My TiVo has been struck dumb

[graham]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:05:56 -0400, "Randy S."
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:


>Honestly Graham I think these two points of yours are valid, even if
>others don't agree with them (myself included).
>
>I think the others should concede that putting a post-watershed
>programme in a location which cannot be controlled by a discerning
>parent was a mistake. All other programmes, whether restrictable or
>not, can at least be said to be the responsibility of the DVR owner.
>Featured content cannot, and thus should have been more tightly
>controlled. It shouldn't have poisened people permanently against Tivo
>though, it seems that it was a one-time mistake that was immediately
>acknowledged and apologized for. Sky+ could do similar things if they
>decided to, but they fortunately have Tivo's history to learn from.
>
>Also, comparing the software functionality of Tivo software to the
>hardware functionality of dual tuners in the Sky+ box is a value
>judgement on the end users part, it's not really fair for any person to
>say that one outweighs the other for *other* people.
>
>I do agree, however, that a lot of the functionality of the Tivo is
>rather intangible and must be experienced to be understood, and not just
>for a few minutes or a few hours here and there. It's difficult to get
>across but not everyone is going to be willing to give Tivo that chance.
> In the long run, at some point Tivo will add another tuner to their
>hardware and make it a moot point. Hopefully they will resurrect their
>presence in the UK at some point after that so you all get as good a set
>of choices that we do.

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

Graham

 

[graham]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:38:42 +0100, Dom Robinson
<Usetheaddress@inthesig.com> wrote:

>In article <tbmla1lt3tr8gcek7d4io8htfp86ouhgbc@4ax.com>, graham@dircon.co.uk
>says...
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 19:54:48 +0100, Dom Robinson
>> <Usetheaddress@inthesig.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Impossible? I don't believe you mean that.
>> >
>> >I do. I explained the zilch amount of training that was clearly given to
>> >employees of Dixons. They hadn't got a clue how the unit worked.
>> >
>> That may be Dixons for you.
>
>No other shop I went to in the Trafford Centre at the time stocked it.
>
Just because no one else in the Trafford Centre (at the particular
time you visited) did not stock Tivo does not mean that other shops in
other parts of the country do not stock it.

>> We could hold a Tivo mastermind competition to see who knows more
>> about Tivo - you or the other half. However, I really can't be
>> bothered.
>
>I can because what I'm asking is for you to tell us the full training of what
>your other half was given. You keep refusing to answer this question, thus
>negating your side of the argument.
>
If you really must know, they had a training / sales visit from a
representative.

It's quite common for some manufacturers to send out reps to
encourage staff to sell.

As you claim to be an "expert" on the subject - what training have you
had?

>> >Answer the question Graham - exactly what training was she given on the TiVo?
>> >Go on, ask her. Never mind fiddling with the odd recording when she wasn't
>> >trying to sell someone an overpriced extended warranty they never asked for.
>> >Ask her what training.
>> >
>> Now we are getting personal. You accuse them of pushing inappropriate
>> warranties.
>
>All shops push inappropriate warranties - inappropriate because most consumer
>items fail either within the first year, or many years in the future.
>
You are generalising. Unless you have carried out a survey of "all
shops" you cannot seriously make such a statement.

As I say, it was an independent shop. They did not aim to cater to the
mass market. They were often more expensive than the national stores.
If you wanted cheap then you went elsewhere. Their customer base was
mainly affluent. Customers came to the shop because they wanted
personal service and they knew that the staff knew what they were
talking about.

They sold very few warranties. As they were generally selling products
at the higher end of the market, the customers knew that a warranty
was probably unnecessary.

>> My partner worked for an independent television shop. They didn't push
>> warranties because most of the sets they sold would come as standard
>> with an included extended warranty.
>>
>> For example, our flat screen TV came with a manufacturers 5 year
>> warranty.
>>
>> Why do you have to get personal and start attacking someone who is not
>> even taking part in this discussion?
>
>I'm not attacking anyone, I'm asking a question which you're failing to
>answer.
>
You attacked them personally. You accused them of selling
inappropriate warranties.

>> >> My other half probably used to watch even more TV than you Dom.
>> >
>> >Only because the two minutes she glanced at them was multiplied by the 50 TVs
>> >in front of her all showing the same dire, boosted RF signal pumped round all
>> >of them.
>> >
>> Assumptions, assumptions.
>
>Then I'll stop making assumptions once you come up with the answers. You can't
>just respond, as the person on the other side of the discussion, with
>"However, I really can't be bothered."

I can and will when someone gets personal.

Shall we continue this discussion without getting personal?

Graham

 

[graham]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:10:19 -0400, "Randy S."
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:


>Well, let's be fair here, it's not so much the warranty that's
>inappropriate, typically it's the price. For a piece of mostly solid
>state equipment that relatively cheap and easy to replace the price of
>most offered extended warranties is ridiculous. There are exceptions,
>the main one that I can think of is on laptops. Most laptops are very
>difficult to fix due to their proprietary components and the outrageous
>prices that the sellers charge for those proprietary replacements, so
>the cost risks are high. For most other items the cost of the extended
>warranties aren't worth it. But they are a *high* profit item for the
>stores and they have a lot of incentive to push them. I think, Graham,
>you can acknowledge that. It's not impossible that the particular store
>in question *doesn't* push them, but it's pretty unlikely given the
>state of the Industry. You could even make an argument (a pretty weak
>one though) that since the extended warranties allow the companies to
>make a slimmer markup on the product itself, that gullible buyers of
>extended warranties subsidize the hardware costs for the more
>intelligent buyer. It's more likely though that the manufacturers and
>stores keep the markups the same and just take increased profits.
>
A good manufacturer will often include an extended warranty as
standard.

Our television came with a standard manufacturer's 5 year warranty.

I think our washing machine also has a 5 year manufacturer's warranty.

>It is true Graham that it's probably inappropriate to state a conclusion
>then refuse to offer anything to back it up. If you want to drop the
>argument, that's fine, but I don't think you can appropriately say that
>you've proven anything or backed your arguments up.

My point was that I can't be bothered to continue the discussion if
Dom is going to attack my partner and accuse them of misellling.

I imagine that you would be equally annoyed if Dom made the same
comments about your partner or a relative?

Graham

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

> A good manufacturer will often include an extended warranty as
> standard.
>
> Our television came with a standard manufacturer's 5 year warranty.
>
> I think our washing machine also has a 5 year manufacturer's warranty.
>
>

I think that by definition that's a "standard" warranty, not an
"extended" warranty. And extended warranty is an *added* policy that
you pay extra for to "extend" the warranty past the standard term.

Long standard warranties are great and are great selling points. Here
in the State's they are becoming rarer though, particularly on
electronics. Harddrives used to all come with 3 yr warranties (5 on
SCSI drives), now most have been reduced to 1 yr.

>>It is true Graham that it's probably inappropriate to state a conclusion
>>then refuse to offer anything to back it up. If you want to drop the
>>argument, that's fine, but I don't think you can appropriately say that
>>you've proven anything or backed your arguments up.
>
>
> My point was that I can't be bothered to continue the discussion if
> Dom is going to attack my partner and accuse them of misellling.
>
> I imagine that you would be equally annoyed if Dom made the same
> comments about your partner or a relative?

I've been accused of being a card carrying KKK racist (despite the fact
that I'm Jewish) on this forum. Granted it was from a person who is
widely agreed upon as the most assinine person who posts here, and it
was (strangely enough) in response to my using the phrase "that's like
the pot calling the kettle black" which has nothing even vaguely racist
about it, but I've learned to ignore personal attacks where obviously
inappropriate and attempt to correct those that are misguided. On
Usenet you must develop thick skin.

I think the appropriate thing is to acknowledge that a lot (if not the
vast majority) of shops push high profit extended warranties. It is
also appropriate to point out that saying so does not mean that this
particular shop does, and it's not really your job to prove that they
don't (negatives are notoriously difficult if not impossible to prove).

Electronics shops and manufacturers have a lot of questionable practices
that often make things more complex then need be. For one, Yamaha has a
frustrating policy on their upper end equipment that they will only
sell through "authorized" stores where their prices are 20-30% higher
than market. If you buy elsewhere, even if the sale is totally legit,
they will not honor the standard warranty *at all*. Nice way to boost
your profit margin. To me it was worth the 30% savings to take on the
risk of the 1 yr warranty I will not be able to use.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

In article <fvmla11fos330h7nh4n1ckb3qgpv56adfc@4ax.com>, graham@dircon.co.uk
says...
> >So, even if the TiVo did record it for anyone, it had zero effect on any user.
> >
> Zero effect? If I had children and were happy for them to watch
> programmes that had been recorded on a Tivo box I would be bloody
> furious to discover that the BBC had decided to shove things on the
> box that were for broadcast after the watershed.
>
As the parent, you're the person who should control what the watch. If you
don't, then you're no longer parenting, you're being lazy.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http/DVDfever.co.uk (editor), http/LeilaniWeb.co.uk (editor)
/* 1046 DVDs, 305 games, 145 CDs, 92 cinema films, 33 videos, concerts & news
/* alienVpredator, kung fu hustle, doctor who, constantine, churchillhollywood
Fight back against "PRESS RED": http/dvdfever.co.uk/pressrel/pressred.shtml
DVDfever.co.uk on BBC News 24's Click Online! - http/tinyurl.com/2mqj4

 

[graham]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:39:42 +0100, Dom Robinson
<Usetheaddress@inthesig.com> wrote:

>In article <fvmla11fos330h7nh4n1ckb3qgpv56adfc@4ax.com>, graham@dircon.co.uk
>says...
>> >So, even if the TiVo did record it for anyone, it had zero effect on any user.
>> >
>> Zero effect? If I had children and were happy for them to watch
>> programmes that had been recorded on a Tivo box I would be bloody
>> furious to discover that the BBC had decided to shove things on the
>> box that were for broadcast after the watershed.
>>
>As the parent, you're the person who should control what the watch. If you
>don't, then you're no longer parenting, you're being lazy.

Ultimately the buck stops with the parent.

However, I believe any parent would have grounds to be more than angry
to discover that the BBC had decided to shove a post watershed show
onto the box.

Surely, you are not suggesting that these parents have no right to
complain?

Graham

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

Dom Robinson wrote:
> In article <fvmla11fos330h7nh4n1ckb3qgpv56adfc@4ax.com>, graham@dircon.co.uk
> says...
>
>>>So, even if the TiVo did record it for anyone, it had zero effect on any user.
>>>
>>
>>Zero effect? If I had children and were happy for them to watch
>>programmes that had been recorded on a Tivo box I would be bloody
>>furious to discover that the BBC had decided to shove things on the
>>box that were for broadcast after the watershed.
>>
>
> As the parent, you're the person who should control what the watch. If you
> don't, then you're no longer parenting, you're being lazy.

No, Dom, I have to agree with Graham here, the show placement was
irresponsible. A responsible parent w/ a child accessible Tivo can keep
that Tivo "post-watershed" free if they carefully control what shows are
recorded and turn suggestions off. The "Featured content" is outside of
that control. If I setup a Tivo that my child has access to, and
restrict channels to only those with appoved content, I should be
confident that he won't see inappropriate material. The airing of the
post-watershed show as featured content bypasses that control, and was a
mistake.

My parental responsibility was to set up this situation where I could
reasonably expect to have restricted content (which doesn't mean that I
should zone out once I do that). Tivo shouldn't be making this
*harder*, they're typically trying to make things "easier", and
typically they do that very well. Unfortunately they made a mistake,
it's no big deal, we all do from time to time. Unfortunately this one
turned into a PR nightmare for them.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

<graham@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dh3ma1p8e4h4b5cg5vic6c3bcinb02chdd@4ax.com...
>
> I can't be bothered to continue the discussion

Great!

(Nothing personal, but I did start this thread for a particular reason, and
it was hijacked and now it's been going around in circles for an entire
week.)

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http/www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

 

[graham]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 12:37:16 -0400, "Randy S."
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:


>I think the appropriate thing is to acknowledge that a lot (if not the
>vast majority) of shops push high profit extended warranties. It is
>also appropriate to point out that saying so does not mean that this
>particular shop does, and it's not really your job to prove that they
>don't (negatives are notoriously difficult if not impossible to prove).
>
I agree that a lot of shops will try and push pointless extra
warranties. For example, I have seen warranties for a video recorder
that did not include the heads and a warranty for a DVD player that
did not include the laser.

>Electronics shops and manufacturers have a lot of questionable practices
>that often make things more complex then need be. For one, Yamaha has a
> frustrating policy on their upper end equipment that they will only
>sell through "authorized" stores where their prices are 20-30% higher
>than market. If you buy elsewhere, even if the sale is totally legit,
>they will not honor the standard warranty *at all*. Nice way to boost
>your profit margin. To me it was worth the 30% savings to take on the
>risk of the 1 yr warranty I will not be able to use.

Fortunately, consumer rights have recently been toughened up
throughout the EU by a directive that deals with warranties.

Graham

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

>>Electronics shops and manufacturers have a lot of questionable practices
>>that often make things more complex then need be. For one, Yamaha has a
>> frustrating policy on their upper end equipment that they will only
>>sell through "authorized" stores where their prices are 20-30% higher
>>than market. If you buy elsewhere, even if the sale is totally legit,
>>they will not honor the standard warranty *at all*. Nice way to boost
>>your profit margin. To me it was worth the 30% savings to take on the
>>risk of the 1 yr warranty I will not be able to use.
>
>
> Fortunately, consumer rights have recently been toughened up
> throughout the EU by a directive that deals with warranties.

Yeah, well, certain political entities here in the States are not
particularly, shall we say, consumer friendly? Business interests often
seem to be the priority. I'm still waiting for my "trickle down"
profits ;-).

Randy S.

 

[graham]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:57:21 +0100, "John Rowland"
<johnr@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

><graham@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:dh3ma1p8e4h4b5cg5vic6c3bcinb02chdd@4ax.com...
>>
>> I can't be bothered to continue the discussion
>
>Great!
>
>(Nothing personal, but I did start this thread for a particular reason, and
>it was hijacked and now it's been going around in circles for an entire
>week.)

It's not been hijacked.

I'm not pointing a Tivo at anyones head.

One false move and the hard drive gets it!

-)

Graham

 

[graham]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:03:15 -0400, "Randy S."
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:


>Yeah, well, certain political entities here in the States are not
>particularly, shall we say, consumer friendly? Business interests often
>seem to be the priority. I'm still waiting for my "trickle down"
>profits ;-).

Trickle down profits?

Graham

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

graham@dircon.co.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:03:15 -0400, "Randy S."
> <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yeah, well, certain political entities here in the States are not
>>particularly, shall we say, consumer friendly? Business interests often
>>seem to be the priority. I'm still waiting for my "trickle down"
>>profits ;-).
>
>
> Trickle down profits?
>
> Graham

Not to start a political discussion, but since Reagan was president here
the Republican party has espoused a theory referred to as "Trickle Down"
economics, which basically says that if businesses do well (due to
favorable public policy) and make more money than the benefits will
"trickle down" to the employees and the middle and working class because
they will be able to pay more in salaries and benefits and hire more
workers.

Democrats have traditionally (though with less emphasis) ascribed to the
"bubble up" theory which means that if the middle and working class are
better off, then they will have more money to spend and will therefore
spend it in such a way as to benefit the businesses.

IOW, Republicans think that by helping businesses, the average person
will become better off from the businesses' increased hiring and
salaries, while Democrats think that by helping average people that
businesses will become better off by the people's spending.

Republicans don't typically mention the term "trickle down" anymore,
it's mostly the media that does so. "Trickle down" took on a pretty
negative connotation after a lot of Reagan's policies started being
referred to as "Voodoo Economics".

This isn't a complete description of course, and is vastly simplified,
but I think it gets the idea across, and I tried to be unbiased about it
;-). If you read between the lines, you may be able to figure out I'm
not a big G.W. Bush fan. To put it mildly.

Randy S.

 

[Gman]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <mpvga191plfe1v04a4tuo5tpnj0e0ulffj@4ax.com>, graham@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:19:31 -0400, "Randy S."
><rswitt@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That may have been the original point of the discussion, but it is not
>>what you said, nor what I was responding to for this post. You said
>>specifically:
>>
>>"All the tivo functionality = a box that tells me what it thinks I
>>should watch, rather than recording what I want to record."
>>
>I stand by my original statement. The "functionality" of Tivo is that
>it can make decisions for you about what it will record.
>
>http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2756497.stm
>
>In addition, I only want a box that records exactly what I want it to
>record. I don't want the box to record anything other than what I
>precisely tell it to record.
>
>In any case, it is my understanding that Tivo can force the box to
>record specific programmes that no one has asked Tivo to record.
>
>http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/new_media/2016264.stm
>


Those types of adverts get recorded into an area of the hard drive already set
aside for such stuff and does not take away from the available space you have
been made available to record. It will never keep you from recording a program
that you have set up to record yourself.



>
>>Both of those statements are specifically complaining that Tivo is
>>recording things other than what you ask for. This has nothing
>>whatsoever to do with single vs. dual tuners. If this wasn't the
>>contention, then why bring it up?
>
>They are two separate issues. A box that takes over and a box in the
>UK that only records 1 channel at a time.
>
>>If it is a contention, then I (and
>>others) have demonstrated that it's silly to criticize Tivo because of
>>"suggestions" since at worst you can easily disable them.
>>
>I think it is cheeky that someone can decide to automatically record a
>programme on the Tivo box. To quote the BBC web site:
>
>"Users accessing the TiVo saw a new item "Must See from the BBC Dosser
>and Jo" as part of an "advanced content" feature.
>
>Some with families were angry that a post-watershed show had been
>automatically recorded and could be accessed by children."
>
>Graham

 

[graham]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:14:05 -0400, "Randy S."
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:


>If you read between the lines, you may be able to figure out I'm
>not a big G.W. Bush fan.

But what if he were a Tivo owner?

-)

Graham

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

graham@dircon.co.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:14:05 -0400, "Randy S."
> <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If you read between the lines, you may be able to figure out I'm
>>not a big G.W. Bush fan.
>
>
> But what if he were a Tivo owner?
>
> -)
>
> Graham

Hmm, doubt it, we all know he doesn't read the newspapers or watch the
news. Probably just watches old reruns of Bonanza ;-).

Randy S.

 

[seth]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8htff$puk$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
> graham@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:14:05 -0400, "Randy S."
>> <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If you read between the lines, you may be able to figure out I'm not a
>>>big G.W. Bush fan.
>>
>>
>> But what if he were a Tivo owner?
>>
>> -)
>
> Hmm, doubt it, we all know he doesn't read the newspapers or watch the
> news. Probably just watches old reruns of Bonanza ;-).

After the "Pretzel incident", knowing that the TiVo remote is referred to as
a Peanut, the Secret Service banned TiVos from the residence.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

> After the "Pretzel incident", knowing that the TiVo remote is referred
> to as a Peanut, the Secret Service banned TiVos from the residence.
>

Being that this is cross-posted to a UK group, you should probably
include a reference, as I don't know how much play that got across the pond:

http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1758848.stm

;-)

Randy S.

 

[seth]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8i7mb$161a$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
>
>> After the "Pretzel incident", knowing that the TiVo remote is referred to
>> as a Peanut, the Secret Service banned TiVos from the residence.
>>
>
> Being that this is cross-posted to a UK group, you should probably include
> a reference, as I don't know how much play that got across the pond:
>
> http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1758848.stm

I figured "PretzelGate" had worldwide coverage...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo,uk.media.tv.misc (More info?)

In <wA1re.20327$So7.11068@fe10.lga>, "Seth"
<seth_lermanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d8i7mb$161a$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...
>>
>>> After the "Pretzel incident", knowing that the TiVo remote is referred to
>>> as a Peanut, the Secret Service banned TiVos from the residence.
>>>
>>
>> Being that this is cross-posted to a UK group, you should probably include
>> a reference, as I don't know how much play that got across the pond:
>>
>> http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1758848.stm
>
>I figured "PretzelGate" had worldwide coverage...

Yes, it was covered here. I can't remember but I bet it was the top
story of the day! :-(