Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (
More info?)
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:47:58 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Actually,,, I think the original Replays were sold complete with
>subscription for over $300.00, And I think I've seen a competitor's
>product, no subscription needed, for 299.95 in the stores.
>
I got one of the first 2020 Replays, it was substituted for the
10-hour model I ordered, for $699.95.
>In short. Folks are selling them, or something very much like them,
>exactly as you suggest... I paid the 300 for 2 of mine, monthly for the
>3rd since I don't know if it's going to make the transistion to mobile
>service
>
>see.my.sig.4.addr@nowhere.com.invalid wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:45:36 -0600, Boll Weevil <washerdryer@maytag.com>
>> spewed:
>>
>>>>Perhaps you would prefer a pricing model where there was no subscription
>>>>fee and you just pay $300 more when you purchase it initially. Why do
>>>>you think you're entitled to the service for free? If such a hack were
>>>>made available I'm sure that DNNA (and presumably TIVO if such were done
>>>>to them) would just revert to raising the price and dropping the sub.
>>>>Then you'd have to actually steal the unit from the store instead of
>>>
>>>>from the comfort of your home.
>>>
>>>You know what? I wouldn't care if it was $300 more than what ever I payed.
>>>Infact, I'll be plunking down the $300 for the subscription next week after I
>>>get my pay check... I work at McDonalds(hehehehe). If the unit was $400, I'd
>>>buy it and I'd still want to see if I can improve it like many other people who
>>>is interested in this technology.
>>>
>>>Call me a theif (which I don't think I am) or what ever you'd like. It's not
>>>gonna hurt my feelings. This "you're stealing" arguement is so nauseatingly
>>>over-used, I'm gonna puke. So, this is the last I'll want to discuss this
>>>matter before I get sick............plonk!! Rest of you..........back to the
>>>discussion, please.
>>
>>
>> AMEN!!
>> The "stealing" BS is totally flawed even for what it's usually used for,
>> music. It'd only be "stealing" if people were actually costing co's
>> money. If they wouldn't buy it if they had to pay for it, then no loss.
>> Most who really like a particular selection do pay for it because the
>> quality is better. Plus, not one of them can site any drop in revenue, in
>> fact it's increasing! So, it just boils down to unbridled greed and legal
>> evil.
>>
>> As to the on topic discussion, if there's no competition and nobody else
>> tries to improve it, guess what - no improvements.
>> We're damn lucky there's even TiVo and ReplayTV to compete.
>> Sooner or later one will probably buy the other and we'll be in Windows
>> style hell with PVR's too... UNLESS somebody makes one that is as good as
>> RTV and doesn't force subscription.
>> I don't know why nobody sees the massive opportunity for profit on that
>> and doesn't make one
>> You gotta figure there's big time legal bullying going on with that.
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________
>> For email response, or CC, please mailto:see.my.sig.4.addr(at)bigfoot.com.
>> Yeah, it's really a real address
--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http
/notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."
Facebook
Twitter