1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

When will we get a single schedule for DVR

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Connected Home' started by shaka999, Oct 27, 2011.

  1. Nov 9, 2011 #61 of 107
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Understood that this thread was originally about the current Whole-Home setup. Not wanting to speak for DIRECTV, it seems like Whole-Home was going to be an answer for those households that only had a need for one DVR but liked the idea of watching programming in every room. It didn't take into account that people also like the idea of pausing live TV from every room.
     
  2. Nov 9, 2011 #62 of 107
    dsw2112

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    1,938
    0
    Jun 12, 2009
    Fixed your post :D They should have just kept the name MRV, and nobody would be able to complain. :lol: Whole Home DVR implies more functionality than what we currently have.
     
  3. Nov 9, 2011 #63 of 107
    TDK1044

    TDK1044 Godfather

    604
    36
    Apr 8, 2010
    Your point is well taken, Stuart.

    A lot of existing customers may not get an HR34 DVR though. If D* follows their usual pattern, then new customers will be given the bells and whistles HR34 DVR, and existing customers will have to go to a company like the excellent Solid Signal and purchase one there.

    In my case, I would aslso have to upgrade from my SWM 8 to a SWM16, because replacing one of my DVRs with the new 5 tuner HR34 would take my tuner count to nine.

    And my only reason for even thinking about getting an HR34 is because I can't see a shared list of what is set to record on my DVRs.:)
     
  4. Nov 9, 2011 #64 of 107
    DallasFlier

    DallasFlier Cool Member

    17
    0
    Oct 24, 2011
    Yep, and since they apparently managed to figure out that people would like to be able to schedule programs on more than one DVR from their H25, how difficult is it to also figure that we'd want that same capability from our HR24?? :confused: :rolleyes:
     
  5. Nov 9, 2011 #65 of 107
    markrogo

    markrogo Godfather

    300
    1
    Sep 18, 2007
    So they understood it would be interesting to pause recorded TV in every room, but not live TV? I don't really buy that. The old, fake, media center demo from several years ago understood the full wish list quite well. I'd say Whole Home DVR was a really good "hack" that provided some of the functionality they knew a lot of people wanted before they got the hardware to provide all of it. And it does a reasonable job, it's just limited.
     
  6. Nov 9, 2011 #66 of 107
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Well, you could say that maybe they didn't understand the need for it. But, with HR34, you can pause live TV from any room, and you have a single box that can record 5 things.

    Understand that the most popular setup is still the one DVR/three receiver combo, and if you look forward to it being one HR34/3 clients, it makes sense not to put a lot of effort into collaborative scheduling.
     
  7. Nov 9, 2011 #67 of 107
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Heh. Somewhat different contexts, no?

    In any event, you are right that saying "I'm pretty sure" indicates supposition.

    Do you have any facts on what percentage Whole Home makes up of the ca. 20,000,000 subs? Or even a good guess?
     
  8. Nov 9, 2011 #68 of 107
    lugnutathome

    lugnutathome Hall Of Fame

    3,003
    108
    Apr 13, 2009
    Woodburn, OR
    In spite of many of us here having more DVRs than common sense (well I have anyway) I would suspect we represent less than 2% (if not considerably lower) of the overall subscriber base. As more or less tech geeks/junkies our implementations we have here in these forums are so skewed...

    Would be interesting to pull that statistic from the subscriber database and see.

    From an equipment cost standpoint and ROI, subscribers having many DVRs take far longer to become profitable. Considering the churn rates it may be a loss demographic from the corporate viewpoint.

    Being able to present a new solution that covers probably the 2.5 DVR statistic the typical TV addict would need as indicated in their marketing spreadsheets in a single piece of DVR hardware should drive better economies of scale.

    Though more expensive than a "normal" DVR I'm pretty certain their up front cost is considerably less than 2 or 3 individual DVRs combined. Add to that the expectation that the TV manufacturers are architecting the individual receiver portion integrated in their sets reducing the number of non DVR receivers. Over time it's a significant hardware inventory cost savings.

    While us DVR hoarders certainly would *love* the moon, I suspect all things considered, the spreadsheets have us as a less profitable (if at all) overall demographic and a small enough number to be tolerated but not catered to.

    I have this same issue with my home infrastructure which is commercial in scope despite being a single family dwelling and have had to commercially subcontract it's implementation phases.

    But give me the ability my H21 and H25 series receivers have to deploy recordings on all the DVRs around my network (and perhaps allow more than 5 DVRs to show in Whole home status) and I could live with that. Quite happily in fact.

    Someone could create a simple iDevice/PC style app to manage the DVR series link and manual schedules via manual input. A specialized spreadsheet or something and us geek toy addicts can wallow in that solution.

    Don "what would be nice and what is profitable are likely at conflict" Bolton
     
  9. Nov 9, 2011 #69 of 107
    dsw2112

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    1,938
    0
    Jun 12, 2009
    I'd be curious to see the numbers on this. I only have anecdotal evidence, but the folks I know with D* (about 15 or so) all have at least 2 DVR's. All have been with D* for at least 5 years, and for the most part the D* fee structure is an easy reason for having multiple DVR's. More than half of the folks started with the single DVR (and 3 receiver setup), but have been given "free upgrades" over the years. Since the DVR mirror fee is the same as a receiver (and the DVR fee covers all DVR's on the account) there's really no reason to refuse.

    A number of the folks I mentioned are not tech savvy (including my parents), but they can understand that a DVR for the same monthly cost of a receiver is a win for them. For this reason, there's a chance that the number of multiple DVR owners might be higher than we think.
     
  10. Nov 9, 2011 #70 of 107
    lugnutathome

    lugnutathome Hall Of Fame

    3,003
    108
    Apr 13, 2009
    Woodburn, OR
    I would love to see than number myself but I suspect using spreadsheet math they came up with 2.5 sort of like during the Bell breakup the emerging long distance carriers the "six second increment billing sales feature" was used.

    Taking business customers monthly bills and dividing the number of minutes by the number of calls pretty much landed at 4.3 minutes. A useless fact derived by non even division despite it all having been in full minute increments. But it was sold quite successfully as "why pay for 5 minutes when you only used 4.3"?

    I can see a lot of 2 and possibly 3 DVR homes but in excess of that I'd guess a small percentage only.

    I get your knowing non tech subscribers though my father when he was alive would likely have had 3 or four of these had they been invented then and I would have been stuck being his tech support:grin:

    Whatever transpires I would really like at the minimum what the non DVR > H20 series recievers can do.

    And to be sure my anecdotal evidence is pure POOMA (Pulled Out Of My A**) :grin:

    Don "how come the VCR keeps flashing 12:00?" Bolton
     
  11. Nov 9, 2011 #71 of 107
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    In any event, it's not the number of two and three receiver households, or two or more DVRs, it's those which are MRV'ed with two or more DVRs, so I bet it's a small number, under 500,000.

    .... But anywhere numbers are pulled from, if they appear to make sense, I'm good with that.

    And I don't expect those who can supply a hard number are going to do so. sr, db, others.
     
  12. Nov 9, 2011 #72 of 107
    Drew2k

    Drew2k New Member

    14,514
    228
    Aug 16, 2006
    I think delivering a unified To Do List and unified Series Manager could be done in stages to provide a single To Do List.

    Start with "remote recording". You can already do this in the Guide now on MRV-connected H2x* receivers, selecting a connected DVR on which the program should be recorded. Since this functionality exists, port it to the HR2x DVRs. Seems to me it should be easy: if you hit REC on the HR2x, ask on which of the network connected DVRs to record. Easy, breezy. :) (Of course, I'm not on the DIRECTV software, standards, quality assurance, testing and/or documentation teams, so ... "Easy" is relative!)

    After "remote recording" is working, move on to an enhancement to the To Do List on connected receivers. Add a a YELLOW options menu, where you can filter the To Do List to show ALL or LOCAL, and have the ability to view, cancel or modify any recording in the list. This would require that each DVR broadcasts its To Do List items to the home network in the same manner that the Playlist broadcasts its playlist. (Not sure if it's "broadcast" or if the data is "pulled" on demand when the interface needs to present it. I think the latter, but it's easier to say "broadcast".)

    The above change would of course require enhancements to the Whole Home Settings page to permit or deny remote visibility and management of scheduled recordings. Just as now you can go to Whole Home Settings and choose to allow or deny ability to view the playlist on other receivers or allow or deny the ability to delete recordings remotely, give an option to allow the To Do List to be visible (or not) and to allow remote cancellations (or not).

    I think all the above items are highly desirable in a Whole Home environment and would add tremendous value to the users... but I don't expect to see this functionality delivered all at once. I can be patient.
     
  13. Nov 9, 2011 #73 of 107
    ak6ar

    ak6ar New Member

    2
    0
    Dec 13, 2006
    Ok maybe I am going in a slightly different direction on this, but why not just expose the scheduling via api's and see what 3rd parties come up with in this regard? I am not sure there is a big enough demand to invest in this, so let 3rd parties who feel they can add value in this way do it.

    Currently the receivers expose what shows are recorded as well as other things via REST api's. If they would expose manipulating the schedule, adding something to the schedule, removing an item from the schedule, showing the scheduled list, and a few more details then people could write a variety of quick and easy 3rd party solutions.

    Heck when I ran across this problem I was going to write a simple little ipad app to let me manage/edit/sore the playlist across all of my DVR's but the api's are not exposed. If the api's were exposed, one could experiment with master scheduling or experiment with other ideas. I would love it if they would even expose more via API's, guide data, other items, so we could really see what people come up with that interesting apps.

    Its just a thought. :)
     
  14. Nov 9, 2011 #74 of 107
    lugnutathome

    lugnutathome Hall Of Fame

    3,003
    108
    Apr 13, 2009
    Woodburn, OR
    Wouldn't expect it. But that not mean Mongo not curious.

    Don "Mongo glad is bigger than cat" Bolton
     
  15. Nov 9, 2011 #75 of 107
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    There is an API known as "IP Control", but since they released it they have taken away a good chunk of the functions. There never was the ability to manipulate series links, guide data, etc though.
     
  16. Nov 10, 2011 #76 of 107
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Mongo curious! Curious good. Mongo good!

    :lol:
     
  17. Nov 10, 2011 #77 of 107
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,386
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    My only hope is that DIRECTV® plans to do the latter via iPad and Droids themselves, or at least contract out for it.
    I guess they don't want people phoning in with questions about why their browser Playlist shows x and y, while their TV Playlist shows y and z, or vice versa- [refreshing would be the answer in many cases.] Same with To Do and series links. At least that's one possible reason I can think of.
     
  18. Nov 10, 2011 #78 of 107
    TDK1044

    TDK1044 Godfather

    604
    36
    Apr 8, 2010
    I think that if DirecTV wanted to offer 'U-verse Professional', then they should have called it 'MRV', and people like myself wouldn't have expected more from it.

    But when you call something 'Whole Home DVR', then there is a valid assumption on the part of the customer that you can record and play back on any DVR, and that you will be able to see from one location what is set up to record on all the DVRs in the home.

    Like I said in an earlier post......Sloppy. :)
     
  19. Nov 10, 2011 #79 of 107
    RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    I have to disagree. And you know what happens when you assume...
     
  20. Nov 10, 2011 #80 of 107
    TDK1044

    TDK1044 Godfather

    604
    36
    Apr 8, 2010
    :)
     

Share This Page