AOL will launch TiVo-like Mystro service 172
Jason1729 writes "According to this article on Yahoo, AOL is launching its on version of a PVR service. The content will be stored at the cable provider and not in the local hardware. That seems to be a huge disadvantage because it will use a lot more cable bandwidth transfering the content for a single viewer. It sounds like they're doing it that way so they can restrict which shows you can use the service with (like lock out new episodes of network shows)."
Why this could work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why this could work (Score:4, Interesting)
It has that Divx (not the codec) feel to it. Just not quite right.
Re:Why this could work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why this could work (Score:2)
You're not getting it. I don't want the small box at all - I want my computer to act as a cable box, so that I can view my recorded shows without all kinds of converters, and so that I can do it from Dallas to Detroit. My computer has tons of processing power and great screen resolution - why do I have to suffer signal loss by sending the signal to my living room first, decoding it there, piping it through a converter box, and then int
Re:Why this could work (Score:2, Insightful)
Two reasons as I see it:
1. If they let you pipe their video feed into IP and onto your home network, it increases the likelyhood that you will then hack it, capture it, post it on Kazaa, or otherwise liberate their content to the real world. They control their cable boxes and the like it that way.
2. You talk about accessing it outside your home over high speed cable from your hotel room. That might be fine for your hotel room connection, but now your local cable company suddenly needs high-speed IP connec
Re:Why this could work (Score:2)
"Yourself" is a recursive pronoun and should only be used as the object when the subject is already using "you".
Thank you,
TiVo comes full circle. (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile over in the UK we were promised similar features years ago but because our cable providers are cash strapped at the moment they've not yet appeared.
You've got re-runs! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You've got re-runs! (Score:5, Insightful)
Any way you look at it TiVo is a much better choice. You can record whaterver program you like, you can fast forward through any part of the show,(and commercials) and you can keep your favorite episodes as long as you want.
This service is doomed to failure.
Re:You've got re-runs! (Score:2, Insightful)
AOLTW can undercut TiVo massively with this device, so that customers who don't know about TiVo's benefits and only pay attention to the price tag will lap it up (TiVo is a niche market geek-centric machine after all). If they're clever with their marketing, they can quickly build up a huge user base, especially given they already have direct access to hundreds of AOL subscribers.
Remember, the ignor
Re:You've got re-runs! (Score:2)
Re:You've got re-runs! (Score:2)
The main advantage this service has is that you don't have to worry about recording a show for it to be available. If 3 different shows that you wanted to watch all aired at the same time, you'd theoretically be able to watch them all. If you found out about a show the day after it aired (due to office water cooler chatting or whatnot), you'd be able to watch it.
On the other hand, given the overly restrictive nature of the device, this advantage may only look good on p
Re:You've got re-runs! (Score:2, Informative)
It's better, just not for US! (Score:2)
This wasn't designed with your rights in mind. Remember, AOL=Time Warner=Warner Brothers=MPAA and RIAA. Here we have a service provider who is also a content creator, so guess what their service will be like? Crippled, pretty much. They don't want you recording that? Then you can't. They don't want you deleting commercials? Then you can't. They want to promo a show? It's recorded without your consent (anybody smell a more
Re:It's better, just not for US! (Score:2)
I'd suspect that they will probably only store 2-3 days of programming, and even then, only store important feeds for longer lengths of time. CNN might get 24 hours of storage, FOX might get 3 days. Home shopping network? None
You're absolutely right about the problem with server-side storage, and given the low price of harddisk storage t
Re:It's better, just not for US! (Score:2)
Right, but to me that sounds like the most efficient DRM of all time. Not only do consumers only get what AOL wants, but they don't even get to keep it long without resorting to VHS (and if I wanted to hassle with that in the first place...). So basically we don't have to worry about DRM here because we have no rights left for them *to* manage.
Ah well, with PC technology continu
Re:It's better, just not for US! (Score:2)
You won't even get that if your cable box Macrovisions its outputs. Most of the Explorers that AOL/TWC use have a Macrovision generator in the DENC (digital encoder), though it's usually (always?) turned off presently.
Re:You've got re-runs! (Score:2)
And of course they'll make money... (Score:5, Funny)
And with the # of ma and pa's far outnumbering kiddies and in the know professionals who will avoid this like the plague, they're destined to be a beacon to any large distributor who doesn't want they're movie Tivo'd....err PVR'd.
Distributor: AOL, please don't PVR our show, it's under "special" programming
AOL: That will be 50 Million.
Distributor: That's hiway robbery! Forget it, I'm not paying.
AOL: Fine, we just "automatically" PVR'd it for all our customers and provided live feed for all our Internet Subscribers
Distributor: You Can't do that!
AOL: We can't? Who ya gonna call? SLASHDOT! HAHAHAHAHA!
Distributor: No, they don't have any real power except the occasional network bandwidth block. Here's your money.
AOL: Yeah! We get to show better than expected Earnings!
Bah.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred (AOL FREE) with American Buttering.
Re:And of course they'll make money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And of course they'll make money... (Score:2)
And Viacom as well (Score:5, Informative)
What you forgot is that AOL is really AOL-Time Warner, and they own most of the content providers!
Time Warner owns The WB, CNN, CNN Headline News, TBS, TNT, TCM, Cartoon Network, but not much else that I surf past on basic cable. Time Warner does not own CBS, UPN, MTV, Nickelodeon (all Viacom), or ABC, ABC Family, ESPN, Disney, Toon Disney (all Disney). None of them owns NBC, MSNBC (Gen Elec Co), A&E, The History Channel, The Biography Channel (A&E TV Nets), Discovery, TLC, Animal Planet (Discovery Comms), BET (BET Nets), E!, style. (E! Ent Nets), Fox, Fox News (News Corp),
Re:And of course they'll make money... (Score:2)
AOL: hello, distributor! thanks for holding, your call is important to us! what can we do for you today?
Distributor: um, we dont want you to PVR our show as it is "special" programming
AOL: ah, thats not good! tell you what, how about i give you 2 free months to evaluate and you can let us know after that if you still want to do this...
Distributor: uh, no. ive already been on hold for 2 and a half hours. i just want to stop it now.
AOL: what?!? why dont you want 2 free months? how could
Re:And of course they'll make money... (Score:2)
And then Distributor's lawyers haul AOL's lawyers into court, show the judge the broadcast contract, which certainly says how many times AOL can rebroadcast Show X, and t6he judge says: OK, you agreed in the contract to pay $1.5mil to broadcast the show once. Every VOD stream of it you sent is a re-broadcast. My judgement for the plaintiff is $1.5mil times 35,000 rebroadcasts for a total of $52.5bil
other limitations.... (Score:2, Insightful)
it seems like the tivo model is a wonderful example of distributed computing here!
eric
Re:other limitations.... (Score:1)
they will only need to save buffy the vampire slayer once
and serve it up 10,000 times.
Re:other limitations.... (Score:5, Informative)
Wait a minute, they don't need to store each episode for everyone, they just keep one copy of it until everyone has removed it from their favourites, then it gets deleted.
10G forever. (Score:4, Interesting)
2) I think this may be doomed. I've said in the past that Free as in Beer trumps a lot of things. But if you can't tape tonight's Friends, what's the point? Then Joe Consumer has to say "well, I can't watch that on the cable box, so I have to tape it? Why am I paying the money?". More confusion will trump Free Beer.
Re:other limitations.... (Score:2)
Tivo is an example of personal computing. You don't share any part of it with anyone (except people in your home).
Re:other limitations.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Tivo is an example of personal computing. You don't share any part of it with anyone....
TiVo calls the Mother Ship to get upcoming program schedules and to report on your viewing choices. <cough> Strictly for statistical interest, of course. <cough>
I don't call that personal at all.
Bandwidth vs storage (Score:5, Insightful)
There certainly is a disadvantage in terms of bandwidth, but there is an advantage in terms of storage -- by storing everything centrally, they only need to keep one copy of each program instead of having millions of copies spread around the network. (Ok, they'd actually have more than one copy, but it would still be far less than the millions otherwise needed.)
This also means that people wouldn't need to program in advance what they wanted to record, since AOL could proactively store everything.
Key to usefulness - store everything. (Score:2)
If they really store everything, at least for a previous week, then I could see a lot of people going for it - basically you'd have a week to see your favorite show instead of having to see it at a certain time, and if you really liked it you could see it again.
I think you'd still want some kind of storage device (like a Tivo or VCR) n front of that though, as you can never trust centralized storage for th
Why server-side? (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds like they're doing it that way so they can restrict which shows you can use the service with (like lock out new episodes of network shows).
From the article:
The New York Times, which was the first to report the details of AOL's Mystro project, said it would allow networks to determine which shows could be rescheduled and to insert commercials into replays.
There's your answer. They don't want people skipping commercials, and they want full control over rescheduling.
Re:Why server-side? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why server-side? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly enough, this falls right in line with Cringely's recent article - Life with TiVo [pbs.org]. Bob points out that scheduling is a very serious matter to the networks. DVR systems like Tivo not only threaten the direct viewing of commercials, but they also remove control over WHEN a commercial / show is seen. And that when affects market dominance - the capturing of the most desired demographics
Time Critical (Score:2)
I suggest you read Cringely's article and draw your own conclusions rather than rely on mine. Having said that... this is what I got from the article...
In the network TV biz, the goal is to be the leader in a targeted time slot. Shere numbers are king. Percentage of a desired demographic (usually 18 - 49) come second. Networks compete viciously for these time slo
Such a non-story (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Such a non-story (Score:1)
Sorry, too easy...
Re:Such a non-story (Score:2)
As (Score:1, Funny)
Aol: Slowly killing itself (Score:2, Funny)
In any case (heh 'Case' get it?) this is not the Holy Grail that will get AOL/TW out of the red, in fact this is more likely to put them in ReplayTV land (read: bankrupcy court).
the downside (Score:1, Informative)
Build your own Tivo Device www.mythtv.org (Score:5, Interesting)
xmltv! For $0.00!
Check out mythtv.org
Re:Build your own Tivo Device www.mythtv.org (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe if your time is worthless... (Score:2)
Looking at the install docs for that, I figure I could pay Tivo service from now until the day I die and not have spent more than the value of the time I wasted installing that.
Now, if there was an ISO with all that crap pre-compiled, pre-installed, and pre-configured for a specific set of hardware I could buy and assemble quickly, then maybe it'd be worth it to play around with...
Mysterio? (Score:2)
Yeah, this'll last until... (Score:4, Insightful)
Giving the public more control over content delivery is what makes a successful product. MP3, Tivo, internet, etc. Restricting content delivery is doomed to failure (Divx (not the codec, the DVD replacement)).
Re:Yeah, this'll last until... (Score:2)
Keep the TIVO to skip the new commercials stuck in your custom archive request.
Re:Yeah, this'll last until... (Score:2)
Only those programs that are allowed to be recorded and archived by AOL/TW. And if there is an archive, how far back do you think it'll go. And if you want to go farther back than 2 weeks, will it be an additional fee (i.e. Washington Post, New York Times).
Besides, if you forgot to tape an episode of Junkyard Wars, big deal. Most of the time, it's re-runs anyway.
I just love it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Useless With Those Exceptions (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, why would AOL care anyway? They don't own NBC, CBS or ABC do they? Whatever happened to laisse faire?
An Answer To Unlit Fiber, But... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, there is the obvious (at least to me) problem of bandwidth to the home. The vast bulk of homes that do have broadband are sharing reasonably limited bandwidth with other homes. Streaming high-quality video to many people at once who are sharing moderate bandwith seems like a no-go. In otherwords, it seems to me that if the service catches on, they're dead; they'll have to strive for mediocrity.
Unless we put fiber into everyone's home. Yeah!
I'll keep my Tivo for now. One of the best things I ever purchased.
Re:An Answer To Unlit Fiber, But... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An Answer To Unlit Fiber, But... (Score:2)
> the fiber-optic 'net backbone is unused
According to a March 2002 article by Carol Wilson of The NetEconomy, usage is a lot higher than people think. During peak traffic periods, it's estimated that more than 60% of fiber optic channels are "lit" -- that is, in active capacity. She cited two examples. Qwest reported 80% utilization and Telechoice reported more than 60%.
However, since networks are generally engineered for peak capacity, and the usage d
No! (Score:2, Funny)
Disagree completely w/the write-up... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not putting it at the head-end so they can restrict content, nor is it a bandwidth problem - just the opposite. They're putting it at the head-end so that cable networks can make it a revenue source.
Cable companies are spending their biggest fortunes at the moment installing Video-on-Demand systems, many of which already have PVR functionality built in. Bandwidth is no more of an issue with stopping, starting, and feeding a PVR stream than with a VOD stream. The only difference is disk space and where it gets its content from.
A much more core issue (and one that would be much for fun to stir up /. with, IMO) is that of content rights. Selling a box that allows consumers to record and play shows at home is one thing, but getting large cable companies into the business of caching broadcast content and then essentially 'reselling' that cached content without complex revenue-sharing agreements is a can of worms indeed.
They seem to adress this here:
"For example, if Mystro TV is successfully developed and the appropriate rights secured from owners of video programming, a subscriber could use the Mystro TV service to watch a program that aired the previous day, or to begin watching from the beginning a show already in progress," AOL said.
So to me this sounds like a VOD product that gets its content from broadcast television. iN DEMAND has made a decent business aggregating Hollywood studio content for distribution over VOD and taking a cut. Looks like AOL wants to make a niche out of re-distributing older (or very slightly older) television content. Pretty much what the networks are doing now with things like the re-broadcast of "Late Night w/ Conan O'Brian" on Comedy Central, except they get $x per play over VOD.
Not a bad niche - just might work.
------
Re:Disagree completely w/the write-up... (Score:1)
Slippery slope (potentially) (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, if you want to watch a TV series, or a movie, over and over at your leisure then you can buy the DVD. When you buy the DVD, the publisher makes some money. If we're talking about a $20 movie, then the studio might make $5-$10 from the sale, once the retail markup, distribution, production, royalties, marketing and other costs are considered.
But once you've bought the DVD, the publisher will make no more money out of you for that particular title. Yes, if you've got more money than sense (or if you really, really want it) then they might manage to sell you a director's cut, special edition or whatever but the bottom line is that the publisher will only make a fixed amount from you no matter how often you watch the product.
However, if they could keep the movie, but sell you access to it, at $3 per viewing, then pretty soon they'll have recouped the same amount of money if not more from you. Let's face it, any movie that you like enough to go out and buy on DVD is one that you'll happily sit down and watch at least two or three times, and at $3 a time that's $6-9 already. Then you get your Star Wars devotees and Titanic nuts who'll watch their favourite movie at least once a week. Now your talking about at least $150 per year from just one movie.
Now let's consider how else those customers could be milked/revenue streams maximised. Well, for one thing you could charge different customers different prices. Charge Titanic nuts who'll pay $4 per view that amount while charging those that'll only pay the basic $3 "only" $3. Charge a premium for watching Disney movies on Sunday afternoons, or whatever else you want.
Charging different customers different amounts for the same product is nothing new and it's certainly not something that companies are embarrassed about - Amazon does it, and so do mobile (cell) phone providers. So you can bet that AOL (or whoever) would do it too given the chance.
This isn't going to happen tomorrow, or next year, or in five years but it is coming. It's just to attractive for the publishers and broadcasters to ignore forever.
So, while a broadcast/cable provider-end storage solution Tivo might not sound like a big deal on its own, it does sound like a pretty big when you take it to its obvious conclusion.
Storage versus bandwidth (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Storage versus bandwidth (Score:4, Insightful)
Same deal for hundreds of years now, yet both survive.
Cheers,
Jim
Re:Storage versus bandwidth (Score:2)
What you're saying is only true if the global cache is large enough to cache every channel available for at least a year.
That's going to take up more storage than a bunch of tivos.
Decoding the AOL strategy... (Score:2, Insightful)
AOL is planning on sweeping into a market with an obviously inferior product that gives consumers less control than products that are already on the market, they'll probably charge more for it (wild guess there), and they seriously expect this to be a profit-making venture.
AOL is dumber than Enron.
Re:Decoding the AOL strategy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it worked for them once before. They excel at taking technical things and making them easy enough for every moron to use. They will sell this service to Joe Sixpack who wouldn't know how to hook up a Tivo. And they have at lea
Re:Worked for DVD "Players" replacing VC "Recorder (Score:2)
VHS is quite possibly the most inferior video format available. If you actually care about what you're looking at on the screen, VHS is a cruel joke.
This a partially why PVRs are so palatable. People are already used to the legacy format incapable of storing all the data for an NTSC frame.
Bah, bandwidth... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cable's such a great solution...it's big, thick, has high potential and is well insulated. It's got less noise than power lines and better range then telephone while being less expensive than copper.
Of course, there's also the matter of the supply boxes at the head end. VOD suppliers are like massive DVRs that operate in parellel -- and they're not perfect yet. There's still a lot of lag when they get loaded and many companies have yet to scale the number of their VOD boxes to match the number of digital subscribers.
I kind of worry that this is intended to replace the really cool DVR devices TW has been testing. The menu system is great and they go a beyond Tivo and the like by allowing your to record almost all pay channels and PPV material (first run stuff is black of course), and by having simple native support for watching one channel while recording another. Sure, Tivo can do this, but it's complicated as hell...my mom, who never even figured out her VCR, uses the DVR without trouble.
Re:Bah, bandwidth... (Score:2)
Re:Bah, bandwidth... (Score:5, Informative)
Holy crap! I wish that were true. 1/100th isn't the case. A regular broadcast channel takes up a 6MHz slot. At most, you can fit in 10-12 digital channels in that same slot using a statistical multiplexer. Of course, the images look like shit (especially if the mpeg has a moving background). You may be able to fit in 10 channels of CSPAN though. You're more likely to fit in 6-8 digital channels in place of one analog channel.
Re:Bah, bandwidth... (Score:2)
As all viewers of Sky's digital service in the UK know. It's bad when the Quicktime videos you download of the net are better quality than Satellite TV!
Re:Bah, bandwidth... (Score:2)
Eh? I don't know about you, but the coax which comes through my wall is copper.
Re:Bah, bandwidth... (Score:2)
Garfield: "Mondays."
The 800 pound gorilla... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, their implementation is never as good or as free (in the liberated sense) but they've got the muscle to make it happen. Want Tivo? Well, it'll cost you $250 for the iron and $10/month to keep it going. Oh, wait a second, here's this great online service from the cable company...no iron, $5 a month. Yeah, it's not the same thing, and we take control of your viewing habits (forced commercials, can't record certain shows, we keep a record of the crap you're watching and sell it, etc) but come on, it's cheap and easy.
And, sadly, in the America of today, that's likely the product that will succeed.
I'm a 2 1/2 year Tivo user and it's the best thing ever created for television, and I tell anyone who asks that. However, the startup costs were inconsequential for me and I recognize that's not always the case...despite my evangelizing the product, a grand total of zero of my friends have Tivos. But I bet more than a few of them will opt for something like this.
Re:The 800 pound gorilla... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The 800 pound gorilla... (Score:4, Interesting)
Tivo is already an expensive luxury item that sells to a nich market interested in it's quirky features. A cheap wannabe will not alter this condition. Tivo will still be an expensive luxury item that sells to a nich market interested in the extra features.
Tivo's are expensive toys for people willing to pay for that level of flexibility.
This new AOL service will not really steal Tivo's thunder. Tivo will still have extra features that trump Mystio.
If anything, this may raise general awareness of PVR features. Once "joe sixpack" has experienced a poor PVR, he will probably be MORE inclined to want an expensive one.
Re:The 800 pound gorilla... (Score:2)
I beg to differ. Tivo stays in business because it makes money (well, one assumes they do anyway.) It makes money in a very few ways -- subscription fees, some small advertising revenue, and (I think) a royalty paid by
Re:The 800 pound gorilla... (Score:2)
Tivo is near or at it's break even point. It's already a going concern. It just needs to maintain itself without overt outside interference. The fact that Tivo's are niche products will not necessarily drive away interested manufacturers. Infact, this should keep them around. Tivo's probably have rather good margins relative to other consumer devices.
Tivo is ALREADY a "lot less appealing" to the masses. That is a problem that Tivo already has to deal with. A cheap wannab
Best thing ever for TiVo (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, for all of those sooo proud of your homebuilt's: You've reinvented the VCR, just more awkward, more expensive, and without cheap media.
Does your whatever adjust for scheduling changes, support wishlists, do smart scheduling that'll ignore recently recorded programs, re-runs, etc? Does it do this all automagically or do you need to rely on screen-scrapers or poor quality listings?
I don't mean to bust on folks, and all props to homebrew, but don't go calling something TiVo-like unless it really has the TiVo feature-set. If you've just managed to turn your couple-hundred-buck PC into an awkward thirty-buck VCR then call it what it is...
Re:Best thing ever for TiVo (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.mythtv.org/
It's only at a 0.8 release and is quite impressive.
Have you checked the numbers lately? (Score:2)
The interesting thing is that 100 hours of video tape would take up an entire shelf, you would have to fast forward and rewind to find the show you want, and you can't randomly insert and delete shows from a single tape. So quite frankly, in many ways, storing digital video is actually less awkward than a VCR. The really interesting thing, however, is that storing digital video is currently competitive with vide
AOL/TW seems to have noticed... (Score:3, Informative)
This might be good for Tivo. (Score:2)
qustion (Score:2)
How long... (Score:2)
A few problems with this idea.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Myths about DVR/PVR (Score:5, Insightful)
Myth 2: Advertisers automatically hate DVRs/PVRs because of Myth 1. As recently reported on Slashdot, there is at least one study to show that retention levels are just as high for viewers who fast forward through commercials than those who watch them at normal speed. Of course, everyone's gut reaction is that DVRs/PVRs are bad for advertisers because they have the capability to fast forward.
Myth 3: Hot women are great in bed. I'm not suggesting you start sleeping with ugly women, but don't assume anything.
Myth 4: Media companies are smart. Ok, that's not a myth but it is a point I want to make. ReplayTV was sued because it allowed users to email shows and had a "instant" commercial skip function. Besides the fact that emailing the show is no different than recording it on a VCR and giving the tape to a friend (which is completely legal under the fair use doctrine), the media companies just want to treat anything in digital form different because it lets them fight a battle that they already lost 20 years ago. Their argument is essentially that any device which COULD be used for illegal purpose is inherently illegal. Their goal is to continue their business model of reselling content. Take a movie. Pay to see it in a theater. Buy the video or DVD. Purchase it on PPV. This is because they truly feel that the content is licensed and not owned (in a limited fashion) by the consumer. As long as they can resell it, the economics make sense because they get multiple returns for the production. DVRs/PVRs and the change in behavior are one step in the process for destroying that model. Record a digital version of a movie on PPV and then burn it to a consumer DVD burning device. Then loan the copy to a friend. Each step is removing a revenue stream from the media company. And they don't know how to stop this.
Re:Myths about DVR/PVR (Score:2)
If I have to pay to watch TV I should get quality content. Either that or TV should be free. If I have to pay to get a DVD, then I should be able to watch that DVD anytime I see fit. I should not be forced to watch commercials or pay anything extra. TV should be like a Tivo-like service where I agree to watch w
Dupe (Score:3, Funny)
from the now-here's-where-it-get-interesting dept.
admiral2001 writes "Here is is a NYTimes story about AOL-Time-Warner's plans for a TiVo-killing 'Mystro TV [nytimes.com]' (nytimes annoying free registration required). They plan to begin rolling this out sometime in the next two years. Their major features are the simple pause, rewind, and fast forward that all PVRs have. However, they've taken the obvious stance to "let[s] networks set the parameters, dictating which shows users can reschedule, and it also creates ways for networks to insert commercials." The article even mentions how they could get an advantage in pushing their product because "viewers could try out Mystro TV by pushing a button on their remote"."
This won't kill TiVo, don't forget DirecTV (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is that it's fully supported by DirecTV. And it's highly unlikely that DirecTV will ever go to some centralized server like the AOL/Mystro solution because Sat TV is (for the most part) one way. So for DirecTV the best solution is a distributed solution like TiVo, rather than a centralized solution like Mystro.
And I know at least one person who, when their DirecTV receiver broke, decided to replace it with a TiVo enabled receiver.
So I don't think TiVo is going away. It may not replace the VCR as a consequence of being effectively locked out of the cable market. But it isn't going away. It'll just be a different upgrade feature for DirecTV. They'll advertise it as Mystro on steroids, and they'll let AOL do 90% of the marketing.
$.02
Better than Tivo in some aspects (Score:2, Interesting)
"For example, if Mystro TV is successfully developed and the appropriate rights secured from owners of video programming, a subscriber could use the Mystro TV service to watch a program that aired the previous day, or to begin watching from the beginning a show already in progress," AOL sa
Bandwidth is a non-issue. (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, claiming bandwidth will hold you back is pure fud. You can put 10,000 people on a single line card and get speeds of over 5Mbps per subscriber if you feed that head end with a wide enough pipe. (Multiple GigE interfaces?)
I've been saying that they should throttle at their internet border for a long time (they being cable companies) and give you some more bandwidth to internal content, like NNTP. That would doubtless distract people from using the internet at large quite so much. It would also allow more traffic between subscribers.
So? (Score:2)
Well, I guess I could mail my cassettes to the cable company after recording them. Then I'll have my own Mystro.
Technology moving faster than business can keep up (Score:2)
This is just another case where new technologies conflict with established business models. I can see that this type of content caching is the wave of the future. There are so many possibilities here.
Mass broadcasting is definitely the old way of doing things but that is the methodology that all of the old business practices are based on.
By far the easiest part of this type of project is to develop the technology. To make it doable from a technical standpoint.
Old News (Score:4, Interesting)
Kingston are the world leaders in real Interactive DTV and nobody has come even close to duplicating the same range of services. As well as PVR, it is the only system in the world to offer user directed content, true VOD, DTV, Internet to the TV, Broadband Internet to the PC and webmail, all for ~£30 (50 USD/EURO)pcm.
As for the fact AOL have been developing this system in secret. Well I'll settle to call it an open secret in the DTV Industry. They tried to sell ourselves their system/technology and stated it would be ready for launch within months, however they had no STB, no content and few details; this was two years ago.
We then demonstrated our live system, already superior to what they offered and they went white, literally.
The real issue... (Score:3, Interesting)
And of course, along the way you lose any real choice about the TV shows you want to watch or when you want to watch them, since there may only be a certain window of time a show is available, for example (this is true of Tivo by default as well, though you can always tell Tivo to keep a program "until I delete it").
My problem is not with this service being available, as I see no reason to switch from my Tivo. But it's silly to dismiss this as an idea that won't work. All AOL has to do is make it part of the standard cable service and boom - no more Tivo for anyone. It's not as if there's any actual competition among cable providers. (There's satellite, yeah, but as I know first-hand as an unfortunately former DirecTV subsriber, satellite is not always available to apartment dwellers. And this is a city of apartments.)
Inefficient use of bandwidth? (Score:2)
or storing it digitally at a central location... "wasting bandwidth? If you can watch a movie through VOD in DVD quality, then why buy the DVD unless you're definitely going to be watching the content more than a few times?
I have a very small DVD collection, with just ove
Re:OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OMG (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AOL seems to only Market to morons... (Score:2)
The love that is Tivo. (Score:2)
Re:I have a TiVo (Score:3, Insightful)
I watch *more* television shows/programs in *less* time than I watched before.
By skipping commercials, I can watch 2 "1-hour" shows in 1.5 hours. Watching 10 "hours" of TV programming can be done in 6.5 hours with Tivo. I do a lot of things that interest me with an "extra" 2.5 hours of time!
If I want to go out to dinner, go to a movie, or go out of town, I don't have to worry about taping and/or missing any of the shows I *really* want to watch - this is especially handy on weekend
Re:I have a TiVo (Score:2)
In their eyes, you fail as a customer. The want you to watch the ads. They need you to watch the ads. All of them. They do not care that you personally, by using your TiVo, have a better TV viewing experience. The TV show is simply a vehicle to bring ads to your eyes.
What they really want is "The Ad channel." All ads, all the time.
All of those commercials you're not interested in now? You (or your future wife/kids) will be. They are building name recognition. When you are 55