While I don’t speak for SixApart or have any inside info on exactly what that clause means, I do think it’s probably an over-reaction to let that stop you from signing up. It’s pretty clear that they’re *not* sharing the database with general advertisers. The way I interpret this is, e.g., if they work with a 3rd party mail distributor to tell their existing customers that MT4 is about to be released, then they obviously have to hand the database over to that trusted partner in order to complete the mailing. I really wouldn’t worry about it - SA have proven themselves to be good peeps.

Comment by Scot Hacker — 3/18/2005 @ 4:28 pm

Thanks for the follow-up Scot. You’re probably right (and I did note that they weren’t sharing their database), but I just don’t care for that exception clause - especially given the fact that I do not otherwise use SA products, so I don’t need (nor want) to hear from them. Why not just give me the option to opt-out of hearing from their “marketing partners” like so many other organizations allow you to do. Or, to be an even better sandbox neighbor, let me opt-in.

As for SA being good peeps, while I understand their need to transition their model of free to something otherwise, the way they handled the whole licensing move-over really put a bad taste in my mouth (as it did with a lot of people).

Don’t worry - I’ll keep reading and tracking-back.

Comment by Brian — 3/22/2005 @ 4:52 pm

OK, so thrilling personal attacks aside, lemme respond to the substance of what you say:

1) “If the iPod’s success in being the “gateway drug” in switching Windows-using iPod owners to the Macintosh is unproven and still debatable, how could an Apple-ized TiVo improve upon that?”

That’s pretty misguided. iPod’s not a gateway drug to Mac. It’s the cocaine all by itself. iPod doesn’t exist to sell Macs. iPod exists to sell iPods. The point of iPod is to sell a lot of iPods, and to make a lot of money selling iPods. That’s why Apple long ago abandoned tying iPod to Macs (and actually never intended to), and why it’s been so successful. If you think of iPod as a killer product made by a company capable of making many different kinds of killer products rather than as a product meant to drive the consumer to buy another product then this strategy makes sense. If you, instead, think of Apple as the Mac company I can see how you might be confused.

But I think if you gave the article a chance you’d see I wasn’t arguing that TiVo would be great for Apple because it’d drive people to Macs. I was saying that TiVo would be great for Apple because it would make the company a lot of money for a small initial investment. ($350 million is nothing to Apple these days.) The point of an Apple TiVo is would be to sell TiVos, not to sell Macs. The Apple TiVo should work with PCs, too.

2) Your digression on the OS verges upon the meaningless, and I think this is due to your confusion re point #1 above. Here’s what you miss: Nobody cares what OS their consumer electronics devices use. What operating system does your digital camera use? Nobody cares. It’s of interest only to hackers that TiVo uses Linux. You ask and answer your own question re OSes. “Why would Apple want to add another OS to their stable?” “True, they outsourced the iPod OS….” Right, there’s your answer: Why would Apple add another OS? Because they can make money doing so. Because nobody wants an iPod to run OS X, and nobody wants a TiVo to, either.

Here’s your answer: They buy TiVo. They keep it running its current OS and software. They improve that system using current TiVo engineers. They market the product as the second in line of Apple CE devices. They make money. You seem to want to make this process much more complicated than it is.

“… Knowing Apple’s recent track record, chances are they would outdo TiVo enough to siphon off a good percentage of TiVo’s Mac-using customers.” There you are again, focussing on the Mac. But forget about the Mac for a second. The Mac is small potatoes. The Mac is not what Apple’s only about. The company is very nearly becoming the iPod company and to focus on Mac users only would be … silly, no?

So they siphon off a good percentage of TiVo’s Mac users and what? That’s not a killer product. I’m talking about a combination that can beat TiVo’s current user base, not that can beat a subset of its current user base. (Where would that get anybody?)

Comment by Farhad Manjoo — 3/11/2005 @ 5:01 pm

Farhad, while your comment was a complete surprise (and welcome despite my initial color commentary about my personal feelings on your articles), I certainly appreciate you taking the time to comment.

First, let me say, to the argument that Apple is no longer a one-trick pony (i.e., Apple no longer exists solely for the Mac), I agree. But beyond that, I’m afraid you too are guilty of not reading deeply enough.

1. The consideration that the iPod is a “gateway drug” is an opinion from the Wall Street Journal that I happen to find intriguing. While you are correct that Apple has since untied the iPod from the Mac OS, if you read the opinion piece, the hypothesis is to induce Windows users into realizing the quality of Apple’s products - i.e., “Hey, my iPod is really cool; it’s very easy to use and it works great! If this Apple product is so great, maybe I should rethink getting a Mac.” While there was always the business decision of enabling the sale to the majority market share of the computer-using public, I think the possibility of this ulterior motive is interesting enough to consider.

By extending this hypothetical situation to a TiVo purchase, consider when was the last time Apple made a completely standalone product? You’re suggesting that an Apple TiVo would be such a product. It’s in Apple’s interests to have a relational product line (even though the iPod works with Windows, it’s still a seemless extension of the Mac). My post was considering a TiVo purchase with the same goal in mind. Businesses, as a rule, don’t choose to offer a fractured product line. Your original article also seems to recognize this as you make mention of a Mac Mini-based entertainment center (the product-concept that would make the most sense, and which I address).

2. While you’re correct that the vast majority of users couldn’t care less what OS TiVo ran, I would argue that my focus on the OS is, in fact, not meaningless - it’s actually a consideration of the operational expenses after such a buyout should happen. Apple’s history is a testament to this - at one point in time they were working on up to 3 unrelated OS’s at a time (”Classic” Mac OS, Newton OS & Copeland; then Rhapsody). While there are plenty of divergent reasons for killing the Newton, the Mac OS eventually followed it. Apple has recognized the value in working off one foundation. As I mentioned in my post, yes, they outsourced the iPod OS, but they would not be in a position to do that with the TiVo OS. They would have to either go back to a model of concurrent development of unrelated OS’s (inefficient) or port whatever technology that’s worth salvaging from TiVo to an embedded OS based on the same foundation as their other two OS’s (more efficient; more advantageous in being able to provide opportunity to cross-pollinate features developed by one development team to the other products; but way more work). Apple has already shown that they think along those latter terms.

Further, in considering this line of thinking, buying El Gato would make a helluva lot more sense. Less expensive and makes use of their own technology. You caught me in not finishing my thought - they would immediately siphon off TiVo users based on Apple’s product reputation, but I would argue that they would extend beyond what TiVo would offer. By your position, they should’ve bought Sonic Blue when they were considering the development of the iPod. They not only blew the doors off Sonic Blue and are raking in a windfall of money with the iPod, they saved themselves a lot of money and quite a bit of headaches by not doing that.

My position is that it’s a bad idea to buy a DVR company period. The value of TiVo’s patent portfolio is questionable and TiVo is in dire straits because their cable and satellite partners are cannabalizing TiVo by developing their own competing hard-disk-based time-shifting technology. Since cable & satellite (an unbelievably cut-throat, back-stabbing rabid dog-type of industry) is where TV is headed, there goes TiVo’s future. Hell, they were doing that back when I was still at ReplayTV. The concept is not unique or in a black box so that TiVo can defend themselves legally. ReplayTV went down the drain because of the technology sector’s “bubble bursting” at the turn of the century. Even if they survived, they would be in just as dire circumstances as TiVo finds itself now.

I’m just saying that if (and that’s a big if) Apple wants to jump into this game, minimize your risks by going with El Gato. They’d be throwing away their money (and a lot more of it) by buying TiVo just because TiVo’s user base wants them to.

Comment by Brian — 3/14/2005 @ 9:13 am

Hmmm, interesting! Wish I’d known while I was playing with YC:D. That was pretty much the only reason I dropped it, at least that I can remember.

I’ve tried four different virtual desktop managers so far, and only Desktop Manager has stuck with me. In theory Virtue should have been a good replacement, but it had some glitches I wasn’t willing to live with.

If I could just drag the window proxies in the pager widget from one desktop to another, then Desktop Manager would be perfect for me. For now, it’s merely the best of the lot…

Comment by Alderete — 3/4/2005 @ 2:01 am