Comments on: Random Stuff: Pepsi Logo, Cat Piano, Nazi Bankers

By: Viagra

Viagra — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:56:13 +0000

we are experimenting by cutting the cable cord this month. no cable, no need for tivo.

By: musicmatez

musicmatez — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:03:48 +0000

this video is really awesome.

By: Ariadna, from Ars Logo Design

Ariadna, from Ars Logo Design — Thu, 14 May 2009 03:38:11 +0000

It happens again and again: each time Pepsi has had its logo revamped, everybody thinks it’s still worse than the one it’s replacing. I think it’s like a ‘Pepsi logo karma’. But I’m sure it’ll grow on us until the next logo facelift will make us feel that this one wasn’t that bad.

By: helen

helen — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:50:56 +0000

xaxa it was very nice ) The cat is very experienced-very interested video.Thanks for the theme

By: webomatica

webomatica — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:19:54 +0000

Cool... yeah as mentioned above, there are a lot of TV options online, and
Netflix for good old fashioned DVDs. I think Lost streams for free on
ABC.com proper - that'd be worth checking out. Oh and I suppose it's still
on good old fashioned broadcast via the rabbit ears? Funny how I totally
forget about that option at times.

By: e_chendo

e_chendo — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:52:14 +0000

we love, love, love our tivo but are trying to cut back on expenses and since the kiddo isn’t s’posed to watch tv until age 2, we are experimenting by cutting the cable cord this month. no cable, no need for tivo. (if we can’t handle it after a year, i figure we can try fios out w/ an intro special.) but outside of Lost, i never have time to watch any tv anyway…

By: papa

papa — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:50:06 +0000

It's worth noting that the average American household watches over 150 hours a month of Tv (according to a recent Nielsen report). So if you want to talk pricing that's 40 cents per hour of programming (based on the $60 bill you suggest)...maybe that's cheap to some?

And no...I'm not even gonna comment on the sociological implications of watching 5 hours of TV a day on average (holy crap is all I can say to that).

By: webomatica

webomatica — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:20:17 +0000

I definitely agree that consumers will ultimately try to figure out the best
and cheapest option - but now I am recalling this recent NYTimes article
pointing out the slow upward creep of cable prices - something like $60 a
month and most people only watch fraction of the shows / channels available
to them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/technology/24...

Then take all the free options online, Hulu, too, and you could even pay for
a few shows here and there (that you say you wouldn't do) and you'd still
come out ahead.

Right now we're doing no cable, and instead, Netflix ($15 a month) plus the
occasional Apple TV rental and TV show purchase - if I'm generous, that's
about $20 a month. $35 a month total, and I don't feel like I'm missing
anything TV wise. Apple has lots of free news podcasts. If I really wanted
to, I could just watch everything on Hulu or whip out the Bit Torrent and
save that $20 a month.

Obviously the cable companies knows a lot of content is available online for
free, which is why they're providing their own options.

I think the best arguments for cable's continued dominance is what we've
already gone over above - inertia of existing users, the bundled packages,
and the ease of use. It's just easier for people to just add more services
onto their existing bill, and most people already have cable all set up - so
all the cable companies need to do is offer something. I do think people are
pay extra for cable, and most people consider that money worth it since
cable is considered a necessity in so many households.

But I think if you really believe customers will graviate toward what's
cheapest, that might be a better argument for eschewing cable. The real
challenge is for the tech companies to make their products so brain-dead
simpe to use that the average TV watcher can handle it.

And that kind of brings us back to JC's point above... it hasn't happened
yet.

By: papa

papa — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:21:47 +0000

I hear you re: cable. I'm certainly not rooting for them but I think they still have the strongest hand at this point in time. I asked another friend a few minutes ago why he went with Comcast DVR even though he said Tivo was superior (and had used it in the past). He said the $5 extra for Comcast DVR is a "no brainer" (and this is from a tech savvy guy).

I'm still a big fan of Hulu despite any misteps they've had recently with removed content.

I do think that it's interesting to see the ongoing tussles between Hulu and CBS/Tv.com. We sometimes romanticize the online players but there's as much brewing territoriality going on there as there is in the more traditional media playgrounds (such as Hulu disabling embedded content on CBS/Tv.com properties).

As consumers we just kind sit there and try to scurry whatever the best, easiest, cheapest will be whatever our needs. At least that's how I operate. I think the iTunes a la carte approach is fantastic. But at the same time, if I can watch the show on Hulu, there's just no way I'll be buying an episode. But that's just me. Obviously other consumers have a valid need/use to buy one-off episodes.

By: webomatica

webomatica — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:45:15 +0000

I think another problem with TIVO is it really only makes any sense if you
have cable, because it needs content to put on it. And with that being the
case, the cable companies just needed to offer their own boxes and the
product was toast.

Meanwhile another interesting development is this whole cable alternative
movement - people watching TV shows on Hulu, Apple TV, Roku, Amazon, etc.
There were recently a few articles saying cable companies plan to put a stop
to this by including free content on their own websites, to current cable
subscribers.

Again, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. And I'm obviously
rooting for the camp against the cable companies.

By: papa

papa — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:27:43 +0000

Personally I don’t blame the consumer for this. If there’s an easier option that’s less expensive and keeps their life simpler (e.g. one consolidated statement) the onus is partially on the service providers to offer a more compelling alternative to the cable company’s bundled service (regardless of our disdain for these providers).

By: papa

papa — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:19:30 +0000

I think bundled integrated services can be tough to beat. I work with 2 guys who both have/had Tivo and both say Tivo had a superior interface/ease of use compared to the Comcast DVRs that they are now using. BUT...apparently the Comcast DVR is integrated with the Comcast Digital menu system and you get the bundled pricing so that's why they went with it.

I can see that mainstream America, which largely may not be aware of Tivo, would just go straight to using the DVRs + OnDemand + Hulu + Netflix + iTunes. Wow...when you talk about it that way it's a crowded space with a lot of compelling alternatives. I guess that's part of what must be hurting Tivo.

By: webomatica

webomatica — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:58:28 +0000

While I find your assessment of the average TV watcher's motivation to
learn something new depressing, personal observation tends to agree
with you. Most of the folks I know who swear by TiVO are on the nerdy
side, and all my "aged relatives" can't be bothered to even set it up.

By: jcieplinski

jcieplinski — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:41:09 +0000

TiVo is dying because it has always been a failing niche product. Yes, the widespread availability of content on Hulu, iTunes, and other places, combined with cable companies offering their own DVRs is accelerating the decline, but even at its peak, TiVo was losing money. Kind of proves all those people who insisted that Apple should buy TiVo or add DVR capabilities to the AppleTV wrong, doesn't it?

Watching TV for the average person is sort of like using Internet Explorer. Sure, the experience sucks, but it came pre-installed, so why bother adding something new, which involves a learning curve or maybe costs more money, even if it is way better?

Most people never learned how to program the clocks on their VCRs back in the 80s, either. They weren't about to learn how to use the TiVo.

It's hard enough getting people to CHANGE CHANNELS every now and then. They couldn't care less about watching commercials. They complain about it all day long, but when it comes time to DO something about it, nothing.

These are the same people who still type out URLS in their browsers for sites they go to every day, because they don't bother learning how to create bookmarks. Why are we surprised that the majority of people don't know what an RSS feed is?

It's an odd but common form of laziness. People are so reluctant to invest a little bit of effort into learning something new, even if that new thing would make their lives significantly easier in a short while.

So the TiVo, while a brilliant concept, was doomed to fail from the get go.