AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Actually, it's why "standalone" PVRs will disappear, and he's pretty much on target. It makes little sense for someone to have a a standalone Replay or Tivo if their cable or satellite company offers a product with the same (or very similar) features. This is one of the reasons why, even here in the Replay forum, when folks with DirecTV ask about which PVR to purchase, they are pointed to DirecTivo. When other companies follow suit and offer functional devices in a similar vein (again, they will need to be feature complete, and that is why I don't consider the Dishplayer over the Replay or Tivo for Dish subscribers), standalones *will* go away. We all want the magical one-box solution, which is why Moxi got so much hype.


To me, the column is a big "no duh," and if it were submitted by a freelancer it probably never would have been put up. :)


-Aaron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Babbster
standalones *will* go away.
but only when we all get locals via DirecTV. Right now, so much of the country can't get locals that buying a DirecTivo that will not record locals, 90% of what I watch, is sort of a waste.


I like the idea, but if it doesn't get the job done, it isn't going to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
866 Posts
Actually I think it will be the other way around. Why bundle storage/replay with delivery? If your analysis was correct we would all be using voice mail via a phone company. Makes sense, no? A centralized service available from any phone ... all for a reasonable monthly fee.... The incremental advantage of bundling is not great enough to offset the slow-to-change model the content delivery people want. Plus they have vested interests in extracting the greatest return on their constrained delivery systems. Basically the technology is at odds with the business model. They may adopt the technology to increase settop box sales, but they will hamper it in the processes. The stand alones will always offer more end user features and be more cost competitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Well, a lot of people DO use voice mail services from the phone company, but many don't because they were already well used to answering machines AND because an answering machine costing less than $30 can last for years, therefore making the fee for voice mail seem pretty UNreasonable to the average consumer who can get similar functionality for far less than even a dollar per month.


As for your argument about wanting a "slow-to-change model," how many features does the average user want? Once they have the PVR hooked up and running, most want the ability to find guide data (cake for a satellite or cable company to provide), set up recordings (duh) and manage their recordings (a guide screen). How much more do you think the average user would demand from their PVR? I have two Replays (2004 and Showstoper) that I use exactly as I just described...no more and no less. While there will always be high-end folks who will want, and be willing to pay for, more advanced features but that would necessarily relegate the "fancy" boxes to the fringe while most users would be more than happy to stick with the PVR functionality provided by their content provider.


And why would standalone boxes be more cost competitive? Cable and satellite companies already provide receivers/decoders for "free" (typically with a monthly charge per box which people have already proven willing to pay). DishNetwork - using them because they are my provider - offers their Dishplayer for $199 right now, which seems pretty darn competitive. Considering that Replay and Tivo are both charging monthly fees, how big a stretch would it be for cable/satellite companies to tell people that they can provide them with a PVR for half the cost (something easily within their means) of Tivo or Replay, with only an additional $5 per month charge? Plus, cable and satellite providers don't have to provide dial-up coverage since they already have a means for delivering guide information and software updates.


In no way is the technology at odds with the business model, IF the content providers get moving and make PVR capabilities a part of their regular service. They could not only provide this without losing money but, properly managed and marketed, they could end up making a tidy profit in the deal as well as impressing their customers with new features that most of them have never had in their home before.


-Aaron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Babbster
Ah, the locals. Good point. I sometimes forget that not everyone lives in a big city...Or at least bigger than average. :)
Don't forget those of us who live in remote areas (and thus get no OTA reception). We also have no use for OTA locals.


At any rate, at least one version of Dish receiver offers OTA integration with the Dish content, so there is hope that integrated PVR's will include the ability to watch/record OTA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
stand alone components will continue to be used because the consumer will always want to be able to *tweak* which ever unit they choose.


sure, there are a lot of stereos out there that have ALL features built into them, amp, radio, cd etc but *most* people prefer to build their system with the components of their choice. not with the predetermined features that a company assumes that the consumer does and doesn't want/need.


of course if DVRS go the way of the HI-FI industry, 10 years from now you'll have "high-end"-philes spending $15,000 on VCRS with the claim that "the picture and sound is simply *warmer* then DVRS" and therefore worth the additional trouble. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Quote:


of course if DVRS go the way of the HI-FI industry, 10 years from now you'll have "high-end"- philes spending $15,000 on VCRS with the claim that "the picture and sound is simply *warmer* then DVRS". :D
Trying to anger the glass audiophiles, eh? :D


You may be shooting blanks; no evidence YET of them lurking here!


Regards,

Warren
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by oOLiquidNightOo
stand alone components will continue to be used because the consumer will always want to be able to *tweak* which ever unit they choose.

sure, there are a lot of stereos out there that have ALL features built into them, amp, radio, cd etc but *most* people prefer to build their system with the components of their choice. not with the predetermined features that a company assumes that the consumer does and doesn't want/need.

"Most" people? I would take issue with that. Stop into your local Circuit City and look at how much space is devoted to separates and how much is devoted to integrated systems.


Again, I'm not saying that standalone units will go away, but I do believe that, given all the options, people would rather have a cable or satellite box with the PVR built in, rather than buying a standalone unit (likely for more money) that they will then have to "tweak" (including, but not limited to, the *required* tweaking just to get the device to work). On that subject, I would also point out that MOST people don't have *any* desire to tweak the electronics they buy. They want to bring it home, plug it in and use it for its intended purpose.


This point gets brought up a lot, but it's worth repeating: People on AVSForum, HomeTheater Forum, PlanetReplay, etc. do NOT represent the majority of consumers. That's not to say that the people who do are not influential, but they are definitely the minority.


-Aaron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Babbster
Ah, the locals. Good point. I sometimes forget that not everyone lives in a big city...Or at least bigger than average. :)
I live in the largest city in the country (by land area) and we don't get locals. Not that many city really do. Take a look at the list, last time I looked it looked like about 30.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Serra
I live in the largest city in the country (by land area) and we don't get locals.
Orange Park, FL??? (Probably Jacksonville, 15 miles away :) )


According to ABOUT.COM the largest city by land area is Juneau, Alaska with 3081 sq miles. The population is only 30k. You don't expect to get locals there do you? They probably can't see equatorial satellites anyway. :)


I was surprised to find Jacksonville, FL is the largest in the continental U.S. at 841 SQ MI. The population there is 735k, making it the 14th largest city (by population) in the U.S. I'm surprised they don't have the locals for that.


BTW... NYC is #1 in population with 8 million. LA is #2 with 3.6 million.


I learned something today. :eek:


Robert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by foundation
Now if you count the greater LA metropolitan area....

It would rank up there in size and would trounce NY for population
Nope.. referencing ABOUT.COM again...


Largest Metropolitan Areas in the World


#2 NYC 20.1 Million

#5 LA 15.8 million.


Robert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,595 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Reden
Orange Park, FL??? (Probably Jacksonville, 15 miles away :) )
Actually, Jacksonville is about 2 miles from my house. We get all of our locals from Jacksonville. In fact, all of Clay County, Jax beachs and the area up to Georgia get their locals from Jacksonville, so that is a HUGE area.



Quote:
Originally posted by Reden



According to ABOUT.COM the largest city by land area is Juneau, Alaska with 3081 sq miles. The population is only 30k. You don't expect to get locals there do you? They probably can't see equatorial satellites anyway. :)


Well, I think if we can host the Super Bowl, we are big enough to get locals! I mean what does it take?


Quote:
Originally posted by Reden


I was surprised to find Jacksonville, FL is the largest in the continental U.S. at 841 SQ MI. The population there is 735k, making it the 14th largest city (by population) in the U.S. I'm surprised they don't have the locals for that.


BTW... NYC is #1 in population with 8 million. LA is #2 with 3.6 million.


I learned something today. :eek:


Robert
About.com doesn't say it, but I'm sure that Jacksonville has the most swamp area of any city....
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top