Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 108

Thread: Why does this not surprise me? AT&T/DirecTV tanking.

  1. #91
    Senior Member Phil T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by slice1900 View Post
    It is nice but it is so easy to go through them with multiple 30 second skips it only saves a second or two per commercial. Quickmode is far more useful feature IMHO, along with the ability to turn on captions and read them in 1xFF (useful for news or documentaries)
    Just shows how we all watch TV different. I always used the 30 second skip on DirecTV but never activated it on TiVo. I tried Quickmode once or twice but it didn’t do much for me. My wife controls the remote and likes to see what is zipping by better then the 30 second skip. My job is just to make sure stuff works!

  2. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil T View Post
    Just shows how we all watch TV different. I always used the 30 second skip on DirecTV but never activated it on TiVo. I tried Quickmode once or twice but it didn’t do much for me. My wife controls the remote and likes to see what is zipping by better then the 30 second skip. My job is just to make sure stuff works!
    Well the point of Quickmode is that it is supposed to be pretty innocuous - if you think about it you notice they are talking faster but it doesn't take long until you get used to it and don't notice. Doesn't hurt comedy timing either, at least for me, since everything is sped up including the pauses.

    If you watch an hour program that would normally take you 42 minutes (give or take) to watch, with Quickmode you'll watch it in about 30. Definitely worth it to me, I use it for almost everything I watch. The only exception is sports, and occasionally action movies (if they already have fast action speeding it up another 30% can be too much)

  3. #93
    Edgecutter inkahauts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    We'll have to agree to disagree. A cloud DVR as defined by the Cablevision 2008 ruling is functionally identical to a home DVR, except the customer's hard drive is located in the service provider's data center.

    If a cloud DVR doesn't offer the ability to ff or rw through the recording or past commercials, it's not a DVR, IMO. It's an on-demand server.

    To reduce data center storage requirements, here's perfectly sensible plea by someone at Verizon to change the 2008 ruling requirements that each customer's recording of a show be uniquely stored, rather than several customers sharing the same recording: https://www.verizondigitalmedia.com/...-requirements/
    I don’t believe a single streaming service offers what your definition of a cloud DVR is. Only your traditional cable company. Is there another cloud DVR system like that anywhere? I haven’t heard of one yet, which is why I ask. And even then, the heart of this debate started with what can replace a TiVo. No one has what TiVo does in combining a traditional system with streaming services in an all in one package, and that’s why TiVo is still a viable product and likely will be forever. It is niche and always has been and always will be though....

  4. #94
    Edgecutter inkahauts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,195
    Quote Originally Posted by UHDFAN0001 View Post
    Not seeing things that way at all. Tivo's days are numbered, as the sources used to feed it will diminish.

    As for Cloud DVR - feel free to explore HULU's product, and once AT&T finally releases it's 120 hour capacity storage version...their Cloud DVR will also do virtually everything needed in a DVR. Fast forward, rewind, and play back are the 3 main functions needed. Everything else is fluff to most users.

    Comparing Tivo to a Cloud DVR is simply not appropriate, as the purpose of a Cloud DVR is to deliver stored recordings on demand from the customer, and play it back if/when desired. That serves the purpose for the vast majority of TV viewers (and considerably cheaper), which is why streaming TV will own 51% or more of the TV delivery market in the next couple of years. Even those old school providers are forecasting their own demise in budgets and preparing for the customer departures to cut the cord. AT&T has literally built in hundreds of thousands of traditional sat customer losses into their revenue plans for 2019 and beyond. Traditional Sat and cable are dinosaurs preparing to turn to tar/oil, and Tivo's ties to them will lead to it's eventual demise.
    There are so many things that are off in this I don’t even know where to begin. The number of sources for a TiVo is growing by the day, not shrinking. They work with most streaming services! This wil NEVER change.

    Hulu is something I’ll never go to, you can’t just skip all comercials in every program. It’s 40 a month to get an entire 50 hours of cloud storage that you don’t control? Really? And the service will just get more expensive or have less content to offer in time with Disney owning more of it now.

    Virtually everything. If you have to use that phrase you know it isn’t quite like having a real DVR.

    And the comparison is entirely appropriate since you just said the idea is to stop shows you want to watch and then make them avaible to you anytime you want them to be because it’s your copy of the show. TiVo can guarantee that a lot better than any cloud DVR from any streaming service can right now. You’ve been arguing that cloud DVRs ar the same then say you can’t really compare them?

    Sat will lose a lot of customers, but they will not lose anywhere near all of them.

    And cable, that’s a bit of a misnomer because they really will want most people to switch to their streaming platforms because they use the same pipeline to get info to a customers house either way. Satelite does not, and never really will, so it’s a different animal in the tv world in that respect.

  5. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    742
    Tivo is able to record IPTV from cable companies who drop QAM & cable cards, it just isn't utilized yet since cable companies haven't made that transition yet. Tivo is also the best OTA DVR out there, which integrates just about every streaming service making it the perfect set top for cord cutters who want to use OTA.

    If the whole 'recording' thing passes by the wayside eventually Tivo can still compete in the premium set top market against Apple TV by selling hardware only, with no hard drive and no monthly service. Maybe that would finally give them the impetus to try to bring all those streaming services into their UI, instead of the mishmash of various horrible UIs the services offer. Now undoubtedly some of them don't realize how terrible their interfaces are and think they don't need fixing, or worse yet believe it their UI is some sort of an advantage for their brand, but no doubt SOME of them would be willing to go along with Tivo on this.

  6. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by UHDFAN0001 View Post
    Again...that assumes that at some point when the customer base ship sinks below a certain point...AT&T doesn't pull the plug and mandate transitions. Likely making that assumption is foolhardy.

    No one denies that it costs Directv money to support a satellite offering, but whatever that cost is Directv can just push that onto satellite customers. One of their primary motivations for the new 'Directv over IP' offering is avoiding the cost of sending installers to the home. Once that product is well established, one way they could "encourage" new subscribers to go with that instead of satellite is to end the free installs for satellite. Make them pay a fixed install charge large enough to fully offset Directv's average install cost, or phase out installs altogether and refer new satellite customers to third parties for installation (or DIY for those willing/able)

    There's also a fixed cost to operate the infrastructure used for satellite broadcasts, beyond the cost to build/launch the satellites themselves which are fortunately taken care of for at least a decade. That cost to maintain broadcast centers, the equipment in them, and the employees that work in them is an overhead shared by all 20 million satellite customers. It is pretty tiny on a monthly basis with that many customers, but as they lose customers it will go up - doubling when they get down to 10 million customers and becoming 5x as large when they are all the way down to 4 million. At some point they might decide they want satellite customers to "pay their own way" so they could add a 'satellite broadcasting surcharge' or something like that to their bills, which goes up as the number of satellite subscribers falls. It would still be only a few percent of their overall bill and presumably those left on satellite when it is down to 4 or 5 million subscribers would be sticking with it either by choice or by lack of choice, and would therefore not squawk too much about the fee.

  7. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    742
    Quote Originally Posted by UHDFAN0001 View Post
    As the subscriber base shrinks...which it has been doing for a while now...and as costs keep going up...the delta between revenue and expense will force some tough business decisions by AT&T.
    What delta? The cost only goes up on a per subscriber basis due to fewer subscribers. It doesn't cost them more to operate a broadcast center that serves only 5 million customers than one that serves 20 million customers, they just need to make those remaining customers pay their share of that cost. Why don't you think that this per subscriber cost can't be transferred to the remaining subscribers via price increases (whether hidden in package costs or explicitly billed as a line item?) It isn't like we are talking about a lot of money here. Everything they need is already built, it just needs to be maintained/repaired which isn't free but it is nothing compared to the cost of building it all in the first place.

    If that cost is borne by the remaining subscribers, there's no change in the per customer profitability of satellite customers - which is judging by Directv formerly making about $4 billion a year off 20 million subscribers was around $200 per customer per year. The per satellite customer profit will almost certainly be higher - and remain higher - than the per customer profitability of 'Directv via IP' streaming customers, assuming that IP product is offered at a lower monthly price for equivalent packages due to greater competition. If they drop to 5 million customers that $4 billion profit is only $1 billion, but those customers are still valuable to them beyond that billion a year in profit, they add scale which helps keep costs down when they renegotiate with networks.

  8. #98
    Senior Member Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by inkahauts View Post
    I don’t believe a single streaming service offers what your definition of a cloud DVR is. Only your traditional cable company. I haven’t heard of one yet, which is why I ask. Is there another cloud DVR system like that anywhere?
    Haven't used D*Now, Hulu or any of the streaming services that offer recording, so I'm not sure either. D*Now claims to be able to do it, tho the quality of trickplay will be subject to inherent internet lag:

    TRUE CLOUD DVR BETA

    Get the true DVR experience! Record up to 20 hours and watch, fast forward, or rewind from anywhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by inkahauts View Post
    And even then, the heart of this debate started with what can replace a TiVo. No one has what TiVo does in combining a traditional system with streaming services in an all in one package, and that’s why TiVo is still a viable product and likely will be forever. It is niche and always has been and always will be though....
    I don't know about the other MSO's DVRs, but Altice has added YouTube and Netflix to their box. Maybe more apps coming? While not as good as an in-home MSO DVR or TiVo, it's probably the best performing "cloud DVR" out there, because Altice controls the highway between the cloud drive and the customer's box. They mention "more streaming apps coming" here: Altice One OS Gets First Major Upgrade - Multichannel
    Last edited by Steve; 01-08-2019 at 04:00 PM.

  9. #99
    Senior Member rockaway1836's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Myrtle Beach
    Posts
    788
    Looks to me as if someone is missing here.

  10. #100
    Edgecutter inkahauts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,195
    Quote Originally Posted by slice1900 View Post
    What delta? The cost only goes up on a per subscriber basis due to fewer subscribers. It doesn't cost them more to operate a broadcast center that serves only 5 million customers than one that serves 20 million customers, they just need to make those remaining customers pay their share of that cost. Why don't you think that this per subscriber cost can't be transferred to the remaining subscribers via price increases (whether hidden in package costs or explicitly billed as a line item?) It isn't like we are talking about a lot of money here. Everything they need is already built, it just needs to be maintained/repaired which isn't free but it is nothing compared to the cost of building it all in the first place.

    If that cost is borne by the remaining subscribers, there's no change in the per customer profitability of satellite customers - which is judging by Directv formerly making about $4 billion a year off 20 million subscribers was around $200 per customer per year. The per satellite customer profit will almost certainly be higher - and remain higher - than the per customer profitability of 'Directv via IP' streaming customers, assuming that IP product is offered at a lower monthly price for equivalent packages due to greater competition. If they drop to 5 million customers that $4 billion profit is only $1 billion, but those customers are still valuable to them beyond that billion a year in profit, they add scale which helps keep costs down when they renegotiate with networks.
    Another thing to remember is that the costs for all the tv everywhere stuff is surely being used in part by DIRECTV now. As streaming grows they can move that cost to streaming subscribers thereby reducing the overhead on satellite.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •