In my first reply to this I missed some of what you wrote:
The $650 is supposed to cover:
- The cost of the hardware (including not only "standard" parts like 750GB of storage, "non-standard" parts like the dual tuners, CableCard slots, etc.), along with some cost "because they can" (i.e. its not an OEM price)
- The cost of the software, both DVR functionality and UI (R&D cost which is a huge part of it I imagine, bug fixes, new feature updates)
- The cost of the licensing Patents/Royalties (both theirs, to file and protect, and others, to license and use)
Ok, up to here, all of this reflects either value to me, or cost of doing business to deliver that value.
- The cost of the program guides information
- The cost of the TiVo backend infrastructure to support the remote updates of appliance (software and program guide information)
- The cost of them integrating all the above pieces into one "appliance"
This is the part I don't want to pay for, because as far as I am concerned it adds no value.
As far as MythTV goes, I am unaware of any store I can walk into, buy one, take it home, connect it to my TV and I'm ready to go. I could do all of that with a VCR.
I don't want to pay the cable companies either. I want to buy a device similar to the one Tivo sells and be done with it.
I believe there are a lot of people out there who would buy a DVR that works the same way that VCRs did.
really, mods? how is this even remotely interesting? it's kind of like telling someone they can save money on steaks by buying in bulk, and getting the reply "well i don't even like beef, so i fail to see how i'm saving money". if you don't want the thing we're talking about, your opinions on the pricing of said thing aren't required.
See you and I have different ideas of what a Tivo is. You appear to think that Tivo is a service that comes with hardware. I think that Tivo is hardware that comes with a service I don't want.
You mean you just want to tell it to start recording at a certain time and stop at another time? TiVo does that already.
The problem is, what if they change the airing schedule, and you didn't notice. And to me, i'd much rather say "Record all showings of Firefly, I don't care when they are" rather than dig around in a schedule looking for the times to enter. The former takes about 10 seconds, the latter takes upwards of 5 minutes per program.
Yes, but my understanding is I have to pay for the subscription to do that other stuff that you say you like better. I don't want to pay for that. I agree that those things are a nice feature, but they aren't worth $5 a month to me (or $400 upfront).
I want to buy a device that lets me tell it to start recording when I want it to and to stop when I want it to, without having to pay for that other stuff.
Now there are people who tell me that if I go hunting I can find such a device. I don't want it that bad. At some point I may decide that I want it enough to go hunting for it, but that hasn't happened yet. I didn't have to go hunting for VCRs, all the major electronic stores carried them.
But my point is that is why Tivo hasn't sold more. This whole discussion is about why Tivo is not more popular. I gave a reason and your response is "then don't by one." I haven't.
I think my reason for not buying one explains why more people haven't bought them. Do you disagree?
They have always (with the exception of a short period of about 4-6 months), offered the option of buying a "Lifetime Subscription" instead of a "Monthly Subscription". The cost of the Lifetime Subscription usually pays for itself after about 2-3 years, but there is no recurring expenses.
I keep seeing people say that a lifetime subscription to TiVo pays for itself after 2-3 years. Since I don't want the subscription, I don't see how paying an upfront fee for the subscription can pay for itself over time.
No, they are legislators. Legislators rarely speak any recognizable language when discussing the law. The longer an individual is in the legislature the worse this becomes.
You are absolutely correct. Of course if TiVo (or somebody else) had sold a DVR that just recorded what people told it to with no monthly fee, the public's demand for the ability to hook it up outside of the cable company's control would have been greater as well. What difference does it make who I pay the monthly fee to?
Another point is that the cable companies' attitude is/was shortsighted. By making it harder for people to obtain timeshifting technology, they accelerated the move to watching video over the Internet.
I never bought one because of the monthly fee. I would buy one immediately if there was no monthly fee.
My thoughts exactly. I kept waiting for someone to sell a DVR that I could hook up to my cable and record what and when I decided to record without having to pay a monthly fee for it to record things according to when they are scheduled. That's all I want, a DVR that works the way that VCRs work. I tell it what channel and what time to record and it does so. I can understand that there is a market for the service, I'm not it. I suspect that there are a lot of people like me, if they could just buy a DVR that works like a VCR they would. Yes, DVR's with service are growing steadily, but that is largely because that is the only way I know of to buy one.
The problem with the Ipad is, I don't know what it is. It isn't a computer. It isn't a phone. It is too big to be (primarily) a portable music player.
The Ipod took an existing market (portable music player) and updated it. The Iphone took an existing market (smart phone) and expanded it. And both of them were more or less marketed that way. As far as I can see the market that is the best fit for the Ipad is the ereader market, but Apple seems to be marketing to that market as a sort of after thought ("...Oh, yeah, it can be used as an ereader as well.")
I am not interested in one, so I didn't really pay attention. I thought it was out. It was announced a month ago and all of its fan boys keep saying about products that some slashdotters suggest as better, "They're not available yet."
You are right. The hype they've generated is an achievement and a reason I dislike Apple products. They hype them up before anyone can look at them to see if their is anything to the hype. BTW, they got similar levels of hype for AppleTV.
It's not a netbook, which was originally designed with a custom Linux install in mind and ended up having Windows slapped on it. The advantages a netbook has over an introductory notebook are offset by the disadvantages I noted above. This is where the iPad comes in, trying to offer the advantages of the netbook, without those disadvantages. Whether they succeed or not has yet to be determined, and until then I'll stick with my thinkpad T43 and iPhone, thank you very much.
Except it doesn't offer the chief advantage of a netbook: price.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. They mkae up little factoids to put in the movie or TV show that a quick Google would show was wrong (or before the Internet a quick call to the appropriate deparment of a local college, would have taken a little longer than using Google does now, but not very much time). These factoids add nothing to the plot, sometimes the real facts would have actually furthered the plot more than the made-up one they use instead.
are they really claiming that people won't pay for a netbook, but they will pay the same price for something with half the functionality and none of the openness, just because it's pretty?
Oh, look, someone who doesn't get it.
The iPad is not a computer. If you want a computer, buy a computer. You obviously want a computer, based on your list. Don't buy an iPad - it's not the product that's right for you. You'd do about as well buying a dishwasher - it's not the product you want. The iPad is, however, the product that a lot of people will want - people who aren't looking for a computer because the iPad is not a computer.
Did you even read the summary? If the Ipad is not a competitor to netbooks, how is it going to beat them? If the Ipad is a competitor to netbooks, how is the OPs comment evidence of not getting it? Netbooks are computers, Tim Cook said that the Ipad was going to beat them. That means that Tim Cook apparently thinks that the Ipad is a computer.
I agree that the Ipad is not a computer. Therefore it is not a competitor to netbooks. It is, also, not cheap, which means once again it is not a competitor for netbooks. But the article we are discussing is talking about the Ipad competing with netbooks, so comments talking about things that netbooks have that the Ipad doesn't are valid.
So yeah, you could make an argument that such companies contribute nothing, or make nothing, but you'd have to agree there's an awful lot of money and jobs (and corresponding political influence) tied up in those numbers, and without those companies doing the nothing that they do so well, a chunk of the economy goes poof.
Sorry, even if you accept the arguments made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that Intellectual Property is economically important (which I am inclined to do, although I did not read the whole page thoroughly so I have my doubts as to whether or not I accept the conclusions they reach from that starting point), it does not follow that the middlemen (such as record companies) add anything valuable to the economy. If the middlemen contribute nothing, then they actually remove value from the economy. Value that could be better used to create more IP.
Except you miss the part where it doesn't matter what the belief is. Everybody has beliefs, whatever those beliefs are, people put more weight on them than on the facts. Of course, with a study like this, one has to ask, what facts are the conducters of the study ignoring because oftheir belief system?
Of course there is an interesting disconnect in the labeling as described in the article
Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians."
So people who embrace authority are "individualistic"? And people wh are suspicious of authority are "communitarians"?
I think that was the OPs point. If they are issuing more than one per day under the current limitations, they are clearly abusing the law. Which makes this new bill an abomination.
Someone earlier asked about the "militant constitutional crusaders" in Utah. They suffer from the same problem as most people in this country. They are concerned about what the federal government is doing, but pay little attention to local and state government. I will state something I have said before, if you want to fix what is wrong with this country (whatever you perceive that to be) you need to start locally.
Slashdot Mirror
The $650 is supposed to cover:
- The cost of the hardware (including not only "standard" parts like 750GB of storage, "non-standard" parts like the dual tuners, CableCard slots, etc.), along with some cost "because they can" (i.e. its not an OEM price)
- The cost of the software, both DVR functionality and UI (R&D cost which is a huge part of it I imagine, bug fixes, new feature updates)
- The cost of the licensing Patents/Royalties (both theirs, to file and protect, and others, to license and use)
Ok, up to here, all of this reflects either value to me, or cost of doing business to deliver that value.
- The cost of the program guides information
- The cost of the TiVo backend infrastructure to support the remote updates of appliance (software and program guide information)
- The cost of them integrating all the above pieces into one "appliance"
This is the part I don't want to pay for, because as far as I am concerned it adds no value.
As far as MythTV goes, I am unaware of any store I can walk into, buy one, take it home, connect it to my TV and I'm ready to go. I could do all of that with a VCR.
I don't want to pay the cable companies either. I want to buy a device similar to the one Tivo sells and be done with it.
I believe there are a lot of people out there who would buy a DVR that works the same way that VCRs did.
really, mods? how is this even remotely interesting? it's kind of like telling someone they can save money on steaks by buying in bulk, and getting the reply "well i don't even like beef, so i fail to see how i'm saving money". if you don't want the thing we're talking about, your opinions on the pricing of said thing aren't required.
See you and I have different ideas of what a Tivo is. You appear to think that Tivo is a service that comes with hardware. I think that Tivo is hardware that comes with a service I don't want.
You mean you just want to tell it to start recording at a certain time and stop at another time? TiVo does that already.
The problem is, what if they change the airing schedule, and you didn't notice. And to me, i'd much rather say "Record all showings of Firefly, I don't care when they are" rather than dig around in a schedule looking for the times to enter. The former takes about 10 seconds, the latter takes upwards of 5 minutes per program.
Yes, but my understanding is I have to pay for the subscription to do that other stuff that you say you like better. I don't want to pay for that. I agree that those things are a nice feature, but they aren't worth $5 a month to me (or $400 upfront).
I want to buy a device that lets me tell it to start recording when I want it to and to stop when I want it to, without having to pay for that other stuff.
Now there are people who tell me that if I go hunting I can find such a device. I don't want it that bad. At some point I may decide that I want it enough to go hunting for it, but that hasn't happened yet. I didn't have to go hunting for VCRs, all the major electronic stores carried them.
But my point is that is why Tivo hasn't sold more. This whole discussion is about why Tivo is not more popular. I gave a reason and your response is "then don't by one." I haven't.
I think my reason for not buying one explains why more people haven't bought them. Do you disagree?
So, you are saying that Tivo needs $650 to cover the cost and make a profit on a DVR that has less than 750 GB of storage space? I don't see it.
They have always (with the exception of a short period of about 4-6 months), offered the option of buying a "Lifetime Subscription" instead of a "Monthly Subscription". The cost of the Lifetime Subscription usually pays for itself after about 2-3 years, but there is no recurring expenses.
I keep seeing people say that a lifetime subscription to TiVo pays for itself after 2-3 years. Since I don't want the subscription, I don't see how paying an upfront fee for the subscription can pay for itself over time.
No, they are legislators. Legislators rarely speak any recognizable language when discussing the law. The longer an individual is in the legislature the worse this becomes.
But I don't want a lifetime subscription. I don't want any subscription. I just want a DVR I can program to record the shows I want to watch.
As I'm certain you've seen elsewhere, MythTV should meet your needs.
Really, where can I buy one off the shelf ready to go?
Actually, I am considering building a MythTV box. I just haven't gotten around to it.
You are absolutely correct. Of course if TiVo (or somebody else) had sold a DVR that just recorded what people told it to with no monthly fee, the public's demand for the ability to hook it up outside of the cable company's control would have been greater as well. What difference does it make who I pay the monthly fee to?
Another point is that the cable companies' attitude is/was shortsighted. By making it harder for people to obtain timeshifting technology, they accelerated the move to watching video over the Internet.
I never bought one because of the monthly fee. I would buy one immediately if there was no monthly fee.
My thoughts exactly. I kept waiting for someone to sell a DVR that I could hook up to my cable and record what and when I decided to record without having to pay a monthly fee for it to record things according to when they are scheduled. That's all I want, a DVR that works the way that VCRs work. I tell it what channel and what time to record and it does so. I can understand that there is a market for the service, I'm not it. I suspect that there are a lot of people like me, if they could just buy a DVR that works like a VCR they would. Yes, DVR's with service are growing steadily, but that is largely because that is the only way I know of to buy one.
The problem with the Ipad is, I don't know what it is. It isn't a computer. It isn't a phone. It is too big to be (primarily) a portable music player.
The Ipod took an existing market (portable music player) and updated it. The Iphone took an existing market (smart phone) and expanded it. And both of them were more or less marketed that way. As far as I can see the market that is the best fit for the Ipad is the ereader market, but Apple seems to be marketing to that market as a sort of after thought ("...Oh, yeah, it can be used as an ereader as well.")
I am not interested in one, so I didn't really pay attention. I thought it was out. It was announced a month ago and all of its fan boys keep saying about products that some slashdotters suggest as better, "They're not available yet."
You are right. The hype they've generated is an achievement and a reason I dislike Apple products. They hype them up before anyone can look at them to see if their is anything to the hype. BTW, they got similar levels of hype for AppleTV.
It's not a netbook, which was originally designed with a custom Linux install in mind and ended up having Windows slapped on it. The advantages a netbook has over an introductory notebook are offset by the disadvantages I noted above. This is where the iPad comes in, trying to offer the advantages of the netbook, without those disadvantages. Whether they succeed or not has yet to be determined, and until then I'll stick with my thinkpad T43 and iPhone, thank you very much.
Except it doesn't offer the chief advantage of a netbook: price.
So, how has the Ipad been doing so far?
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. They mkae up little factoids to put in the movie or TV show that a quick Google would show was wrong (or before the Internet a quick call to the appropriate deparment of a local college, would have taken a little longer than using Google does now, but not very much time). These factoids add nothing to the plot, sometimes the real facts would have actually furthered the plot more than the made-up one they use instead.
are they really claiming that people won't pay for a netbook, but they will pay the same price for something with half the functionality and none of the openness, just because it's pretty?
No, they are saying they will pay more.
Oh, look, someone who doesn't get it. The iPad is not a computer. If you want a computer, buy a computer. You obviously want a computer, based on your list. Don't buy an iPad - it's not the product that's right for you. You'd do about as well buying a dishwasher - it's not the product you want. The iPad is, however, the product that a lot of people will want - people who aren't looking for a computer because the iPad is not a computer.
Did you even read the summary? If the Ipad is not a competitor to netbooks, how is it going to beat them? If the Ipad is a competitor to netbooks, how is the OPs comment evidence of not getting it? Netbooks are computers, Tim Cook said that the Ipad was going to beat them. That means that Tim Cook apparently thinks that the Ipad is a computer.
I agree that the Ipad is not a computer. Therefore it is not a competitor to netbooks. It is, also, not cheap, which means once again it is not a competitor for netbooks. But the article we are discussing is talking about the Ipad competing with netbooks, so comments talking about things that netbooks have that the Ipad doesn't are valid.
And what makes the Ipad better?
So yeah, you could make an argument that such companies contribute nothing, or make nothing, but you'd have to agree there's an awful lot of money and jobs (and corresponding political influence) tied up in those numbers, and without those companies doing the nothing that they do so well, a chunk of the economy goes poof.
Sorry, even if you accept the arguments made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that Intellectual Property is economically important (which I am inclined to do, although I did not read the whole page thoroughly so I have my doubts as to whether or not I accept the conclusions they reach from that starting point), it does not follow that the middlemen (such as record companies) add anything valuable to the economy. If the middlemen contribute nothing, then they actually remove value from the economy. Value that could be better used to create more IP.
Of course there is an interesting disconnect in the labeling as described in the article
Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians."
So people who embrace authority are "individualistic"? And people wh are suspicious of authority are "communitarians"?
The same thing is true for any law. The more wealth/power you have, the less negative impact that the law will have on you.
But what if you are NOT stupid?
Then you already kept it simple, so you don't need the reminder.
I think that was the OPs point. If they are issuing more than one per day under the current limitations, they are clearly abusing the law. Which makes this new bill an abomination.
Someone earlier asked about the "militant constitutional crusaders" in Utah. They suffer from the same problem as most people in this country. They are concerned about what the federal government is doing, but pay little attention to local and state government. I will state something I have said before, if you want to fix what is wrong with this country (whatever you perceive that to be) you need to start locally.