


Who's beyond discussion now when you basically dismiss a valid question out of hand?

You are obviously very enthusiastic about TiVo, but there are ways to argue your points and unfortunately, you're not coming across as anything but confrontational.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

drew2k said:


> This supports the supposition that DirecTV told TiVo to disable the features.


No it doesn't! It supports the fact that the features were disabled. Period. The fact that they're disabled doesn't tell you who ordered them to be disabled, nor does it tell you WHY they were ordered to be disabled. Maybe Tivo didn't want to mess with taking them out, and found it easier to just leave them in but disabled.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Titan25 said:


> It certainly seems that the "pro-HR20" folks are very quick to point out all the features that DirecTiVos lack and the HR20 has. They conveniently skip over the fact that many of those features (and more) were actually incorporated in the DirecTiVo software, but were disabled AT DIRECTV'S INSTRUCTIONS!
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


Well I'll take a wild guess here and say it probably had something to do with Money!.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> No it doesn't! It supports the fact that the features were disabled. Period. The fact that they're disabled doesn't tell you who ordered them to be disabled, nor does it tell you WHY they were ordered to be disabled. Maybe Tivo didn't want to mess with taking them out, and found it easier to just leave them in but disabled.


I'll agree with that statement!.It probably upset Directv so much they decided to build their own.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> drew2k said:
> 
> 
> > This supports the supposition that DirecTV told TiVo to disable the features.
> ...


First - please don't misquuote me. I didn't end my sentence at "features.", with a period. Instead my sentence continued with "and if", but I apparently got distracted and didn't complete my thought when I clicked Save Message the first time.

So let's rewind for a moment. The OP was rebutting points that HR20 has features that TiVo doesn't, and made the point that similar features were available on TiVo that could have been enabled if only DirecTV wanted them to be enabled. You are focusing on his belief that DirecTV held back those features, but that really is besides the point. The "why" and "who" was responsible for disabling those features is ultimately moot in regards to the essential point the OP was making: there could be a DirecTiVo today that played music, movies, had network connections, etc., if only someone from DirecTV authorized it.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> No it doesn't! It supports the fact that the features were disabled. Period. The fact that they're disabled doesn't tell you who ordered them to be disabled, nor does it tell you WHY they were ordered to be disabled. Maybe Tivo didn't want to mess with taking them out, and found it easier to just leave them in but disabled.


I apologize in advance for the length of this, but here it goes...

I could tell that I know that DirecTV wanted any and all network features disabled because I was told that by someone very much in the loop on the DirecTV/Tivo relationship, but I expect you probably wouldn't believe me.

I could also tell you that TiVo actively participated in getting the information out so that those features could be enabled by enthusiasts, but again, you likely wouldn't believe me.

You also probably won't believe me when I tell you that if TiVo really didn't want those features available, they could have done a MUCH better job of hiding and/or disabling the code.

For example: Multi-room viewing. In the DirecTiVo code the only thing required to enable it was to flip a couple of flags in the code and add a name for the box. Yet, it was clearly established when people were trying to get standalone versions running on a DirecTiVo that MRV was a separately callable module - which, BTW, didn't work with the DirecTiVo's encryption. So, if TiVo REALLY wanted to disable the feature, all they had to do was remove the module. They not only didn't do that, they added the required code to decrypt the recordings for transmission to the receiving TiVo.

The point is that by the time version 6 was making its way to the DirecTiVos News Corp was already in control. They always intended to switch to NDS supplied DVRs and didn't want to deploy new features on the DirecTiVos.

Finally, I don't believe that any of this was done with malice (your "evil overlords" comment is ludicrous). It was simply a business decision. Why send money out of the corporation when you don't have to?

But the assertion by many here that we should love the HR20 and forget about TiVo because of all the wonderful features of the HR20 rings a bit hollow for those of us that know what we all could have been enjoying in the DirecTiVo DVRs for the past 3 years.

Personally, I've been playing MP3s AND streaming video from my PC, programming my DVRs from a web browser, transfering recordings between DVRs, making DVDs from my recordings and downloading interactive content like weather, news, local movie times, and lottery results for over 2 years. All with those awful, primitive DirecTiVos that the HR20 is sooooo superior to. 

The HR20 is an okay DVR. It seems to do all the basic stuff adequately. But what keeps it from being a great DVR? Several things:

1) Search - The search functions on the HR20 are the most counter-intuitive design I can imagine. In fact, they make search so difficult to use, that I avoid doing it. For example, if you search for a program title, the search results contain all programs on all channels that contain the search test. So far, so good. Each entry shows the program title and channel. Select one, and you would reasonably expect to see a list of all episodes for that show on that channel for the next 2 weeks. But no, you get a list of ALL the episodes on ALL channels for the next two weeks. WHAT was the point of showing a channel on the first list if the software is going to ignore it?

2) Trickplay - The responsiveness and rendering of trickplay is so bad as to make it almost unusable. Motorola, SciAtl, and Echostar all manage to do HD trickplay better than the HR20. I won't even mention TiVo.

3) Remote control - The remotes are not well designed and the ongoing "keybounce" issues are extremely frustrating. It makes some functions nearly unusuable (for example, I don't dare use "dash-dash" to delete recordings since I can't be sure how many dashes will get read by the HR20).

4) Live buffer - Operation is inconsistent - sometimes it works one way, sometime another.

5) Channel tuning - Another inconsistent feature. Sometimes it tunes without pressing enter, othertimes not.

6) Channels I receive - The inability to limit in ANY way which channels the HR20 will use to record from makes the entire "auto-record" feature useless (unless you like looking at "Dial extension 771" messages for two hours).

7) Series Link - The fact that you can't edit a SL for which no episodes are scheduled is stupid. If I have a "new only" SL that has no episodes scheduled and want change it to record both first run and repeats, rather than simply edit the SL I have to delete it and create a new one...real user friendly, huh?

The HR20 fanboys act like we should all feel blessed that we have a DVR that will record HD and not crash. That just seems to be an awfully low standard of performance.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Well I'd just like to know when will Tivo come out with picture in guide/hard drive
space remaining meter and 90 minute DLB.Because you would think if Tivo is better than the R15&HR20 they should be able to do the same features and more
too.


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

drew2k said:


> Really? That's your response? Now read what you wrote a moment later ...
> Who's beyond discussion now when you basically dismiss a valid question out of hand?
> 
> You are obviously very enthusiastic about TiVo, but there are ways to argue your points and unfortunately, you're not coming across as anything but confrontational.


Earls post was as follows:


Earl Bonovich said:


> So basically we (as in the entire user base) should allow anyone to state an opinion, with no response to that opinion? Then what is the point of the reply button?


How is one to respond to such a question? I don't feel the need to respond to everyone that posts an opinion on this forum. But obviously Earl and others do. They also feel the need to respond with the same info and what they like about the HR20 as they have in 100's of other threads. Ya know what, I've read those...many times. Every time a new member says they like their Tivo and wish they could have it back, the typical crowd of Bonscott, Earl, Jeremy W and others don't have to always post their typical replys. They've been posted before. We can all read them many times.

Then, God forbid a new member vents and uses the terrible "POS" term. They might as well just crawl under a rock given the response they will receive.

I don't live here, I don't spend every waking hour here just to discuss/argue about who's DVR is bigger....ops....better. I'm not sure how I dismissed his question as I felt it was a question not worth answering.

But to answer that question, YES, I do expect everyone here to use common sense and to not attack anyone that believes other than you. I also expect every member to add a comment if they believe they can offer help to the poster. But simply to say "I like it because of a, b, c, d" doesn't really offer the poster help does it?

Earl has his reasons for his posts, others have theirs. Again, my point was when Jeremy W told Babalax that she was in the wrong place that changed the demeanour of this thread. She likes her Tivos. This is a thread that mentioned Tivo and D* might get back together (according to Tivo). She said "bring my Tivo bacK" and Jeremy W told her to go elsewhere. I'm sorry if I'm being confrontational when Jeremy W isn't.

I guess I'll join the other members here that just keep their comments to themselves. Sad. :nono2:


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Titan25, 

Without quoting your entire post. I agree. FWIW! LOL


----------



## bto4wd (Apr 17, 2007)

Jhon69 said:


> Well I'd just like to know when will Tivo come out with picture in guide/hard drive
> space remaining meter and 90 minute DLB.Because you would think if Tivo is better than the R15&HR20 they should be able to do the same features and more
> too.


FWIW I have 60min DLB on all my SD and HD DTivos. So maybe ask D* why production units don't have it. Sure, that's a hack. But that hack involves changing a couple of bytes in memory. Not really rocket science. If hackers could figure out how to expand the DLB on DTivos, surely D* could have made that permanent if they wished.

PIG does seem nice, but I don't want to see that when I'm recording a show or two while watching recorded shows. I don't want to pop out of a recorded show only to see the ending of the show I'm recording.

HD usage? I've always used the number of Tivo suggestions I had to gauge how full my HD was. Oh, but that's right, the HR20 doesn't have suggestions. Only Showcases.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

bto4wd said:


> FWIW I have 60min DLB on all my SD and HD DTivos. So maybe ask D* why production units don't have it. Sure, that's a hack. But that hack involves changing a couple of bytes in memory. Not really rocket science. If hackers could figure out how to expand the DLB on DTivos, surely D* could have made that permanent if they wished.
> 
> PIG does seem nice, but I don't want to see that when I'm recording a show or two while watching recorded shows. I don't want to pop out of a recorded show only to see the ending of the show I'm recording.
> 
> HD usage? I've always used the number of Tivo suggestions I had to gauge how full my HD was. Oh, but that's right, the HR20 doesn't have suggestions. Only Showcases.


Isn't that where alot of the problems are concerning Tivo?.With the D*Tivos you can hack them and make them do other things?.If Tivo was to return to D* they would be leased DVRs which would make hacking them out of the question.So it would seem to me the best plan would be for the ones who want Tivo to buy them
that way they own them.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Well since it seems hopeless to bring this thread back on track...
And has turned into more of a who can post what.

This particular thread is closed.
The discussion about the TiVo's CEO comment, and what it would mean to DirecTV...

Will continue here.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=89333

If you want to continue about who can post what.... what is proper to post... you can start a thread down in the Forum Support, or the OT area.


----------

