Read an article this morning about TIVO plans to insert pop-up ads whenever the skip-ahead button is pushed starting in March (and also start enforcing time limits on PPV recordings). Does anyone know if Dish plans something similar? Just got my 921 up and running and would find this VERY annoying, if implemented. If not, there might be quite a few D*Tivo users jumping ship for other DVRs.
Does Dish plan to serve up pop-up ads ala TIVO?
- Thread starter WildBill
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 16
- Views 3K
I hope Dish not do the pop up ads like tivo. I have been thinking about the 921 since the price dropped.
TiVo is a hurting company - I think they're grasping at any straw that can fill their coffers.
Haven't heard anything about E* even thinking about it - and if it were me, I'd NOT do it, and brag about that fact - and get direct revenue from new customers.
Haven't heard anything about E* even thinking about it - and if it were me, I'd NOT do it, and brag about that fact - and get direct revenue from new customers.
E* has enought trouble getting their DVR's to do basic DVR functions, so I wouldn't thing so.
But, if they ever did, I would hope they would offer the option of keeping the 4.99 fee instead of the advertising.
But, if they ever did, I would hope they would offer the option of keeping the 4.99 fee instead of the advertising.
software design 101
That's a bit harsh don't you think? The E* development teams have a lot on their plates.
I think the main problem with E* software is that they keep changing platforms. If they had one base processor, with common modules to all receivers and specific additional modules that made each receiver "unique", rather than each and every one being new from the ground up, they could probably make everything "sophisticated and elegant" plus all the user interfaces would be the same across the board, reducing support costs.
Example: The 501, 508 and 510 are basically the same BUT completely different than the 721 or 921. Sure the 721 has two tuners but if the 50x series had been built on the same chipset but with just one tuner then they could run the same basic software. The 522 then would have been a simple upgrade of adding hardware for the second output then putting the support for it in the 721 code base. The 921 would have been a 721 with HD support added. And the 301/311 would have been the same thing but without the PVR functionality or hard drive support.
I work for a relatively young software company. We started out building a unique custom product for each client. It took us a while but we finally figured out that unless every one of our "products" is based on the same core "engine" with various modules enabled or not depending on the client's needs, development and support quickly consume all available resources. The clients still get something unique because we build in the flexibility and customizability but it's a whole lot easier to maintain.
E* needs to learn this. Get the bugs worked out of the current line of receivers. Then move on to a scalable platform. Put the exact same software on all versions of this new hardware, with hardware detection code to enable the specific features of each model.
Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with the original post, but it's a rant that needed to be said.
Cyclone said:
That's a bit harsh don't you think? The E* development teams have a lot on their plates.
I think the main problem with E* software is that they keep changing platforms. If they had one base processor, with common modules to all receivers and specific additional modules that made each receiver "unique", rather than each and every one being new from the ground up, they could probably make everything "sophisticated and elegant" plus all the user interfaces would be the same across the board, reducing support costs.
Example: The 501, 508 and 510 are basically the same BUT completely different than the 721 or 921. Sure the 721 has two tuners but if the 50x series had been built on the same chipset but with just one tuner then they could run the same basic software. The 522 then would have been a simple upgrade of adding hardware for the second output then putting the support for it in the 721 code base. The 921 would have been a 721 with HD support added. And the 301/311 would have been the same thing but without the PVR functionality or hard drive support.
I work for a relatively young software company. We started out building a unique custom product for each client. It took us a while but we finally figured out that unless every one of our "products" is based on the same core "engine" with various modules enabled or not depending on the client's needs, development and support quickly consume all available resources. The clients still get something unique because we build in the flexibility and customizability but it's a whole lot easier to maintain.
E* needs to learn this. Get the bugs worked out of the current line of receivers. Then move on to a scalable platform. Put the exact same software on all versions of this new hardware, with hardware detection code to enable the specific features of each model.
Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with the original post, but it's a rant that needed to be said.
You're right Pepper - but that's exactly the problem. E* is clueless about software development, which is why we're safe.
I've seen it before - engineers that start to think they are programmers. Maybe that's the case here and maybe not, but one thing for sure, the people writing the code are NOT worthy of the title "Programmer". In all fairness, most of the so-called programmers out there today are also not worthy of the title.
The 921 actually did start with the same code base as the 721, but for some unknown reason (probably charlie cheapo outsourcing it overseas to Eldon), it all went to hell in a handbasket. I expect the same will happen with the 942 which most of us believe will be built on the 522 code.
I've seen it before - engineers that start to think they are programmers. Maybe that's the case here and maybe not, but one thing for sure, the people writing the code are NOT worthy of the title "Programmer". In all fairness, most of the so-called programmers out there today are also not worthy of the title.
The 921 actually did start with the same code base as the 721, but for some unknown reason (probably charlie cheapo outsourcing it overseas to Eldon), it all went to hell in a handbasket. I expect the same will happen with the 942 which most of us believe will be built on the 522 code.
SimpleSimon said:
You got that right.
I used to make my living as a "programmer" but eventually decided that in order to preserve my health and sanity I needed to do something less stressful. Now I'm a network administrator.
True programming is both an art and a science, and most people don't have the organizational skills or logical thought processes to do it in a concise manageable way. Sure there are a lot of technically advanced code jockeys out there but most of them are making a tangled mess that will be a nightmare for whoever comes behind them to maintain it.
I fear the E* (and most everywhere else) software development cycle goes like this.
1. Marketing asks can we add feature "X".
4. Programmer adds feature "X".
10. Long hold times and overworked CSRs answering questions like "They added X to my product and now A and C don't work."
Missing completely are the following.
2. Design team: What is going to break if we add "X"?
3. Programmer: How can I build "X" so it's portable and easily added to our other products?
5. Tester: Does the product still work correctly? I need to test the whole thing not just the new "X".
6. Support team leader: I need to make sure my people know what "X" is.
7. and 8. Other stuff I can't think of right now.
9. Any problems between 2 and 7, go back to step 2 and figure out what happened.
If steps 2 thru 9 are done right, step 10 doesn't happen or at least is not as bad.
Incompetence and mismanagement is a double-edged sword. The very factors that prevent or delay the implementation of desired features sometimes save us from undesired changes. (Think Government)
One thing I don't understand, though, is why TIVO is more susceptible to the pressures of the Broadcasters and movie industry to include copy protection and avoid ad skipping than any other DVR maker? How long before the same pressures are brought to bear on Dish?
One thing I don't understand, though, is why TIVO is more susceptible to the pressures of the Broadcasters and movie industry to include copy protection and avoid ad skipping than any other DVR maker? How long before the same pressures are brought to bear on Dish?
If Charlie could make a buck like Tivo is doing , I expect Charlie would do the same thing in regards to Advertisments revenue. Unfortunately if they try to add this feature it will most likely break down the entire system. Imagine the mess they would have to clean up after that software download.
Pepper - Precisely.
One of the biggest most complex pieces of software I ever worked on required a 100% regression test for EVERY change. It was just too damn important to NOT do that.
Aside, I just told my old boss about this site - he might see this post - HI DAN!
One of the biggest most complex pieces of software I ever worked on required a 100% regression test for EVERY change. It was just too damn important to NOT do that.
Aside, I just told my old boss about this site - he might see this post - HI DAN!
Uhm, its taken years to implement Name Base recording and OTA Channel guides to their DVR and HD products. Right now Dish has 3 platforms. OpenTV (811, 301/311, 50x, 510), Linux (721, 921) and whatever the 322/522 uses.
I work for a software/hardware development company too. I know about the complications that you cite, but they don't change a thing.
I stand by my statement that I think that we are safe.
I work for a software/hardware development company too. I know about the complications that you cite, but they don't change a thing.
I stand by my statement that I think that we are safe.
With our luck, pop-up ads may be the only "feature" they get right .
Honestly though, if they do ANYTHING that limits our ability to skip commercials or record for later viewing any programs that I'm already paying for, then I'll be looking for ANY means to keep them from doing so . I'd use the word hacking but I'm afraid Scott will delete my post .
Honestly though, if they do ANYTHING that limits our ability to skip commercials or record for later viewing any programs that I'm already paying for, then I'll be looking for ANY means to keep them from doing so . I'd use the word hacking but I'm afraid Scott will delete my post .
Personally, pop-ups may be the reality for all DVR/PVR systems. Why, several lawsuits levered against TIVO and others are that the ability to skip forward over commercials is hurting their revenue stream. NAB has powerful lobbyists and may force some type of pop-up result.
One more reason to dislike money grabbing litigation.
One more reason to dislike money grabbing litigation.
Well I'll say one thing it's all to good to be true being able to record any show and watch it without commercials. The TV moguels and RIAA will not let us continue to skip commercials forever. I think that sooner or later there will be no free TV it will all be PPV. Now that's just my opinion and it certainly doesn't have to be yours.
stratguy
stratguy
Recent study refute commercial skipping is bad...
With PVRs that don't skip 30 seconds but instead fast forward (cable, TIVO, etc.) a recent study found viewers were more likely to remember the sponser if they had to concentrate on skipping the ad than if they just watched the ad! Who knew?
With PVRs that don't skip 30 seconds but instead fast forward (cable, TIVO, etc.) a recent study found viewers were more likely to remember the sponser if they had to concentrate on skipping the ad than if they just watched the ad! Who knew?
