TiVo Community Forum

TiVo Community Forum Archive 2
Covering threads with a last post date between
July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005.
THIS IS A READ ONLY SITE
 


 

SEARCH  |  ARCHIVE 1 MAIN SITE

 
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-23-2003, 04:18 PM   #151 (Print)
BrettStah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 4,323
By the way, this whole discussion of suing DirecTV over this is a great example of why we need a "loser pays" system for our civil legal system.

__________________
Brett

It's all fun and games, until someone loses an eye.
BrettStah is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 04:30 PM   #152 (Print)
Fish Man
Chubby Hubby
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Covington, Louisiana
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally posted by Rombaldi

Its the best word I can use without a moderator getting on my butt, but that rather inane, ludicrous and completely specious comparision you just made shows your intent better than anything I could do


I have never personally attacked you, or anyone else in any post in this thread.

Never! Not Once!

My "intent" is do discuss the merits of suing DirecTV because the USB ports on the DirecTiVos don't do this or that.

My opinion is that such a suit would be the epitome of frivolous, and less than merit-less.

You clearly do not agree with this and use words like "hateful" and "inane" to describe my opinion.

I stand solidly by my analogy that you call "inane".

Please answer this question, it is not rhetorical:

The DirecTiVo does not have multiple quality settings. (It lacks an MPEG encoder that would permit it to have them, strengthening my point that the DirecTiVo and Stand Alone TiVo are SEPARATE products.)

So, do you think a lawsuit is in order over the fact the DirecTiVo doesn't have multiple quality settings? You are arguing that it's "deceptive advertising" that it doesn't have EVERY feature a stand alone has. What about multiple quality settings?

How is the fact that both products carry the "TiVo" brand name relevant? Why does it necessitate they have identical features?

If I buy a Ford Crown Victoria, can I sue because it doesn't have a pick up truck bed like the F150 does? After all, they both carry the "Ford" brand name!

__________________
1 DirecTV HR10-250 (HD-DirecTiVo - Stock)
1 Hughes GXCEBOTD Rescued from the post-Katrina rubble, still works!! (146 Hour)
1 R-10 (stock)
Fish Man is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 04:45 PM   #153 (Print)
Rombaldi
MPEG Packet Picker
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally posted by Fish Man
I have never personally attacked you, or anyone else in any post in this thread.Never! Not Once!


And I didn't say you did...

Quote:
The DirecTiVo does not have multiple quality settings. (It lacks an MPEG encoder that would permit it to have them, strengthening my point that the DirecTiVo and Stand Alone TiVo are SEPARATE products.)


That's would be analogous to saying that a VHS deck that didn't record at SLP speed 'wasn't a VHS deck'. No the Series2/HDVR2's DO NOT have an MPEG encoder with multiple quality settings, it dosen't need it (not that it shouldn't have it and be able to record OTA, but that would defeat the purpose of having DTV wouldn't it). Neither does it claim to.

But having an MPEG2 encoder with multiple quality settings DOES NOT = TIVO. A ReplayTV has the same thing, as does both my Panasonic E80 DVD Recorders, as does the new Pioneer DVD Recorder with Tivo Service (which as a data point, has DIFFERENT QUALITY SETTINGS as a Series 2 unit, both in bitrate and resolution, does that make it LESS a TiVo??)

What DOES make a TiVo is the abilty to record the DATA FED TO THE HARDDRIVE (in the case of the SA's it must be encoded, in the case of the HDVR2's it's already encoded), THE WAY THAT DATA is manipulated and managed and THE CAPABILITES ASSOCIATED WITH TIVO.

IN the case of the Series 2 units, equiped with USB ports, running 3.1 software THAT IMPLICATION INCLUDES BEING ABLE TO USE THOSE USB PORTS FOR CONTACT WITH TIVO (not DirectTV, TIVO).

Quote:
If I buy a Ford Crown Victoria, can I sue because it doesn't have a pick up truck bed like the F150 does? After all, they both carry the "Ford" brand name!


If they put the Crown Victora name on a pickup truck, then you might have a case.. as would they if they put the F150 name on a sedan.

Let me know when you want to talk apples and apples, not some 'fruit salad' arguement.
Rombaldi is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 05:02 PM   #154 (Print)
kdmorse
Devil's Advocate
High Score: 479820 Asteroids Champ!
 
kdmorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 806
IN the case of the Series 2 units, equipped with USB ports, running 3.1 software THAT IMPLICATION INCLUDES BEING ABLE TO USE THOSE USB PORTS FOR CONTACT WITH TIVO (not DirectTV, TIVO).

I was going to wade in up to my neck on the entire subject, but after typing a few paragraphs, decided not to get that deeply involved.

Let me just say that USB support did not come along (officially) until Version 4.0 of the software. You have discounted the fact that you CAN activate the USB ports on the DirecTivo's through unofficial means.

Thus, you cannot claim that "DirecTV with Tivo" at the 3.x level implies all the features of "Tivo" at the 4.0 level. You *can* imply all the official features at the equivalent 3.x level if you like, and guess what, they're all there.

We can argue till the cows come home as to whether or not USB support is now an integral part of the TIVO service, and implied with the Tivo name. You would say it is, I would say it isn't.

It's the pickle on my hamburger, not the beef itself. Calling it a Hamburger implies beef without question. But not ALL hamburgers come with pickles on them. And just because one Hamburger has a pickle every time, is no reason to assume that ALL Hamburgers have pickles.

However, you cannot argue that it was an integral and inseparable feature in 3.x, because it didn't exist as a feature. (Remember, you've already stated that unsupported actions to enable the ports doesn't count). Therefore, it didn't exist. And there is no valid reason to assume that full USB support would exist in 3.x on the corresponding DirecTivo's.

If DirecTivo releases a version 4.0, and it includes disabled USB ports, than at least that portion of your argument holds a small amount of water. Until then, nada...

-Ken

__________________
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"Stop slouching! It's two O'clock in the afternoon, PUT PANTS ON!"
kdmorse is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 05:03 PM   #155 (Print)
Trent Bates
Registered User
 
Trent Bates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Northglenn, CO, USA
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally posted by Rombaldi
If they put the Crown Victora name on a pickup truck, then you might have a case.. as would they if they put the F150 name on a sedan.

Let me know when you want to talk apples and apples, not some 'fruit salad' arguement.


WHAT! Fish Man was comparing apples to apples. You have it wrong. Ford is the brand name/the company name like TiVo is the brand/company name.
Stand-Alone is the pickup and DirecTiVo the Crown Vic. (or vice-versa)

It's a very good analogy.

BUT, if the ports are powered as mentioned above, and the necessary parts are connected between the ports and the circuit board, and the software is not taking advantage of the hardware... Then nothing has been falsely advertised.
There are indeed 2 USB 2.0 ports on the unit. There's just not a way to use them for anything that interacts with the software. But you CAN use them for your USB toothbrush.

Last edited by Trent Bates : 10-23-2003 at 05:06 PM.
Trent Bates is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 05:34 PM   #156 (Print)
Fish Man
Chubby Hubby
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Covington, Louisiana
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally posted by Rombaldi

But having an MPEG2 encoder with multiple quality settings DOES NOT = TIVO. A ReplayTV has the same thing, as does both my Panasonic E80 DVD Recorders, as does the new Pioneer DVD Recorder with Tivo Service (which as a data point, has DIFFERENT QUALITY SETTINGS as a Series 2 unit, both in bitrate and resolution, does that make it LESS a TiVo??)

What DOES make a TiVo is the ability to record the DATA FED TO THE HARDDRIVE (in the case of the SA's it must be encoded, in the case of the HDVR2's it's already encoded), THE WAY THAT DATA is manipulated and managed and THE CAPABILITES ASSOCIATED WITH TIVO.

IN the case of the Series 2 units, equiped with USB ports, running 3.1 software THAT IMPLICATION INCLUDES BEING ABLE TO USE THOSE USB PORTS FOR CONTACT WITH TIVO (not DirectTV, TIVO).


So.

You say " having an MPEG2 encoder with multiple quality settings DOES NOT = TIVO"

And then you say:

"IN the case of the Series 2 units, equipped with USB ports, running 3.1 software THAT IMPLICATION INCLUDES BEING ABLE TO USE THOSE USB PORTS FOR CONTACT WITH TIVO (not DirectTV, TIVO)."

So, you are trying to have it both ways.

You acknowledge that the DirecTiVo and the Stand Alone are different products with different abilities vis-a-vis containing an MPEG encoder, and therefore able/vs unable to record at different bit rates.

You also acknowledge that an MPEG encoder is unnecessary (and arguably not-desireable) in a DirecTiVo because it records MPEG data from the satellite data stream directly.

This is additional evidence to my point. They are different products! In a very real sense, it is the DirecTiVo and Stand Alone Tivo that aren't "an apple and an apple"!

Yet you go on to say that by-golly that TiVo logo on the face plate jolly well means it better have a particular USB port feature (and an "easter-egg" feature at that, in the 3.x code base) or it's fraud and DECEPTION!!!

They are NOT identical products. They cannot be expected to have identical features. Nor do you get to pick which features it's OK not to be identical between them and which features (because you want them to be) MUST be!

Crown Vic vs. F150 analogy again. They are different products from the same brand name.

Edit to fix a couple of typos.

__________________
1 DirecTV HR10-250 (HD-DirecTiVo - Stock)
1 Hughes GXCEBOTD Rescued from the post-Katrina rubble, still works!! (146 Hour)
1 R-10 (stock)

Last edited by Fish Man : 10-23-2003 at 06:45 PM.
Fish Man is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 08:23 PM   #157 (Print)
phone1
?????????
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 6,875
Quote:
Originally posted by Rombaldi
Matter of fact, yes it would... if a Best Buy drone told you that you could hook it up to the USB, and there was nothing ON DISPLAY on ON THE OUTSIDE of the box to dispute it, then both DTV and BB would be liable (Best Buy is acting as the authorized agent for DirecTV).

spend a little time researching this before you start slamming those of us who have... my ghods, a real legal person has chimmed in here (not a 'thinks they know it all') and said that this DOES have merit (not that they would file it, but).
My point was you don't just show up in court and say some unnamed, unknown person told you this or that and expect to be believed.

Feel free, however, to chimm in any time...

__________________
HDVR2 35 Hrs. -> 212 Hrs. with TwinBreeze™
TiVo Series 2 60 Hrs. -> 223 Hrs.
SVR-2000 - stock
Best Universal Remote (for the money - $18): OFA URC-6131
phone1 is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 08:29 PM   #158 (Print)
dmwierz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 155
Send a message via AIM to dmwierz
Hey, when I bought my most recent DSR 7000 at Best Buy, just for fun i asked the guy there what the USB ports were for (on the list of features on the front of the box, the very FIRST feature listed, ahead of all other features was "USB 2.0 ports for future use") and the guy told me they were for hooking up a keyboard, although he said he had no idea why you might want to use a keyboard...
dmwierz is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 10:21 PM   #159 (Print)
MrPink
Inspector TiVEAU
 
MrPink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 34
I can't believe I read through this entire thread.

But since I have, I want to say something. I think that the idea of suing DTV over this is ridiculous, and I agree with the earlier post who said something like, "...this is why we need loser pays..." That being said:

We're really arguing over the box that the unit came in.

I know that when I got my HDVR2 just a few weeks ago, the box I got must have been an old one, because it doesn't have the "future use" disclaimer on it. I know when I saw the listing of the USB 2.0 ports on the unit, I presumed that I could in fact do something with those ports. I didn't know what it was yet, but that didn't matter. I think any ordinary consumer who sees a feature listed on a box or in an ad for an item (that doesn't have some sort of disclaimer on it) is entitled to presume that the feature does what similar or identical features on other products do. Courts tend to agree with this premise, and this is why someone mentioned the "implied warranty" earlier.

Consider the guy who has seen his friend's TiVo with USB functionality. Okay, he doesn't know everything, but he knows that his friend does all sorts of neat things with his USB TiVo, and this is a DTiVo here at the store, and it has USB ports just like his friend's does, and they talk about those ports right on the box. Wow, what a neat toy! He decides to buy one. It's completely reasonable for that consumer to expect those ports to be exactly the same as other current TiVos, and for the DTiVo to do essentially the same things that his friend's unit does, unless he is told otherwise or has reason to expect otherwise. This isn't the case here. All the logos and the trademarks and the representations blend together to make an impression, and the box reinforces this. This thing is a TiVo, his friend has a similar TiVo, it has the stuff on it, and this one looks like it should work about the same. You can't expect every buyer who gets an old box to be at this or similar websites to find out differently.

And NO FAIR changing the deal with a sneak-wrap "by opening this box you agree to all the terms hidden inside" EULA stating that DTV can change whatever they want, whenever they want at their whim. (They must have taken this cue from Microsoft- this is why I won't run a version of Windows newer than 2000 SP2- the EULA changes at SP3.)

Now, people who get the unit with the new box shouldn't have the same expectation, because it clearly states that the ports are for future use. But for those who got the old one, I can see where this might be upsetting.

I don't know what the remedy is (it's certainly not a lawsuit), but I agree that it's worth at least talking about this- it's something DTV shouldn't have done.

-Pink

__________________
This sure is some swell trash!
MrPink is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 11:51 PM   #160 (Print)
directivoetherne
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 34
So, I have to say of all the posts on the other side, some of the later posts of Fishman made me take another look at the issue. Of the two issues 1) the software itself and 2) the functionality of the USB ports. Fishman talked about issue #2, the USB ports, and how companies in the past have released products with technology that did not necessarily have a practical use.

It's a thought provoking point but at the end of the day he is arguing from the particular to the general. The DirectV with TIVO facts and circumstances are different because they are promising a certain set of experiences and features associated with those brands and products. So you expect to have the same software, features and functionality that you would with an actual Tivo unit or an SA. What most companies do in this situation is sell the product but make it clear that clear that it is "modified" or different in some way so consumers know they are in for something different and can make an informed decision.

Now you have a situation where consumers are wondering where there TIVO update is, ask TIVO for the upgrade for their units and are told they are not supported by TIVO but by DTV instead. Who knows, post Newscorp merger DTV may use the software out of England Murdoch is so fond of. Your next software rev may come with a British accent with no Tivo menus

Lastly. for those who say yeah we agree on being being ticked off but a lawsuit isn't this answer. Do any have ideas on what is a better solution to get them to change?
directivoetherne is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-23-2003, 11:57 PM   #161 (Print)
phone1
?????????
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 6,875
Quote:
Originally posted by directivoetherne
Lastly. for those who say yeah we agree on being being ticked off but a lawsuit isn't this answer. Do any have ideas on what is a better solution to get them to change?
The way most products and services are developed in our free market economy: consumer demand, which will have to be met either by them or the competition. If you are in the minority you can't sue companies to force them to modify their products to suit your particular needs.

__________________
HDVR2 35 Hrs. -> 212 Hrs. with TwinBreeze™
TiVo Series 2 60 Hrs. -> 223 Hrs.
SVR-2000 - stock
Best Universal Remote (for the money - $18): OFA URC-6131
phone1 is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 12:02 AM   #162 (Print)
directivoetherne
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 34
This is a good counter argument by FM. My response below each.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fish Man
[B]The problem with this argument is that a USB port is such a flexible and generic device. It can do a whole myriad of things (including nothing). You assumed that it would allow you to do specific things with your DirecTiVo. Someone else might assume it would allow them to do something else.

>>No I just assumed it would work the way ANY TIVO would with USB ports. In terms of using htem for nothing, if they wanted to do that, they shouldn't put it on the box, or advertside it in any way. Better yet, describe how the units are different. Use a * and put it in the fine print for goodness sakes.

Should we sue if they don't do every function we might dream up that they could potentially do?

>>No but if the products are different, will be supported differently, and will have different features they should disclose that. That's why they changed the language on the boxes to add "future use". Still bad language tho and I still don't think they do enough to disclose its really a different product.

As the DirecTiVo is a fairly specific purpose consumer device, one certainly could not expect its USB ports to feature the range of uses that they might be used for on a PC. It's going to be a sub-set of potential uses. If your pet desire isn't met by what USB functionality they might eventually offer , do you sue?

>>See above.
directivoetherne is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 12:05 AM   #163 (Print)
directivoetherne
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally posted by phone1
The way most products and services are developed in our free market economy: consumer demand, which will have to be met either by them or the competition. If you are in the minority you can't sue companies to force them to modify their products to suit your particular needs.


Exactly ZERO people have suggested this. The point is to make them accountable for what they marketed, advertised and promised. It's a free market economy, but people need to be able to rely on the guarantee that companies can't mislead them.
directivoetherne is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 12:47 AM   #164 (Print)
kdmorse
Devil's Advocate
High Score: 479820 Asteroids Champ!
 
kdmorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 806
Lastly. for those who say yeah we agree on being being ticked off but a lawsuit isn't this answer. Do any have ideas on what is a better solution to get them to change?

I have absolutely no idea how the folks at DTV got a stick shoved so far up their a$$'s that they believe we don't want these features. They seem to genuinely believe both that there is no real interest, and that the added complexity of adding these features would add unreasonable complexity to their product, and scare away customers. The just don't like to give their customers new features, altering their supposedly currently perfect product seems to scare them for some reason.

Or perhaps that's not it at all. Those who have information on the topic aren't talking, leaving those of us that don't to stand back and speculate.

But somehow, someway, we need to get that metaphorical stick pulled out of DTV's a$$ and thwap them soundly over the head with it. Repeatedly if necessary...

-Ken

__________________
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"Stop slouching! It's two O'clock in the afternoon, PUT PANTS ON!"
kdmorse is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 12:52 AM   #165 (Print)
SpankWare
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally posted by directivoetherne
Exactly ZERO people have suggested this. The point is to make them accountable for what they marketed, advertised and promised. It's a free market economy, but people need to be able to rely on the guarantee that companies can't mislead them.


Here you go stretching it again. DirecTV delivered to you exactly what they marketed, advertised and promised. Just because you made bold assumptions about what the product will do doesn't mean they have not held up their end of the bargin.

DirecTV did not mislead you, you mislead yourself. You can't pin your dashed hopes (because that's all they were, your hopes) on DirecTV. Sue yourself.

__________________
(1) Sony SAT-T60
(3) Phillips DSR7000 (modified)
(1) Hughes HDVR2 (modified)
(1) Hughes SD-DVR40 (soon-to-be modified)
SpankWare is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 01:02 AM   #166 (Print)
directivoetherne
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 34
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpankWare
[B] DirecTV delivered to you exactly what they marketed, advertised and promised. Just because you made bold assumptions about what the product will do doesn't mean they have not held up their end of the bargin.

There you go making statements again without backing them up. Tell me why the average consumer wasn't misled?

"Here you go stretching it again."


Hmn- what again---, I don't recall you posting replies to me stating i am stretching anything before. Perhaps you are a distant relative to that skallywag pixel freak who last seen running for the hinterlands
directivoetherne is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 01:21 AM   #167 (Print)
phone1
?????????
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 6,875
Quote:
Originally posted by directivoetherne
Exactly ZERO people have suggested this. The point is to make them accountable for what they marketed, advertised and promised. It's a free market economy, but people need to be able to rely on the guarantee that companies can't mislead them.
You must be a practitioner of fuzzy math. I suggested it so the number can't be zero. There's also a sticky thread and petition asking DTV to add HMO, etc. That's consumer pressure.

Really, must we resort to torts for every petty disagreement in this country?

__________________
HDVR2 35 Hrs. -> 212 Hrs. with TwinBreeze™
TiVo Series 2 60 Hrs. -> 223 Hrs.
SVR-2000 - stock
Best Universal Remote (for the money - $18): OFA URC-6131
phone1 is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 01:27 AM   #168 (Print)
directivoetherne
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 34
by Phone1 "If you are in the minority you can't sue companies to force them to modify their products to suit your particular needs. "

Phone--this is the line you wrote i am referring to my response is:

Exactly ZERO people have suggested this. The point is to make them accountable for what they marketed, advertised and promised. It's a free market economy, but people need to be able to rely on the guarantee that companies can't mislead them.
directivoetherne is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 01:29 AM   #169 (Print)
phone1
?????????
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 6,875
Quote:
Originally posted by directivoetherne
Perhaps you are a distant relative to that skallywag pixel freak who last seen running for the hinterlands...
Yep, I guess you sure showed him allright. Now do you have anything else to contribute to this forum or are you just a a one-topic, one-time poster?

__________________
HDVR2 35 Hrs. -> 212 Hrs. with TwinBreeze™
TiVo Series 2 60 Hrs. -> 223 Hrs.
SVR-2000 - stock
Best Universal Remote (for the money - $18): OFA URC-6131
phone1 is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 05:52 AM   #170 (Print)
JPriller
just some guy
 
JPriller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally posted by directivoetherne
Lastly. for those who say yeah we agree on being being ticked off but a lawsuit isn't this answer. Do any have ideas on what is a better solution to get them to change?
There's the HMO petition, but I don't think online petitions get a company's attention particularly well. It's too easy for someone who only feels luke-warm about the issue to click and add their name to it.

Maybe a letter-writing campaign - not form letters, lots of actual letters in peoples' own words explaining their want for the feature. That sort of thing can get attention, it's the sort of thing the DirecTV marketing whosits can point to in a board meeting.

If you start a lawsuit the whole thing immediately becomes confrontational. Rather than "what do our customers want?" it becomes "what's the quickest and cheapest way to make this problem go away?" I think anyone who answers that last question with "let's pay TiVo to develop a new software version for us, and we'll roll it out" is fooling themselves.

Then there's the "lesson learned" thing. What does DirecTV learn from a letter-writing campaign? That they have loyal customers that want some improvements. What do they learn from a lawsuit? That being connected to this TiVo thing is a bad idea - any time the stand-alone version gets something new, some yahoos are going to file a lawsuit because the DirecTV line doesn't have the new bell or whistle and it says "TiVo" on that box too.

__________________
WWJKD - what would Jim Kirk do?
JPriller is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 07:32 AM   #171 (Print)
lew
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally posted by directivoetherne
Exactly ZERO people have suggested this. The point is to make them accountable for what they marketed, advertised and promised. It's a free market economy, but people need to be able to rely on the guarantee that companies can't mislead them.


The idea of a lawsuit is pretty weak. Directv NEVER promised, marketed or advertised ANY specific use for the USB ports. They NEVER said the software could be modified by the user to add new features. I NEVER saw any official Directv release concerning HMO or any other use. I'm sure Directv will "turn on" the ports WHEN they have a released product that requires them.

When the ports were first mentioned people we were going to use them for their daily phone call. Directv has basically dropped the daily phone call requirement.

Directv will add HMO when the believe the increased revenue (fees, better retention) will exceed the extra costs (Tivo fees and customer support) by enough to be worthwhile to them.
lew is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 07:42 AM   #172 (Print)
Thespis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 341
BTW, I looked at the trademark statement (the complete statement not the partial one posted earlier). It contains a trademark for Directway just before the Tivo trademark.
Should I be mad because my DirecTivo can't get Internet access from the satellite?
Thespis is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 07:49 AM   #173 (Print)
blhirsch
Tivo-riffic!
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Fish Man
Please answer this question, it is not rhetorical:

The DirecTiVo does not have multiple quality settings. (It lacks an MPEG encoder that would permit it to have them, strengthening my point that the DirecTiVo and Stand Alone TiVo are SEPARATE products.)

So, do you think a lawsuit is in order over the fact the DirecTiVo doesn't have multiple quality settings? You are arguing that it's "deceptive advertising" that it doesn't have EVERY feature a stand alone has. What about multiple quality settings?

How is the fact that both products carry the "TiVo" brand name relevant? Why does it necessitate they have identical features?

If I buy a Ford Crown Victoria, can I sue because it doesn't have a pick up truck bed like the F150 does? After all, they both carry the "Ford" brand name!


Ok, this is a good question. Let's take this step by step. Nobody is denying that these units are, in the end, separate units with separate functions and separate software. We know this. We've found this out.

Nobody is arguing that the right to sue stems from the fact that there are differences.

The mere fact that differences exist is fine.

And NOBODY is suggesting we sue just because we want new features or that there just happen to be differences. Law suits are for remedying WRONGS, and I'm not suggesting we sue because there are differences. (I'm not suggesting we sue at all....) I'm not wronged by the fact that MY TiVo happens to operate, on the inside or through certain lines of software, differently than my neighbor's comcast/standalone TiVo. Or, say, that it looks differently. It's reasonable to assume that it would have to differ to a certain degree, given that I have DirecTV and he has Comcast and mine is also my DirecTV receiver. That's a reasonable thing to hold a general consumer to understand.

What the argument has been is that certain functions were SPECIFICALLY advertised and given the marketing context at the time (other TiVo users who were using these functions for specific purposes), advertising that the unit has "USB Ports" while also saying it's a "TiVo" with the TiVo logo splashed all over the box leads to a reasonable assumption by the common consumer that such ports are available and capable of use like other TiVo users were doing. At the time these HDVR2s came out, TiVo was rolling out its series 2 tivos and touting the USB ports as being capable of specific functions. When you put "USB Ports" on the front of a DirecTiVo box, and call it a DirecTV DVR powered by TiVo" and liberally sprinkle TiVo logo everywhere, it's not such a crazy leap to think that they work and they do what other standalone tivos were doing, and advertised as doing, at the time. And in fact, to the average consumer, the two products pretty much ARE identical. My very technologically unsavvy neighbors who have TiVo with Comcast came in and operated my DirecTivo with no problem. Same clicker. Same looking screen....Functionally, we very much own Tivos. So the wronged people were those who bought tivos under the guise of seeing the "USB Ports" on the box, and concluded that they were useful for the same things that other current users of TiVo were getting. That's it. We're not even talking about those who "discovered" their TiVo had ports and never tried to use them or know what they were for. We're talking specifically about the people who purchased a TiVo under the erroneous understanding that DirecTV's advertisement on the box of USB Ports meant that these would work just like the USB Ports on standalone units being sold at the time. DirecTV had to know that such purchases were going to flow from such advertisement and got to set their price point higher because of it.

Those who buy DirecTivos expect and know that there will be certain kinds of differences. However, I think it's reasonable to say that a lot of them didn't know that extended to the inability to use the USB Ports that everybody was so excited about with series2, especially when their existence was splashed right there on the box.

So, just to review, it's not that these boxes actually happen to be different when you get down to the guts of it. It's that there are certain reasonable assumptions you can make about the functionality of the two products and how they should operate.

When you ask "How is the fact that both products carry the 'TiVo' brand name relevant? Why does it necessitate they have identical features?" my answer is that no, it is not necessary that they have identical features, but that the features that are advertised identically should perform identically. Why is the "TiVo" logo relevant? Because it implies, at a minimum, a certain thing. TiVo means TiVo. Consumers have to be able to rely on that to some degree.

This is where the law is working FOR the consumer. Without a lot of the teeth that class actions give consumers, many, many harmful products would still be on the market. And just because the lack of USB functionality isn't something dangerous doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to make companies adhere to the promises they make. It's a good system of checks and balances and despite how it looks in the general media, truly frivolous class actions rarely get certified as classes. I'm not saying our legal system doesn't have flaws, it does, but in the end it works and works very well. It's important to keep access to our courts open even if it means that a few nutty claims slip through. Far better that scenario than a system where there are punitive consequences to plaintiffs, who are usually individuals...

So much of our consumer protection law was created because individuals who never could have "taken on" a company in the corporate boardroom or by petition were given open access to our court system. The history of our law and the way our courts are structured are really quite amazing. It's unfair to look at the way the media splashes certain crazy suits on the news and think that's how the system works overall. Overall, the system gets the job done, and quite well. An overwhelming majority of cases never get to a courtroom because they are frivolous. And even if they do, far more never make it to appeal. When a suit is truly frivolous, we DO have mechanisms to make the loser pay. Prevailing defendants in such suits can and do file for costs for the time and effort expended on frivolous litigation filed against them. And it happens. It happens a lot. Sure there are accounts of companies who settle silly claims just to keep it out of the news, but in the end our court system just does what it was designed to do.

I know you didn't ask about that, but someone else did, so I thought I would address it.

I hope I've answered your question.
blhirsch is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 07:58 AM   #174 (Print)
Thespis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 341
Quote:
advertising that the unit has "USB Ports" while also saying it's a "TiVo" with the TiVo logo splashed all over the box leads to a reasonable assumption by the common consumer that such ports are available and capable of use like other TiVo users were doing.

Quote:
When you put "USB Ports" on the front of a DirecTiVo box, and call it a DirecTV DVR powered by TiVo" and liberally sprinkle TiVo logo everywhere, it's not such a crazy leap to think that they work and they do what other standalone tivos were doing, and advertised as doing, at the time.

I spent some time looking at the box yesterday. (I know; crazy, isn't it?)
Mine doesn't say DirecTV powered by Tivo. Mine simply says it's a DirecTV Digital Satellite Recorder. The Tivo logo appears only once on the front of the box.
That's a bit different from "splashed all over the box" and "liberally sprinkle(d)". Your box may be different, but if we're going to base arguments on what the box says, I think it's relevant.
Thespis is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 08:31 AM   #175 (Print)
Fish Man
Chubby Hubby
 
Fish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Covington, Louisiana
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally posted by blhirsch

When you ask "How is the fact that both products carry the 'TiVo' brand name relevant? Why does it necessitate they have identical features?" my answer is that no, it is not necessary that they have identical features, but that the features that are advertised identically should perform identically. Why is the "TiVo" logo relevant? Because it implies, at a minimum, a certain thing. TiVo means TiVo. Consumers have to be able to rely on that to some degree.


I agree with the legal principals and consumer protection points of your post.

IMHO, there is one big whopping hole in all this arguing:

The "features" that people are talking about suing over were NEVER advertised "identically"!

DirecTV never advertised or promised that the DirecTiVo would support HMO, for example. NEVER!

If they had advertised that, you'd have grounds for action. But they most absolutely, positively have not!

Rombaldi is wanting to sue because the DirecTiVo doesn't have a particular undocumented "easter-egg" feature that the stand alone has forcrissakes!

The stand alone, if you put in a "special" dialing code, it causes it to assume it has a broadband connection via the USB port and hit the TiVo servers that way instead of dialing the phone. Even on the stand alone this is an undocumented, unofficial, unsupported feature! (At least in the 3.X code series.) There'd be no case for action if TiVo removed this function from the stand-alone!!!

Just for laughs, I looked at my box last night. I have an early HDVR2, purchased when it had been available no more than 6 weeks.

Nowhere on the box does the text have the word "TiVo". It calls it a "DirecTV Digital Video Recorder". The "TiVo guy" logo appears as a small icon, along with several other small icons, such as the DD Dolby symbol, the DirecTV "cyclone" and a couple of other icons in a couple of spots on the box. There is a bullet-list of features on the box. One of the bullet items is "USB ports", but it says nothing else about them. On the front of the unit itself, is a small "TiVo Guy" icon.

And, as I have said, that's not relevant anyway. If TiVo chose to market a microwave oven tomorrow, they have the right to do that. You couldn't expect the "TiVo brand Microwave Oven" to have all the features of a stand alone TiVo PVR.

Now, I'd like to address directivoetherne's question/comment about what can we do other than a lawsuit to get the features we want added to the DirecTiVo.

Well, let me start by saying that I know from good authority the it is DirecTV's intention to continue adding new features to the DirecTiVo for awhile. Some of these features may make use of the USB ports, some may not.

DirecTV may move a little more slowly than TiVo, and they may "play their hand more close to the vest" than TiVo, not revealing their plans as readily. But that's the way they are, that is what it is.

So, what can we do to help them "hear" our wishes.

First, a lawsuit would certainly be counter-productive. I'm sure if they were facing a lawsuit over the way they'd implemented the software in this thing, there's no way in hell we'd get any new features or upgrades, EVER! Why should they spend engineering resources giving us feature upgrades when someone's just going to SUE if those upgrades didn't happen to be exactly what they wanted!??

If we start suing because a product doesn't have the features we happened to want, they may say "to hell with it" and drop the product entirely!

Knowing that they are interested in enhancing the product. It follows they are listening to suggestions.

The petition can't hurt. I don't know exactly how much weight it carries with DirecTV, but it certainly can't hurt. It's a positive form of feedback.

Letters and emails would be the other way. State your wishes for new feature ideas (be they HMO or something else) in polite, business like letters or emails. I guarantee, lots of consensus in polite, well thought out emails will not be ignored.

Finally, have patience. DirecTV doesn't seem to move particularly fast on this sort of thing. Their focus so far, appears to have been getting a large enough "critical mass" of DirecTiVos into the hands of subscribers to make embarking on feature enhancements worthwhile.


__________________
1 DirecTV HR10-250 (HD-DirecTiVo - Stock)
1 Hughes GXCEBOTD Rescued from the post-Katrina rubble, still works!! (146 Hour)
1 R-10 (stock)
Fish Man is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 09:21 AM   #176 (Print)
aristoBrat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Va Beach, VA
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally posted by Fish Man
Rombaldi is wanting to sue because the DirecTiVo doesn't have a particular undocumented "easter-egg" feature that the stand alone has forcrissakes!

The stand alone, if you put in a "special" dialing code, it causes it to assume it has a broadband connection via the USB port and hit the TiVo servers that way instead of dialing the phone. Even on the stand alone this is an undocumented, unofficial, unsupported feature! (At least in the 3.X code series.) There'd be no case for action if TiVo removed this function from the stand-alone!!!

That'd be extremely funny if the outcome from this thread was that TiVo removed that feature from the SA's!

They could send a TiVo message to all of the SA boxes referring them to this thread...
aristoBrat is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 09:46 AM   #177 (Print)
blhirsch
Tivo-riffic!
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally posted by Fish Man
I agree with the legal principals and consumer protection points of your post.

IMHO, there is one big whopping hole in all this arguing:

The "features" that people are talking about suing over were NEVER advertised "identically"!

DirecTV never advertised or promised that the DirecTiVo would support HMO, for example. NEVER!

If they had advertised that, you'd have grounds for action. But they most absolutely, positively have not!


You are correct, they did not advertise HMO directly to DirecTV users. And that's really part of the problem. Use of the Tivo logo, TiVo brand name, USB Ports listed as a feature gave the DirecTiVo purchasing public the unwarranted idea that these things were available (or soon to be available) to them when TiVo, at the time, was actively promoting these wonderful whiz-bang features. So DirecTV got to reap the benefits of letting people assume that such things were to be available to them on a similar schedule with other TiVo users yet all without actually being bound to offer such features. That is the problem.

Quote:
Rombaldi is wanting to sue because the DirecTiVo doesn't have a particular undocumented "easter-egg" feature that the stand alone has forcrissakes!

Ok, I have no comment on this one. I'm not sure what you're referring to (don't really care either) but, in any event, that's for Rombaldi.


Quote:
The stand alone, if you put in a "special" dialing code, it causes it to assume it has a broadband connection via the USB port and hit the TiVo servers that way instead of dialing the phone. Even on the stand alone this is an undocumented, unofficial, unsupported feature! (At least in the 3.X code series.) There'd be no case for action if TiVo removed this function from the stand-alone!!!


The damage was done the instant people starting buying the product on the assumption that it could do so. It may have been undocumented but many agents of DirecTV (say, through CC and Best Buy) were telling customers it was something they could do. DirecTV is responsible for the reasonable assumptions consumers make within the context of how they sell the product. They can't just say "well, technically, we didn't say anything about HOW to use those USB Ports" or "We didn't say you could use HMO with your DirecTiVo...." That's just splitting hairs. All of this is why it becomes an interesting question of fact as to just what DirecTV was doing when it said USB Ports on the front of its box. Why pick THAT one rather than other interesting but currently unusable features of the unit? They had to know that people were going to expect them to work and that customers were going to say "gee, what can I use those USB Ports for?" and then look around to see what other TiVo users were doing with theirs. Aha, that seems like a great feature! It's, dare I say, sneaky. If they still wanted to advertise "USB Ports" on the box it was really somewhat incumbent upon them to make it clear it wasn't for current use. They do that now.

Quote:
Just for laughs, I looked at my box last night. I have an early HDVR2, purchased when it had been available no more than 6 weeks.


Did you laugh? I have to say, if you're looking for laughs this is not the way to spend one's evening. Might I suggest a good old fashioned viewing of Airplane! instead? That's good for laughs.

Ok, back to business:

Quote:
Nowhere on the box does the text have the word "TiVo". It calls it a "DirecTV Digital Video Recorder". The "TiVo guy" logo appears as a small icon, along with several other small icons, such as the DD Dolby symbol, the DirecTV "cyclone" and a couple of other icons in a couple of spots on the box. There is a bullet-list of features on the box. One of the bullet items is "USB ports", but it says nothing else about them. On the front of the unit itself, is a small "TiVo Guy" icon.


It's really not going to come down to how many icons are on the box. Let's back up a second and see the forest through the trees. Are you going to honestly maintain that you thought that TiVo WASN'T driving your DirecTV Digital Video Recorder?"

Quote:
And, as I have said, that's not relevant anyway. If TiVo chose to market a microwave oven tomorrow, they have the right to do that. You couldn't expect the "TiVo brand Microwave Oven" to have all the features of a stand alone TiVo PVR.

No, of course not. But these are not microwave ovens. They're all digital video recorders. Heck, Mitsubishi makes tuna fish (Three Diamonds Tuna--look at the logo, it's the same as on the car), and it's not like I'm maintaining the cans of tuna are going to drive me to work. This isn't a slippery slope argument, let's not try to make it into one.
Quote:
Now, I'd like to address directivoetherne's question/comment about what can we do other than a lawsuit to get the features we want added to the DirecTiVo.

Well, let me start by saying that I know from good authority the it is DirecTV's intention to continue adding new features to the DirecTiVo for awhile. Some of these features may make use of the USB ports, some may not.

DirecTV may move a little more slowly than TiVo, and they may "play their hand more close to the vest" than TiVo, not revealing their plans as readily. But that's the way they are, that is what it is.

So, what can we do to help them "hear" our wishes.

First, a lawsuit would certainly be counter-productive. I'm sure if they were facing a lawsuit over the way they'd implemented the software in this thing, there's no way in hell we'd get any new features or upgrades, EVER! Why should they spend engineering resources giving us feature upgrades when someone's just going to SUE if those upgrades didn't happen to be exactly what they wanted!??

If we start suing because a product doesn't have the features we happened to want, they may say "to hell with it" and drop the product entirely!

Knowing that they are interested in enhancing the product. It follows they are listening to suggestions.

The petition can't hurt. I don't know exactly how much weight it carries with DirecTV, but it certainly can't hurt. It's a positive form of feedback.

Letters and emails would be the other way. State your wishes for new feature ideas (be they HMO or something else) in polite, business like letters or emails. I guarantee, lots of consensus in polite, well thought out emails will not be ignored.

Finally, have patience. DirecTV doesn't seem to move particularly fast on this sort of thing. Their focus so far, appears to have been getting a large enough "critical mass" of DirecTiVos into the hands of subscribers to make embarking on feature enhancements worthwhile.



Ok, that's your tack. Others might feel swindled. For those that WERE misled, a lawsuit might be just the very thing. Or they could be like me, and having been misled aren't willing to take the steps necessary to make DirecTV pay for their improvident advertising choices through legal action. I'm not sure. But these are all the choices we make. It sounds like you're not going to be the lead plaintiff in this class action suit against DirecTV. Oh well. I'm sure they'll find someone. Or maybe they won't at all.

Point is, lawsuits can be good choices and bad choices. The strategic choice of whether to file one is very situation-specific. I have no real opinion on the merits of actually filing this suit and whether it would do more harm than good both to the general public and specifically to me. But assuming that such a suit were to be filed, there are many good reasons why it would be viable.
blhirsch is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 10:19 AM   #178 (Print)
SpankWare
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 266
blhirsch,
You keep using the term mislead. But the word is defined as "to lead in the wrong direction." DirecTV never led you or anybody else down the path you've painted. Anybody that had those conclusions built them on their own. You yourself have used the word assume a few times to support your argument. And it's those assumptions you or others might have made that mislead them, not DirecTV.

What amazes me is that a few are supporting this crazy idea that DirecTV did something wrong, but the majority don't agree. And yet these people who think it's a reasonable suit will never push forward, because deep down they know they can never win it.

I'm willing to do it if you are, put your money where your mouth is and hire an attorney. And if you win your suit, I'll admit I was wrong. Beyond that, you're just blowing hot air. I'm standing by my position, but will you stand by yours?

__________________
(1) Sony SAT-T60
(3) Phillips DSR7000 (modified)
(1) Hughes HDVR2 (modified)
(1) Hughes SD-DVR40 (soon-to-be modified)
SpankWare is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 10:26 AM   #179 (Print)
jfischer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally posted by blhirsch
The damage was done the instant people starting buying the product on the assumption that it could do so.


Hmmm. Now we're suing over ASSumptions about what a product could do, not based on what the vendor SAID it could do? Priceless.

Quote:
It may have been undocumented but many agents of DirecTV (say, through CC and Best Buy) were telling customers it was something they could do.


CC and Best Buy salespeople routinely tell people BS all day long. They're clueless, stupid, and uninformed. Since when is this DirecTV's fault? Could I sue Sony because some dolt at Best Buy told me I didn't need a HDTV receiver to actually see HDTV on a Sony HDTV set? I think not.

You people really, truly need to get a life...
jfischer is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
Old 10-24-2003, 10:53 AM   #180 (Print)
SLOmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SLO, CA
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally posted by aristoBrat
That'd be extremely funny if the outcome from this thread was that TiVo removed that feature from the SA's!
Now that would be cause for a class action lawsuit.....


Just kidding.

__________________
SAT-T60 (149 hours)
RCA DVR40 (120 hours) 6.2
Total Choice Plus w/ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC East/West Feeds and with Locals too
SLOmike is offline Report Bad Post Report Post
 
Forum Jump
Thread Tools

Go Back  TiVo Community Archive2 > Main TiVo Forums > DIRECTV Receiver with TiVo

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(C)opyright - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not affiliated with TiVo Inc.


Spider History Index