 jaaPremium
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| reply to frdrizzt
Re: Samsung boxes to be the new DVR said by frdrizzt:There may very well be a new physical DVR in testing, but it wouldn't have multi-room capability without DVR+, and that isn't Samsung only.
Why couldn't multiple samsung boxes communicate through the coax to a "master" samsung box with a hard drive to provide a multi-room capability without DVR+? Not saying they will do this, but I think it could work...
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by jaa:said by frdrizzt:There may very well be a new physical DVR in testing, but it wouldn't have multi-room capability without DVR+, and that isn't Samsung only.
Why couldn't multiple samsung boxes communicate through the coax to a "master" samsung box with a hard drive to provide a multi-room capability without DVR+? Not saying they will do this, but I think it could work... There's just about a 0% chance that CV invests all that money into DVR+ and then lots of money into a physical multi-room DVR. That's why I said it won't. It would be a total step backwards. |
|
|
|
jaaPremium
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| said by frdrizzt:There's just about a 0% chance that CV invests all that money into DVR+ and then lots of money into a physical multi-room DVR. That's why I said it won't. It would be a total step backwards.
Depends on your perspective. I don't have any CV boxes because I want multi-room DVR, the ability to pause live TV, and ability to store as much as I want.
I'd call it a step forward.
I also think DVR+ will go away in time. Content providers will simply allow old content to be streamed through the internet (with ads), so DVR+ will be obsolete. Many already do this.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. |
|
| I'm talking step backwards in terms of corporate view (money spent and years of legal fighting up to the supreme court to so quickly plan a replacement), not any pros & cons of hardware & software DVR. |
|
TheWiseGuyDog And ButterflyPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by frdrizzt:I'm talking step backwards in terms of corporate view (money spent and years of legal fighting up to the supreme court to so quickly plan a replacement), not any pros & cons of hardware & software DVR.
Unless the cost benefit analysis has changed. They did the DVR+ because they analyzed it and decided it would cost less. If they have found costs are greater then expected to run the service or that the cost of the physical DVR has gone down or even that they believe they are losing revenue without a physical DVR then as a corporation they must change their strategy.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore. |
|
RemyM
join:2005-02-14
Stamford, CT | reply to jaa
said by jaa:Why couldn't multiple samsung boxes communicate through the coax to a "master" samsung box with a hard drive to provide a multi-room capability without DVR+? Not saying they will do this, but I think it could work...
They could have done this years ago with the SA boxes but didn't.
»www.cisco.com/web/consumer/suppo···oom.html |
|
jaaPremium
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| reply to frdrizzt
said by frdrizzt:I'm talking step backwards in terms of corporate view Got it, and I agree from that perspective. Of course, most of us don't really care about the corporate view. 
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. |
|
