Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic
hmmm... I think saying 300 million people and only 3 million TiVo subs is using the wrong comparison! It should be how many homes have cable and then take TiVo. TiVo in the US had 4.7mil customers in 2006, but lost some market share due to some cable co's releasing a basic DVR. plus it's more expensive in the US with a higher monthly cost. The VM way is much better at a low monthly cost.
|
I know, but I think you said Tivo will be less 'niche' than Sky Atlantic.
As far as I am aware Sky Atlantic will be available in 10 million homes from February. I beleive VM have less than 4 million TV customers.
I guess what I am saying is that whilst Tivo is no doubt very good it is merely a set top box, a very good set top box but thats it and I still think that the average subscriber merely wishes to receive all the channels they like, perhaps in HD, and to be able to record them and not get watered down versions of applications like red button. Until it is the de facto platform for VM it will be a niche product. I don't even know if V+ is in the majority of VM homes now but I am sure you can answer that.
---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 ----------
[/COLOR]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahardie
I think saying it is not ideal for everyone is an understatement. People just dont bother to do that. We are talking about two diferent experiences here anyway. For instance I can watch iplayer on my games machine but it is such a frustrating experience that I would only do it if desperate. By comparison the cable interface is a joy to use even on my old SA box.
The point I made was that it has the potential to be better than a Sky box where even their customers say they sometimes lose the end of programmes. Which with reduced (or non existant?) padding, when then the third tuner is enabled, should give a clear advantage over the Sky box.
Yes it is a great feature and yes you may be able to do it other boxes but you wont be able to do it on a Sky box. They will have to purchase another box from another platform. Not ideal is it? Also if it is a great feature then that is a plus to buying the new box. The fact that I will be able to do it by buying a youview box in the future or subscribing to tangytv is as meaningless to me as it will be to sky users. Sky users cant even watch iplayer yet or HD with no timeframe as to when they will be able to. When they can it will eat in to there internet bandwidth. A real problem if you aren't near the telephone exchange.
The tivo will also have smashing search options in fact I would imagine second to none. The cnet review says it is superior to both Sky and existing cable boxes.
The thing is that the tivo box has the potential to make the V+ and Sky + HD look like something from the ark. Saying you can do some of those things on other boxes isn't much of a defence any more than saying a universal remote is useless because I can use all these other remotes. It would be an even dafter argument if I had to buy all the other remotes to replace the one universal one.
One more thing just to turn your arguments on their head. People will be able to view the content on Sky Atlantic by other means both legal and not so legal. Unlike many of the things you have said it might actually offer a better viewing experience because it can be viewed dog and advert free. Is that an ideal situation? Of course not but then neither are most of the reasons you say the new box wont be worth paying some dosh for. As it happens neither of us are personally bothered about having that channel anyway. I do like the look of the new tivo box though. I just hope that VM exploit it's full potential.
|
Everything you say is no doubt true but I say it again, Tivo is merely a set top box, a piece of hardware. It isn't what drives mainstream subscriptions. Let's remember Sky (sort of) had Tivo, albeit not as good an application of it as VM's at one point and canned it in favour oif their own Sky Plus which has been quite a hit to the point 'Sky Plus' has almost entered common language but I doubt it was Tivo, or Sky Plus or any STB that made people subscribe, it was what channels were offered. If you look at the forums on DS you don't really see that many people bemoaning the fact Sky Plus only has two tuners, honestly you don't. You do see many saying they wouldn't get cable full stop because of the lack of HD channels and other features.
I cannot help but think that people are way overegging it's ability to take a decent share of Sky's customers for the reasons I have said already, I would guess a Sky customer who is maybe considering Tivo is likely to be a higher tier HD subscriber, would they give up all the extra HD channels which they pay about a tenner extra for which is about the same as having Sky HD and Tivo on VM isn't it?
BT Vision's box (in my opinion) is significantly better than V+, how many subscribers have they got? The reason for this is probably down to a number of factors but the main one for me is a lack of linear content but their on demand offer was excellent and better than VM's but that is just my own opinion, but the lack of linear content sounds familiar dosen't it and you know who will be highlighting this to the max when Tivo is launched, they did a hatchet job on BT too, and sadly it seems to have worked.
Nevertheless I am a reasonably happy VM customer with no plans to leave, certainly not for Sky anyway but I really think we should get Tivo into perspective. It is a set top box and a very good one if you really need all the bells and whistles.
I doubt average Joe does though.