Tivo Hinting On Leaving Retail Business?

Latest and Greatest in the world of Technology and/or Media Center.
Post Reply
choliscott

Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:56 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

Tivo Hinting On Leaving Retail Business?

#1

Post by choliscott » Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:47 am


dkrom

Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:39 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#2

Post by dkrom » Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:56 pm

That is interesting. So everyone who gave up on WMC and said buy a TiVo are probably going to be left with and end of life product as well that they won't be even able to bring back to life with an EPG123 type program. I'm sure Rovi will "come to the rescue" and provide guide data - but it'll end up being the same as WMC with Rovi.

adam1991

Posts: 2893
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:31 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#3

Post by adam1991 » Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:59 pm

this is not particularly "news". The day Rovi acquired Tivo, they made it clear that they did not want to be in the business of building hardware and dealing with end users.

That doesn't mean Tivo is going away.

bob_p

Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:47 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#4

Post by bob_p » Mon Jun 20, 2016 1:45 am

If Rovi/TiVo is interested in licensing their software to 3rd party hardware vendors, that might actually be better than having TiVo as the only hardware vendor. We could end up with several choices for TiVo DVRs.

Since Ceton and Silicondust are hardware companies, couldn't this provide them a new market - replacing what they lost with WMC? Either they could sell their tuner hardware to a partner who would build the DVR box, or they could get into that business themselves. That may make more sense than trying to build their own DVR software, especially if they can't generate enough income from the software to cover their costs (which could be the case with SD's DVR project).

glugglug

Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:34 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#5

Post by glugglug » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:48 pm

adam1991 wrote:this is not particularly "news". The day Rovi acquired Tivo, they made it clear that they did not want to be in the business of building hardware and dealing with end users.

That doesn't mean Tivo is going away.
Then why pay $1.1B for TiVo?

User avatar
STC

Posts: 6808
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:58 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#6

Post by STC » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:05 pm

Patents had a lot to do with it I believe.
By the Community, for the Community. 100% Commercial Free.

Want decent guide data back? Check out EPG123

adam1991

Posts: 2893
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:31 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#7

Post by adam1991 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:38 pm

glugglug wrote:
adam1991 wrote:this is not particularly "news". The day Rovi acquired Tivo, they made it clear that they did not want to be in the business of building hardware and dealing with end users.

That doesn't mean Tivo is going away.
Then why pay $1.1B for TiVo?
Patents.

They can simply own the rights, then license their technologies to others who want to develop the software (takes $$$) and build hardware to sell to end users (takes $$$$$$$ and is an ongoing PITA).

If I can buy something that makes me money simply by existing, and have a couple lawyers on staff to manage the licensing, why wouldn't I. Having to deal with designing and building hardware, and warranting and maintaining it, and dealing with physical inventory--all that sucks huge bucks out of whatever revenues you might make. So let someone else do that.

blueiedgod

Posts: 726
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:02 pm
Location: Amherst, NY

HTPC Specs: Show details

#8

Post by blueiedgod » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:19 pm

adam1991 wrote:
glugglug wrote:
adam1991 wrote:this is not particularly "news". The day Rovi acquired Tivo, they made it clear that they did not want to be in the business of building hardware and dealing with end users.

That doesn't mean Tivo is going away.
Then why pay $1.1B for TiVo?
Patents.

They can simply own the rights, then license their technologies to others who want to develop the software (takes $$$) and build hardware to sell to end users (takes $$$$$$$ and is an ongoing PITA).

If I can buy something that makes me money simply by existing, and have a couple lawyers on staff to manage the licensing, why wouldn't I. Having to deal with designing and building hardware, and warranting and maintaining it, and dealing with physical inventory--all that sucks huge bucks out of whatever revenues you might make. So let someone else do that.

Kind of like Microsoft (and Google to some extent) vs. Apple approach.

First group just develops the software, and lets hardware experts figure out how to make it work.
The second, Apple, designs the software to meet a specific hardware criteria that they either manufacture or specify.

User avatar
DrSmith

Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:08 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#9

Post by DrSmith » Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:36 pm

I don't get your point blueiedgod? MS, Google and Apple all MAKE stuff. They have different approaches but at least they are building and selling stuff. Companies like Rovi are seen as leaches because they just try to profit off of other companies' work through patent enforcement. Now MS, Google and Apple do all have patents, but they are primarily trying to build things and sell them. Rovi does have products (Tivo hardware) but they are primarily trying to build nothing and BILL others for using their tech.

adam1991

Posts: 2893
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:31 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#10

Post by adam1991 » Thu Jul 14, 2016 11:58 pm

You're trying to lump Rovi in with patent trolls. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The only reason MS makes anything--Surface tablets and laptops, for example--is because they wanted to show off what their technologies could really do, and they hoped to goose the hardware makers accordingly. Other than that, they simply develop software and license it to others to use.

Google, same thing.

So now Rovi owns the existing technologies that underly some software. Rovi could make the software, or they could separate themselves out and let others write the code. Think about it: many MANY software companies do exactly that, when they offshore the actual code-writing to grunts in India (for example), on a fixed-fee basis, and then realize the profits from the ongoing licensing of that code.

Let's put it this way: Rovi is no different than, say, Steven Spielberg. He directed a movie one time, spent 9 months doing it, but he wants ongoing royalties every time someone decides to rent or buy that movie--in perpetuity. You happily participate in that model, and would not deny Spielberg those royalties. Rovi is no different. They own something that someone created, once, and that people want to continue to use over and over and over, ongoing. Why would you deny Rovi those royalties any more than you would Spielberg?

Spielberg could assign his rights to someone else, who would then receive royalties from rental and sale of the movie--ongoing. So?

Rovi legitmately bought and paid for meaningful intellectual property that has value in society.

It sounds like you don't like the idea of intellectual property overall.

User avatar
DrSmith

Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:08 am
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#11

Post by DrSmith » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:32 pm

Yes,Rovi's IP certainly has more value than most patent trolls. And IP is a great way to milk high margin income. But I don't understand what point blueiedgod is trying to make? Apple and Rovi are vastly different companies. 5 years from now Apple will be selling widgets. Rovi will be trying to collect royalties.

adam1991

Posts: 2893
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:31 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#12

Post by adam1991 » Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:27 pm

Apple sells widgets, but a HUGE part of their business is licensing others to allow them to play in the "accessory to widgets" game.

Apple owns the IP of the widget itself, and severely goes after anyone who dares to make an accessory for the widget without paying Apple their tribute. For example:

http://www.cultofmac.com/246236/ios-7-k ... k-for-you/

Shoot, at one time they even went after a company that was making a MacBook charging accessory that used Apple's own MagSafe connector. That's right, the third party told users to cut off the actual Apple MagSafe connector and wire it to the third party accessory, so the third party did not run afoul of the MagSafe IP. Apple went after them FOR THAT.

So, how much of Apple's income is from widgets, and how much is from Rovi-like activities? My guess is, the bulk of it is from Rovi-like IP activities.

User avatar
STC

Posts: 6808
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:58 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#13

Post by STC » Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:58 pm

^ not so sure about that. In a most basic sense I doubt when buying a $600 iPhone you would use $600 worth of apps. Apple only takes a cut of that too.
By the Community, for the Community. 100% Commercial Free.

Want decent guide data back? Check out EPG123

User avatar
camelopardis

Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:15 pm
Location:

HTPC Specs: Show details

#14

Post by camelopardis » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:47 am

I bought a UK Series 1 Tivo back in 1999 - back then there was nothing else like it on the market and it was way ahead of its time. It revolutionised my TV viewing and I've rarely watched live tv since. After a few years it couldnt keep up with new developments (Tivo was abandoned in the UK and we didnt get new models except on cable years later) and I moved onto WMC - but I loved that first machine.

Post Reply