Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Stuart Sweet, Jun 24, 2010.
I'm waiting for your report.
I didn't say you should accept it; I said you should accept the possibility of it.
And there is no one here who is in a position to know which is the case, so assuming one over the other has no merit, and indeed just distorts understanding, rather the clarifies it.
It isn't a Straw Man. It is actually the exact opposite: Showing the Straw Man aspect of much of the "popular" sentiment. Just because it is popular to latch on to a specific disparaging appraisal doesn't make it accurate or helpful.
No I didn't ignore the facts. The facts are that they didn't make a commitment. They set a target. It is unreasonable to hold them to something they didn't commit to.
I'm having trouble determining what portions of your comments are rhetorical and which are inquiries. Regardless, let's short-circuit this: What's wrong with just saying, "Yup, they really aren't obligated, and yup they may have been making the best decisions for themselves given their resources and the environment"? Why the seemingly visceral need to castigate? How does doing so actually help folks interested in the idea of having a TiVo UI on a DirecTV-compatible DVR?
Of course, that would have made for a much shorter discussion.
...and around and around we go.
Nope. It is integrated with the provider's VOD system. They're also working on making it compatible with a generic VOD infrastructure.
Only if folks want to reply.
Well, they have to. Their partner keeps saying 2010, so they really don't have the option to contradict their "valued partner." And since DIRECTV isn't driving the development, it's really no skin off their nose if it's missed.
And as long as they followed the example of any of the pre-existing VOD systems that the TiVo supported prior to that, it is still a non-issue.
There is no helping anying interested in the idea of having a TiVo UI on a DIRECTV-compatible DVR. It doesn't exist today. The initial announcement basically said it'd be out in 1 year .. Here is the actual statement:
Now you and I can disagree on "commitment" here. Clearly TiVo expected it by December 31, 2009 (They say so right there in their press release). I personally said .. OK, so they can slip 90 days (March 31, 2010) and I'll still call it good. In fact, that was my original prediction for availability yet that too has come and gone. So today July 22, 2010 the product is late, commitment or not.
The most recent TiVo earnings call (4/30/2010):
There's that word "expect" again. Clearly a product is not "released" until it is actually released and if you want to continue saying commitment, then go for it. It doesn't mean TiVo has done things any faster nor changed the expectations of this group. Everyone here already knew that it's difficult to actually believe what TiVo has to say to the world. They're always wrong about setting expectations. I'm just calling them out on that failure.
In March, 2010, Engadget reported this
Not necessarily. They could just not give a date (they're good at that). I wouldn't say it's no skin off their nose if a date they provide is missed... most DirecTV customers consider DirecTV to be their vendor, not Tivo. Just like the Comcast Tivo is a different beast, as is the standalone Tivo. And it's clear from this thread that most outside of TiVo and DirecTV really knows the level of interaction between the two during development, and how much (if any) responsibility DirecTV may share for any delays.
I'm not saying the statement on their site makes the date any more real. Just that that's what they're saying.
I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff I've missed, and I'm probably misinterpreting or just seeing it out of context with your quote vs. reading the actual article. But just based on what I see here, I don't interpret that as suggesting that they will be missing features. "Look and feel" to me sounds like UI. You can have the same features with completely different interfaces. Personally, I thought preference for the TiVo interface was a part of what many people wanting a TiVo are looking for.
EDIT: ok, now that I've read that piece, I see the issue is the difference betwen the old and new TiVo interface. That still doesn't necessarily mean they'll be missing features, does it? Having not seen anything BUT the old interface, maybe I'm missing the significance.
That is why it is an assumption. One can make any assumption, how much credit you give it is entirely your call. If an assmuption has sufficient support, it has more credibility.
My assumption is based on the logic that DirecTV may not want a supposed new DirrecTiVo to be more advanced than its own brand of new DVRs.
You don't have to agree
Don't avoid the question, why did you speculate that TiVo putting the new DirecTiVo on a much lower priority could be the best decision for TiVo. You made such assertion, I assume it has some logic for support.
If you refuse to answer the question, I can assume that you just throw out anything you like to say as a counter point, for the sake of injecting a counter point, whether it makes sense or not, if so, it is called straw man argument as Doug had pointed out.
The point you do not like is a point that many here have evidence for support, i.e. who is to blame for the delay. Whether you agree or not, such point has ample facts for support. You had made a new point in counter, but have so far refused to back it up with any logic or support.
But even if we accept your assertion that the delay could be the result of TiVo’s possible best decision to place the new DirecTiVo at a much lower priority, that still in no way disputes the point made here, that TiVo is to be blamed for the delay, from the standpoint of the folks who are waiting for the new DirecTiVo, but getting delay after delay.
this does not make any sense, if my people set a target date for something and pass it on to me that IS a commitment, if they do not hit it they had better be a logical validated reason why not or at least the manager of the project will be on the goverment dole faster then the life expectence of a ice cube in a blast furnance, they miss a second the whole development team could end up in the same location
setting a target date = a commitment
Rest assured - any project with multiple millions of magnitude like this one had not only a target date, but language in it pertaining to delays, penalties, etc.
Of course those are two separate things, each having progenitors that needed to be "followed".
Given that they've made the best decisions regarding resource allocation and prioritization for their business (and you cannot say that they have not), think about what would be TiVo's best approach with regard to the "expectations of this group". First question would be how big this group is, meaning how many people are actually following this issue so closely that it even registers with them that the DirecTiVo isn't available. Probably pretty small, but even it the group is of significant size, would it be better to essentially deliver the message that this group is not important enough to warrant a release sooner? Would it be better to tell this group to just go away and go forward assuming that there never will be a DirecTiVo? One of those messages may be better for consumers, but stringing us all along is very possibly better for TiVo. While some of us will get "fed up" with the delay, the fact that TiVo isn't actively telling us to pound sand means several of us may still be left waiting, when the DirecTiVo reaches the top of the priority list.
Yes, yes, it is speculation. So are the assertions to the contrary.
I'm here, and so please don't speak for me. I take TiVo at is word. The difference is that I actually take TiVo at their word, and their word has not included any commitment. When they commit, then I'll have a context with regard to believe what they have to say. And I've been a TiVo subscriber for a decade, so I've had lots of opportunity to see TiVo and how good its word is. When we don't read things into what they say, they are good to their word.
Here's another example: They never said that the DirecTiVo would be based on the Premiere UI. Never. At the very start of the effort, it was clear that the DirecTiVo would be build on the Series 3 platform. They never said anything that you could interpret as that having changed. Instead, you created an expectation yourself, stemming from their release of the TiVo Premiere. But you did that expectation-setting. TiVo didn't do that.
Let's not belabor the point any further. In a nutshell, consumers who foster their own expectations without relying on the actual commitments made by their suppliers are setting themselves (and anyone who would believe them) up for disappointment and disaffection. You can claim that those expectations are justifiable somehow; I disagree, but more importantly, it doesn't matter: You way leads to more disappointment; mine doesn't. Choose your preference.
Avoiding disappointment is good for consumers.
Unfortunately between the Comcast Tivo unit delays (and issues), and now DirecTV delivery delays....that's a lesson Tivo has not apparently learned yet.
I didn't say you should accept it; I said you should accept the possibility of it... Don't force me to defend your corruption of what I said. I made the points I made - I didn't make points that are oh-so-conveniently easier to argue against.
Incorrect. Go back to what I replied to. It was not supported any better than my counter-assertion. By your definition, it was a "straw man argument". It works both ways. One perspective isn't better because it is more popular. Indeed, as I pointed out above, it could be worse. Our best approach is to set our expectations as consumers to that which is most soundly justified, i.e., most likely to be satisfied, not that which feeds our passion most, given how much more likely such expectations will remain unsatisfied.
You say that as if they could wave a magic wand and make all their challenges vanish into thin air. Your logic would essentially mean that companies should keep everything secret until they are positive that they will be able to release at a specific time, with a specific level of quality. That's utterly unreasonable, not only for logistical reasons, but also because public companies are forced to make disclosures regardless of what is best. And I still don't see how such an unfounded and categorically prickly perspective serves consumers. How is anything better because everything around someone seems like crap, because that person decided to expect everything to be better than it was promised to be?
By the same token, you cannot say they have made the best decisions. Were you there, or did you talk to the group that made that decision? No you weren’t and no you didn’t. It’s just a baseless assumption on your part that you're putting forth as an unquestionable fact; while at the same time pointing out that no one can say otherwise thus cutting of any reasonable response and not actually refuting the argument presented...which is, BTW, a textbook Straw Man Argument, well played.
The fact is, while I can’t say what decisions were best for the company, neither can you. That pretty much makes any factual argument built on that premise completely baseless.
You have an opinion, which is completely valid and worth discussing. However, it certainly does not rise to the level of undisputable fact.