Slashdot Mirror
Slate Predicts The End Of TiVo
wiredog writes "Slate has an article about why TiVo (the company, not the idea) is destined to fail. It suffers from the same first mover disadvantage that did in the Newton and the Amiga."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
It's an article from Slate (a Microsoft publication) saying TiVo's dead. (Microsoft had DVR plans for XBox, last I heard.)
:^)
Whatever... I'll still buy a TiVo once I can afford it. And sit it down next to that Amiga500 I've always wanted to get.
It doesn't matter for me, though, I have my VCR programmed to record Mother Angelica every day.
A. Rightmann
I suspect that those same families still have their clocks flashing 12:00AM and do little more than read email on their P4 2GHz computers.
You're always going to have people who simply aren't going to make use of technology due to phobia.
However, the opposite side to their figures is that 70% of the people given TiVos ARE using it.
And I honestly can say that once you teach someone initially how to navigate through the menus, having the TiVo automatically catch your favorite shows whenever they're on, despite most schedule changes, is far easier than the hassles of putting in new tapes all the time and manually programming a change in a particular week's showtime.
The Amiga failed in the marketplace not because they were the first mover, as the article suggests, but because the management at Commodore was hopelessly inept and corrupt. Instead of spending money marketing the Amiga and creating markets for them, they instead blew hundreds of millions of dollars on executive perks like private jets and company yaghts, not to mention obscene bonuses and stock option deals. It's failing had far more to do with Enron-style executive hubris than it ever did with market forces.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
How was the Amiga "not a success?" Sure, it's not around and popular today, like PCs, but then again, neither are Apple IIs, Commodore 64s, Atari 8-bits, Atari STs, etc. It's called progress.
With TiVo, we're talking about a VERY simple concept. To the end user, all it does is record and play back (and all that other good stuff). It's not something you have to go out and buy software for, and hope that the latest and greatest Laser printer will work for it.
Comparing TiVo to (un)successful computer platforms is like apples to oranges.
Also, I didn't really understand this part:
Joe Six-Pack, however, was stumped. VCRs and video-game machines had just recently made a splash in the mass market.
Umm... "Recently" as in "8 years before?" (The Amiga 1000 came out in 1985. The Atari VCS (aka 2600) came out in 1977.)
This, too:
he Amiga, which featured such revolutionary perks as a full-color screen (a big plus in the age of green-and-black Apple IIc monitors) and stereo sound.
Let's see - we what else had full-color screens? Atari 400/800 (1979), Commodore 64 (1982), and hey! Apple II! (You just needed the right monitor, I believe.)
Apple II's came out in 1977 and was still in production through 1993.
I can nitpick further, but I actually have something productive to do... somewhere... (checking pockets) No, not there...
I predict the end of Slate before the end of Tivo.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Honestly, I think their number one reason for failure will be the price of their product, and their insistence on pushing loads of services with it.
I know a lot of people who have been interested in it, but can't justify the price. I myself would really enjoy one because my work schedule makes it very difficult for me to catch shows. However, I don't like being forced to buy into a bunch of other stuff just to buy the product, and for what it does, I can't justify the price in my mind.
It's really just an example of consumer preference dictating the market... clearly the product is not placed in a position where the public needs it.
Last year TiVo spent almost nothing on advertising, and it's interesting why:
It turns out that MS was pumping millions into Ultimate TV advertising, and enthused customers were flocking to Circuit City and Good Guys, only to be told that they'd have to also get a satellite dish and service, regardless of what they already had.
Seeing their frustration, salespeople show them the TiVo, which works with whatever service they already have. Every dollar spent by Microsoft generated more TiVo revenue than UTV revenue...
Kevin Fox
The point isn't that PVR will fail -- just that the long term prognistics for this company aren't good.
I bought a PVR card for a pc. It sucks, the software is no good. But the card was $50. There's no reason why the software couldn't be good -- it just isn't. There are 3rd party apps that tie into tv listings just like TiVo does.
TiVo is nice, and they make it work, but you pay an awful lot for the storage space. TiVo is vulnerable to pressure from the big media companies, too, in a way that other solutions won't be. And I have to say that it's very nice to be able to record to Divx files that can be saved or shared.
OK, maybe I'm a little biased. I was a happy TiVo owner for almost a year -- until the modem broked. TiVo only offered a 60 or 90 day warranty, so I would have had to send them the box, wait a few weeks, and pay them at least $99 to repair it.
So I bought an Ultimate TV. Since MSFT was shutting down the division, you could get them for $99 including the dish and installation.
Plus, with the UltimateTV, I can record 2 shows at once, in original quality(including Dolby Digital).
The reason I say it should die is their service policy. The failing modem is an extremely common problem with the units (just read any TiVo board), and they fail to recognize it.
TiVo has a far superior and faster interface. Their service releases give great new and timesaving features, and they listen to user feedback and do usability. If it weren't for their lousy service, I would be their biggest advocate.
Microsoft? Someone? They're going to build it. Here's my picture of it.
The most elemental function is that of a DVR. It wraps a user interface around the whole home television experience. And once you control the user interface... (points over to The Book of Microsoft)
Now, people have a computer that, for the first time, is running 24x7 and they don't shut it off. They don't turn their DVRs off when they are done watching television. It is always on. All television commands (record this, channel up, etc) are received by the DVR, and then forwarded to other devices (DSS receiver) as needed.
Now, this DVR has a broadband input. How can we sell software and services? Answer: Game Console.
A game console you know has to have enough computing power (or at least graphics processing) to be pretty advanced. Add a decent hard drive. Know what the next step is?
Games-on-demand. Think Yahoo! Games on Demand. I actually tried this service, and I liked it. For $15 (I cancelled immediately after subscribing so I'd just have 30 days server), I am able to play 15 games up to a month.
How does it work? It downloads a good bulk of the game onto my local hard drive. Then, my hard drive works like a cacheing filesystem in front of an NFS filesystem. That is, the game runs off of the local hard drive cache, and anything not in the local cache is downloaded from the central server and placed in my local cache. For all my game knows, it is running off of the CD or a real filesystem on a real hard drive.
This means more revenue because now you don't have to trouble with the distribution of software over the shelves. Microsoft (or X company) is going to take off where the music industry has failed... online software distribution or rental, and for a nice profit.
You might add in some tangents. Video on demand is somewhat interesting. There could be a good market there... if done correctly. Various lifestyle 'services' (local weather maps available at the touch of a few buttons).
Of course, remember that this is all in a very friendly menu system of a video computing device... not a personal computer. It is wrapped up with a bow on top for the masses who want to play a game or watch tv, but not have to manage or figure out a personal computer.
So, I'll argue that TiVo could be at a disadvantage being a first mover. It has pioneered the DVR space. The DVR space is the very KEY to getting people to put an operating system on their television set. The problem is that TiVo doesn't have the muscle to fully leverage that position. (And why Microsoft competes in that territory.)
The author of the article is saying, as far as I can tell, that TiVo as a company will fail because their hardware is in the market too soon. The author has failed to understand some basics of the TiVo business model.
First, licensing is not something that may save TiVo, it is one of the main focuses of their business. With partnerships with Sony, AT&T and DirecTV, and the technology in use in America, Asia and Europe, TiVo is well positioned to benefit from the continued rollout of this technology, not suffer from competition.
TiVo doesn't really make and sell the hardware, so they are not like the hardware based companies (Apple, Commodore) they are compared to in the article. Yes, they do subsidize the stand alone units, but standalone units (and competing standalone units like XBOX) are destined for the garbage heap. Integrating the technology into set top boxes (satellite/cable) and letting the service providers subsidize/support the equipment is the model that will succeed. This completely invalidates the authors arguments of complicated setup and being hard to sell in a retail establishment.
TiVo plays nicely with content providers. TiVo has gone out of their way to try to stay on the good side of the studio's IP lawyers. The clearest example is that it takes some intelligence to turn on 30-second skip; it is not enabled by default from the factory.
TiVo actively pursues other revenue sources. TiVo is using its service to deliver targeted advertising (Best Buy, Lexus).
Now, I am not saying that TiVo as a company will succeed in its current form (my crystal ball is at the cleaners), but if it fails it is not going to be because of some mythical disadvantage from being in the market first.
I think the author made a few mistakes on his article.
1. It is not true that being first on a new market usually leads to failure (the author seems to imply that). Exactly the opposite, history has shown once and again that being first is most of the time to your advantage, and most of the time leads to success. Is this the case with TiVo? Judge by yourself
2. The author of the article gave a bad example with the Amiga. What killed the Amiga was not the industry or the users or the competition, it was Commodore itself. It had the most awful marketing department in the world (and this is an understatement).
3. The newton's failure was not being first, but being over-engineered to an excessive cost (the author does imply something to this respect). The market was not prepared for such an expensive and large unit at that time.
But my wife certainly does. She is about to get her own dedicated Tivo, just so she can start recording all of her "Trading Spaces," "Ground Force," "Changing Rooms" home redecorationg shows. It'll be a hard-drive full of estrogen in no time.
She's "just a chick," but she can't go back to watching TV the old way.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.