Slashdot Mirror
An Offer Tivo Owners Can't Refuse
An anonymous reader pointed us to this little tidbit. The BBC paid Tivo (company slogan: "TV Your Way") to force owners' boxes to record some new program they wanted to push, which looks incredibly exciting. UK Tivo owners seem a little upset.
The "little upset" link wasn't; it just explained that the program "does not take up any of your recording capacity - it is stored in a seperate reserved space."
If it doesn't take up space, and will lower the overall cost of the unit by allowing another revenue stream for Tivo, and you don't have to watch it, and it doesn't interfere with the rest of your programming, why is this news? Am I missing something?
PS - A huge clue grenade gets lobbed to whoever believes that
It does not take up any of your recording capacity - it is stored in a seperate reserved space. You still have 40 hours of recording capacity on a standard TiVo.
Why isn't that space mine to begin with?
Following the link posted in the article about TiVo users being upset has a list of 'known facts' about TiVo Enhanced Content.
> If you have another programme scheduled at the time the promo airs, then TiVo will record your scheduled programme and will not record the promo. Your own scheduled recordings always take priority.
> If you are watching Live TV at the time TiVo will ask permission to change channels to record the Promo. Note if you are not around to say no TiVo will go ahead. I *think* the buffer up to the time of the channel change will still be available.
As a TiVo user, this really doesn't bother me. It is a possible alternate source of revenue for TiVo, which is always good. I've noticed them before (as other US TiVO users) and I've watched a few.
As long as it's available as an option only on the front menu, doesn't take up my recording space (they use some 'reserved space'), it doesn't force me to watch it, and it doesn't otherwise restrain my usual TiVo use, I really don't think it's a problem at all.
The TiVo is a tool that changes your TV watching habits in such a way that you may not be exposed to new shows as a normal commercial-watching viewer. While it (on principle) bothers me that it ignores parental controls, especially for a show with bad language, this is a tolerable way of letting you know about new shows.
Because Tivo wants to make a profit and not be sued out of existence by TV companies. The description in the article sounds like a non-disruptive way of letting TV folks promote their shows.
Anyways, you paid for 40 hours of recording time. You have 40 hours of recording time. Tivo doesn't owe you every inch of recording media in the box.
It sounds like a better plan than death by legislation.
(side thought: Maybe in the future shows won't battle for a good time slot, they'll battle for Tivo priority. 200k for a two-day guaranteed time span on everyone's tivo, 25k for a 4 hour span, etc.)
What is the big deal? Doesn't your Tivo already proactively record shows without your permission, shows that it "predicts" you might like? Nobody complains about Tivo doing that. Tivo and the BBC are now just influencing that existing algorithm (with cash money). This stupid BBC show is now just another OPTION on a list of choices. It's not like you are forced to watch this show against your will. This is not A Clockwork Orange or something..
cpeterso
Argument 1: "It's coming from reserved space, so it doesn't affect your existing programs."
What if I have a 15 or 30 hour box (at basic), and some event (vacation) means I'm having trouble juggling just a few things I wanted -- in the meantime, space is "reserved" that could have been provided for my use (remember me, the one who bought the product for usability's sake).
In that sense, the reserved space affects my regular space, and that of anybody who purchases the box, because only so much "space" fits in a given box. If it's about making for both happy users and a healthy company, the money from people who prefer the "extra" space rather than reserved space may outweigh the (payoffs from networks minus lost subscriptions from angry users).
Argument 2: It doesn't pre-empt live television.
Mostly wrong, though it doesn't seem to pre-empt scheduled recordings. I often pause a baseball game and leave the room to take a phone call, for example, or leave it playing knowing that I can go back 20 minutes or so to catch Barry Bonds' record-tying home run.
On 60 seconds notice, a forced program changes the channel and loses the previous program buffer. Goodbye, user option to review what they might have missed, all because they weren't on guard with the remote to respond "yessir" or "nosir" to the equipment they own. Remember that is one of the prime selling points of the product, at the moment.
For you non-Euro-resident readers, the BBC already collects a gigantic toll from the population at large ('the license fee'; currently UKP112 for a colour TV ) for its budget, in exchange for what is generally regarded as among the best programming anywhere. While I have supported the BBC strongly in the past, this kind of activity essentially is extremely unethical for a number of reasons:
The BBC, through its joint ventures in the UK (particularly publishing and radio), North America and elsewhere, is already blurring the distinction between public monies (the license fee) and private finance to an unhealthy level. With this latest effort they lose a little more of their hard-earned reputation of objectivity in pursuit of coin, and more importantly, give the British public less of a reason in future to pay the fees.
Regardless of however small the payment was in the grand scheme of things, this was wrong. To think of it another way, 100% of the British television public paid for only a small subset of viewers (less than 1%?) to receive something that they probably didn't want. How is that acceptable?
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese