Hey, you guys! I know some people are visiting this discussion already. Let me know youve been here and give an opinion of this topic and my discussions naprosyn 500 webpage devoted to naprosyn 500. percocet withdrawal symptom webpage devoted to percocet withdrawal symptom. too!

10000 songs KTV

Just USD498, make your home become a private Karaoke room equiped with 10000 songs !!
If you want to enter karaoke business, we can quote you the budget of vod system.

Ö»ÐèHK$3888ʹÄú¼Ò׃³ÉÓÐÈfðNÊ×ÖÐÓ¢ÎĸèµÄ¿¨À­OK·¿!!
ÄúÔÚ»I‚äé_ÔO¿¨À­OKÉúÒâ†á? Œ£¼ÒÃâÙM½oÄúÒôí‘ϵ½yîAËã

http://www.vodoutlet.com

Info from the source:

http://www.twrochester.com/products/dvr.cfm

Yes, NO BIG DEAL and already available.

Edited by author 03-11-2003 12:59 AM
Full disclosure: I've been to MystroTV, I've signed an NDA, I've seen the demo, I work in a related industry.

Take a deep breath. There is nothing evil about network PVR. It does not restrict fair use of video. It does not "prevent" consumers from storing and sharing copies--- it simply does not offer that as part of the service. Does a VCR "prevent" skipping commercials because it has no "skip +30 seconds" function? Are we going to have to "fight" any technology which offers some benefits but not every one on our wish list?

Yes, implementing PVR at the head end does give the operator (and thus the content owner) more control. But there are good technical and even non-IP business reasons to do so as well. You don't have to program a network PVR system: everything from the past N days is just _there_. That's a lot closer to the "ethereal jukebox" than anything else we have post-Napster. And I'd imagine that can be pretty compelling for the average joe or jane.

The business reasons have to do with cost per stream and per home. Set-Top Boxes cost a lot of money. Going out and upgrading them to provide a new service is slow. But network PVR lets you deploy the PVR service--- and upgrade it to offer more features--- without doing a damn thing except a software upgrade. I think putting hard drives in everybody's STB is the truly non-scalable solution.

I find it hard to swallow the argument that they shouldn't develop a head-end service because they won't (and can't) offer the full set of features you think it should have. I think it's only positive to get this sort of service out there. It gets customers used to it--- and maybe wondering why their use is restricted. It allow operators and content owners to get their feet wet, and see that it doesn't destroy their business. Fears about efforts to make personal PVRs illegal shouldn't automatically imply hostility to network PVR. Heck, did you ever think that maybe some cable operators would like to offer more but face the same legal hurdles and aren't as able or willing to take the risk?

I've got an entry in my blog about Austin's current Time Warner system and how it relates to Mistro:

My tivo thinks I'm stupid
http://www.lerhaupt.com/foo/archives/000024.html

Does anyone between here and Slashdot really know what the hell is going on?

DVR service is already available by Time Warner Cable (not yet in NYC but they say this summer, I'm hoping)...yes the TiVo killer already exists in upstate NY. Same old cable box, same old(?!) VOD, but now a hard drive in the cable box...

What makes it special? Two things:
1) It's free if you are already paying for a cable box
2) Digital cable. I have been reluctant to purchase a TiVo or Replay due to the limitations of it with digital cable

Evil empire be damned, I need a good device for to record Ali G on digital HBO at 12:30AM on Friday nights. What's the big deal people this is nothing new and fills a void.

Wasn't anyone bothered by the fact that whatever idiot wrote the news story thinks PVRs need to be "rewound"?

I doubt AOLTW are thinking or even care if they're being "smart". Like M$, they have money, market share and a captive audience down whose throats they can shove anything they like.

People ask "How can they be so stupid. Consumers will never fall for that!?!??"
The EntertainmentIndustrialComplex isn't being stupid. They're just being themselves. It's been gloves off time for a couple years now in case you haven't noticed. They know that can't win if it's a matter of choice and they've got the ability to make sure you won't have one.
There is a reason they call us "consumers".

Personally, I hope the thing goes the way of DIVX, but there's a real chance Replay and TiVO are playing Netscape to AOLTWs IE here.

This is just new packaging for that old classic Video On Demand (VOD). Unless the TiVo and Replay patents are very broad, they likely don't cover offering this as a service in this fashion.

If they've done their job right, this is just a service that is delivered through your existing cable box. In that case, for many people there is no upfront cost - they just start paying the monthly fee. That can be a huge attraction over the several hundred dollars needed to install a PVR.

The technical concerns expressed are those of VOD. But there is a middle ground, which may be AOLTW's target in the background. Launch a VOD service to get the market rolling. Then, gradually move to a store-and-forward system, which stores most of the material locally, but - like VOD - remains under control of the cable head-end.

The business problem has always been a chicken-and-egg; how do you invest in the big tech before people sign up en mass? This way, the start up is VOD - well understood now, but not scalable. But by casting it this way, you seed the market for something that IS scalable - StoreAndForward. If you have the market seeded, you can develop your tech knowing that you have a large initial market.

Can't wait for the 'demo CD' that is bound to ship with the ooo hours free disk I seem to still get every month!

Edited by author 03-10-2003 02:37 PM
People pay 2 bucks for a bottle of water. People buy SUVs for safety's sake. People pay for AOL. People buy progressive scan DVD players for their analog TVs. You think they won't buy a crap piece of crippleware that's marketed deceptively/attractively enough?

Plus, they probably have a good shot at our "leaders" making Tivo/Replay's best features illegal. What happens when the MPA law hookers start hammering on Tivo/Replay and AOL is immune? And technophobe makes a good point about it becoming the cable box you have to use with the cable mopolies that Time Warner controls.

Question is, what to do to fight this?

I wonder at all the patents that Repay and Tivo share on the basic PVR technology.

Replay (Sonic Blue) and Tivo came to a patent sharing agreement last year. But together they could likely keep this product from having much useful functionality. Or at the very least, make a good deal of money licensing their patents to TWAOL.