Because there are no terrestrial broadcasters using MPEG4.vampz26 said:
Why would TiVo release an MPEG4 HD-DVR?
TIVO vs E*
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 178K
- Status
Why would TiVo release an MPEG4 HD-DVR?
hey, don't ask me...its obvious the MPEG4 HD-DVR initiative served their competition pretty well....
I am trying to understand why an MPEG4 HD DVR is so important. It served DISH/SATS very well because they already had created their own models of DVR which infringe on the Time Warp patent, so why not extend that to some new technology?
The above it tongue-in-cheek, but the reality is that only DISH/SATS and DirecTV care about MPEG4. TiVo can only build HD DVR's for their systems if they can get a contract to create those.
DirecTV was so impressed by DISH/SATS that they left their relationship with TiVo to also bring DVR development in-house. Of course, DirecTV does have a contract with TiVo for supporting only the MPEG2 DVR's, but only recently agreed to have TiVo build MPEG4 HD DVR's sometime next year.
The above it tongue-in-cheek, but the reality is that only DISH/SATS and DirecTV care about MPEG4. TiVo can only build HD DVR's for their systems if they can get a contract to create those.
DirecTV was so impressed by DISH/SATS that they left their relationship with TiVo to also bring DVR development in-house. Of course, DirecTV does have a contract with TiVo for supporting only the MPEG2 DVR's, but only recently agreed to have TiVo build MPEG4 HD DVR's sometime next year.
LOL...you must be kidding...
In case you haven't noticed, its the SAT/Cable companies that have been DRIVING the DVR market. And yes, Tivo FAILED to innovate their product to SAT/Cable companies were forced to innovate themselves to meet their customers demands. Is that Dish's Fault? No...Tivo needed to and FAILED to stay on top of the changing market forcing innovation...and now they want to whine about it. Rather than build a better mousetrap, they want to claim they invented it.
Um...why would anyone give Tivo a contract to create something that doesn't exist? No product, no contract...thats how it works. All Tivo is selling right now is obsolete technology. Yup, if I was a Sat/Cable company relying on the latest and greatest to stay ahead of my stiff competition, heck yeah! Sign me up!
Now you have something there...Directv was so impressed with Tivo a while back that they dumped them cold. I remember that...
The Direct TV HD Tivo was one of the FINEST pieces of equipment I ever seen! Would have had one myself had Directv had more than 6 HD channels to record and didn't already announce their plan to move over to mpeg4 in the next two years. 999 bucks for two years worth of product, and six channels to record...no flippin' way. Before you know it, the Directv HD Tivo was only 299 and people still weren't buying it.
There you have it...the TRUTH! If Tivo is hurt in any way, shape, or form by the sat business...its D*'s FAULT! Tivo builds the most innovative DVR product at that time, I recall it even won awards! And then D* fails to support it, either in current content, or in future initiatives...thus rendering obsolete as soon as it hit the shelves...RIP HD-Tivo, courtesy of Directv....
...and Tivo hasn't produced a competitive product since in the Sat arena...but they certainly want to whine about those who have!
Last edited:
Acutally, the bigger problem is along two tracks:vampz26 said:
1) The Scentific Atlanta's and Motorola's of the world. They are the largest cable set-top box manufacturers. TiVo didn't crack that market, because...
2) They sold their box directly to end users. No matter what anyone had, you could buy a TiVo and set it along side your cable STB or satellite receiver.
However, with DirecTV getting TiVo involved in their DVR implementation early in the game, most people preferred an DVR integrated with their STB/receiver. If TiVo wanted to play in that arena, they had to get contracts with the distribution companies. They did get that contract with DirecTV. They were rebuffed by DISH/SATS, yet DISH/SATS saw fit to practically copy TiVo's hardware design for their in-house DVR attempt.
TiVo's biggest problem: Instead of selling boxes and selling service to Joe Blow, Joe Six Pack and Joe the Plumber, TiVo should have become a cable STB manufacturer.
You're putting the cart before the horse.vampz26 said:
On 3 September, 2008, DirecTV finally gave a contract to TiVo to develop an MPEG4 HD DVR. They are supposed to be ready sometime next year. That was not the first attempt TiVo made to create an MPEG4 HD DVR for DirecTV.
BTW, if all TiVo is doing is selling obsolete technology, why has DISH/SATS decided to go all-in on the DTV Pal, which will ONLY pickup over-the-air digital broadcasts, and is not compatible with cable nor satellite?
Business 101. TiVo can't just produce "a competitive product" "in the sat arena".vampz26 said:
You cannot produce a product for a proprietary system without that companies consent. Just because DirecTV actually did have a contract with TiVo which DirecTV let lapse does not absolve DISH/SATS of any wrongdoing. DISH/SATS started building their entire DVR business by infringing on patented technology from another company.
"Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
ITEM 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
On September 2, 2008, we entered into a new Amended & Restated Development Agreement with DIRECTV, Inc., which amends and restates, our prior Development Agreement with DIRECTV. The new agreement extends the expiration date of our agreement with DIRECTV from February 15, 2010 to February 15, 2015, with DIRECTV having the right to extend further until February 15, 2018, subject to limited exceptions. Under the terms of our non-exclusive agreement, TiVo will develop a new version of the TiVo® service for DIRECTV's broadband-enabled high definition DVR platform. As part of this new agreement, DIRECTV will pay a substantially higher monthly fee for households using the new high definition DIRECTV DVRs with TiVo than the fees for previously deployed DIRECTV DVRs with TiVo service. DIRECTV will continue to pay the current monthly fee for all households using only the previously deployed DIRECTV DVRs with TiVo service. The fees paid by DIRECTV are subject to monthly minimum payments that escalate during the term of the agreement starting in 2010 and those minimum payments are substantially higher than in the prior agreement. On an annual basis, we will continue to defer a portion of these fees as a non-refundable credit to fund mutually agreed development, with excess development work to be funded up-front by DIRECTV subject to limited future fee credits."
__________
"15-Mar-2005
Other Events
ITEM 1.01. Other Events.
On March 15, 2005, we entered into a non-exclusive licensing and marketing agreement with Comcast STB Software DVR, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast Corporation, and Comcast Corporation, as guarantor of Comcast STB's obligations under the agreement. Pursuant to our agreement, we have agreed to develop a TiVo-branded software solution for deployment on Comcast's DVR platforms, which would enable any TiVo-specific DVR and networking features requested by Comcast, such as WishList™ searches, Season Pass™ recordings, home media features, and TiVoToGo™ transfers. In addition, we have agreed to develop an advertising management system for deployment on Comcast platforms to enable the provision of local and national advertising to Comcast subscribers.
Under the agreement, Comcast will pay us an upfront fee and a recurring monthly fee per Comcast subscriber who receives the TiVo service through Comcast. Comcast will also pay us fees for engineering services for the development and integration of the TiVo service software solution (subject to adjustment under certain circumstances) and the advertising management system. "
Look...nice attempt at turning my accurate one-line statement into a full-blown analysis here in an attempt to 'sound' correct...but in case you haven't noticed, most of what you said has little to do with anything I'm talking about...in fact, I don't know where you came up with half that stuff or why...you didn't address anything I said about D* originally dumping Tivo or the failed HDTivo...
Like I said, Tivo sabotaged themselves early on in the manner you described. The market wanted an integrated product, Tivo had one...Tivo steered away from it and D* dumped them. Tivo customers at the time were also sick and tired of being nickel and dimed to death with subscriber fees. The market demanded something new, and something that would actually carry them through technologically through the next five years...Dish provided that. Tivo failed too.
here, maybe this will help you:
free enterprise definition
now...without wasting all kinds of words here, what is your problem with Free Enterprise?
What is your problem with admitting that Tivo failed to keep contracts with D* and that hurt them perhaps more than anything...
What is wrong with admitting that E* produced a superior product for its subs at exactly the time and place in the market where it was needed?
What is wrong with admitting that Tivo FAILED accomplish what E* achieved and is now resorting to litigation to save its sorry self?
Thats all I'm saying here...
Whats this? Comcast Tivo is an existing product and the D* HD-Tivo is vaporware?
Here's news for you, that D* thingee your posting is called a CYA. You see, D* is playing a little game here until the E* dust settles...what you have there is an exception brought on by immediate circumstances, not a rule...
Got it? Good...
Because DirecTV, under Rupert Murdoch, wanted to bring the DVR development in-house. After all, DISH/SATS was developing their own, but it has been found if they didn't infringe upon TiVo's patents that DISH/SATS wouldn't of even had a DVR.vampz26 said:I don't know where you came up with half that stuff or why...you didn't address anything I said about D* originally dumping Tivo or the failed HDTivo...
You seem to have one. Company A creates a product, and company B completely infringes upon that technology. Maybe this will help:vampz26 said:
It is easy to claim innovation when you infringe on someone else's work. TiVo tried to get a contract wih DISH/SATS before they decided to develop DVR's in house. Instead of innovating, DISH/SATS simply infringed their way to have a large base of DVR's.
I guess companies aren't supposed to be rewarded for their innovations in a free enterprise market.
Because TiVo developed a DVR, then went to sell it to DirecTV and DISH/SATS. DirecTV took the deal, and DISH/SATS only took the TiVo technology without paying for it and developed DVR's for use in their system.vampz26 said:
Revisionist History 101. TiVo had a standalone. TiVo contracted with DirecTV to have an integrated satellite DVR. TiVo never did "steer away from it", as DirecTV decided to move in-house with their DVR production. Perhaps DirecTV saw how well DISH/SATS benefited from infringing on TiVo's patent. No wonder why TiVo had to defend their intellectual property in court.vampz26 said:
There is also Cox:
So, that's three "exceptions" to your rule:
Comcast, Cox, and DirecTV. Yep. "Exceptions".
No...I said Comcast and Cox are existing products not covered in the scope of my statement...and the mythical D* Tivo is vaporware that D* has some kind of agreement on in order to avoid being the next one sued...the fear-factor being the cause for the one exception I was referring too...
You must have missed something...I was quite clear...
Honestly, I doubt D* had to worry about being sued (by Tivo anyway) even if they hadnt made the announced agreement.
Except for one simple thing...they didn't infringe on anything...they just built a better DVR. Period. And of course this whole business of 'infringement' is just a richmans courtroom game because Tivo needs to find a way to compensate for a failing business model. I've given way too much expert-witness testimony in way too many IP trials (specifically software trials not unlike this whole Tivo nonsense) to see this whole drama as anything but that.
You say infringe, thinking that means something.
Try this one on for size...they improved on it because Tivo failed too.I have a beautiful ViP622 sitting on my TV. And it does things NO Tivo can do. Record and playback mpeg4. What I see is an improved product that Tivo cannot give me. Sorry...but once again, this courtroom nonsense proves nothing but that its a game being played by a desparate company who failed its stockholders, failed its subs, and failed to deliver a competitive product...now they must claim they invented it just to stay alive. And in the process, attempt to deny those of us who have benifited from what is obviously the much improved work that other people had the foresight and initiative to create where Tivo failed.
Hey...Tivo has already BEEN rewarded for its innovation when it actually WAS innovation. Now having fallen behind, why should they be rewarded further? They FAILED! Why should we reward them?
If Dish and D* found it more cost effective to produce their own DVRs than by all means THEY SHOULD! If they found a way to provide DVR service to their subs without nickel and diming them like Tivo was doing, than they SHOULD! If D* and Dish could produce a better product than Tivo was offering, and they SHOULD and DID!
And THAT is free enterprise, in case you didn't know...building a better mousetrap...and people will buy it. Supply and Demand...We Demanded it, Dish Supplied it, Tivo was waiting for a ship to come in with D* that sank.
It appears you are trying to revise your "rule" after finding out it doesn't work.
That attempt is a failure. Comcast paid TiVo millions of dollars to develop the product. The Cox and DirecTV products are under contract but still in development. So no, products don't have to exist before contracts are signed.
A proven false "rule".
well in any case D made it a sure thing by making that agreement with tivo.
Thats true, I simply disagree with the reasons Vampz gave for his exception. No big deal though:up
well in any case D made it a sure thing by making that agreement with tivo.
exactly...the corporate extortion and consumer terrorism on the part of Tivo will intimidate many companies into doing stupid things. Like making agreements to use Tivo Mpeg4 HD equipment that hasn't even been 'invented' yet...
Last I checked the Comcast and Cox cable boxes are all built on existing Tivo techology that does exist...and in use in many homes...
Whereas the Mythical D* mpeg4 HD Tivo is...well...vaporware on the market as a peace offering...
what are you missing here...
TiVo was paid millions of dollars for development of the product. It has taken years to develop it. Testing in Comcast homes started last year. The development contract was signed in 2005. Testing in Cox homes has not started.
- Status
