Does Everything Have To Be Done on the Tablo?

More and more functionality is being pushed to the cloud. With the Tablo, everything is being done on the device itself. When the devices crashes and has to be reset (re-initialized) it’s as if the user’s history and context was non-existent.

Perhaps Nuvyyo should consider adding the cloud as a component of the Tablo experience. User preferences could be backed up or held in the cloud and communicated to the Tablo in case of the device\database wipeout.

I’m sure there is a lot of other functionality that can be imagined from an application standpoint were the cloud to become a part of the Tablo environment to augment the device’s limited local resources (e.g. notifications and alerts).

4 Likes

I picked Tablo with access via a Roku so I wouldn’t need a WAN. Why would someone want local OTA recording and playback dependent on the reliability of your local ISP and a cloud server.

Currently I can just take my tablo with the shows recorded on the disk and a Roku on the road with me with no problems.

1 Like

More and more devices are becoming cloud associated. That’s one of the reasons for the popularity (and market value) of a company such as Twilio (and its API centric functionality for integrating devices and environments).

1 Like

Agree. In the future PVRs will have a local side and a cloud one. Just like smart phones. Apps mushroomed when the smart phone became cloud conscious. DVRs will go that way, whether Tablo or someone else.

1 Like

In fact there is a chip prototype to add OTA TV tuner capabilities to smart phones.

Consider also the ATSC 3.0 capabilities for interactive, bi-directional communication and the DVR will become cloud conscious - an Internet device.

1 Like

ATSC 3.0 is encouraging device makers to go in that direction.

I think more people here want the Tablo to be less dependent on the cloud. :slight_smile:

One of the big weaknesses of the Tablo is that if the Tablo servers or the local internet connect go down, only a few devices can use it (mainly Roku). I am hoping they develop a system that allows all devices to connect locally without any internet needed.

4 Likes

I don’t think we’re trying to make the Tablo cloud-dependent - more like cloud-conscious. This would add a lot more app functionality. When everything is based inside the device, the chances for intelligently restoring the device are nill. My Amazon Kindle is both cloud-conscious and cloud-independent being able to function locally without Internet awareness while being able to connect to a vast library of Amazon resources. Twice in the past 6 years I have had to restore my Kindle from Amazon’s site without losing anything.

Tablo’s core functionality would still be locally based and self-contained when required. However more and more devices are becoming cloud-conscious - think IoT (e.g. airplane engines). The Nuvyyo CEO in an interview in fact did mention ATSC 3.0’s OTA-Internet ties and that he was thinking about that direction. He has to…think Blackberry vs iPhone…:slight_smile: Steve Jobs did, the other guys didn’t…

1 Like

Companies that produce certain consumer products no longer want to be in the hardware design and manufacturing business. For a commodity product it’s not cost effective unless a company like foxconn engineers a generic product. This exiting of the hardware business has been going on in the commercial market for over 25 years.

I really don’t see Nuvyyo dominating a cloud based PVR market. I really doubt that the actual Kindle hardware is more cloud conscious then the actual software that runs on it.

Yup, by ATSC 3.0 the DVR architecture will change dramatically to function in a cloud-OTA environment. In the meantime one can think of a host of applications run from the cloud to supplement an existing Tablo. With Nuvyyo already exposing the Tablo’s API to developers, cloud based development could happen…

The current tablo appears to be intended for the linear OTA DVR market. Currently OTA is free and limited only by a user ability to view and/or record the broadcast. ATSC 3.0 is not limited to that market. The industry already had Aereo with remote antenna and cloud based DVR.

For broadcasters to take advantage of many of the new services opportunities in ATSC 3.0 requires that the user have internet access. To me it seems I currently already have a number of companies to pick from for the type of on-demand and PPV product I want.

The service model for ATSC 3.0 allows for more complex services to
allow broadcasters to evolve their business. Major elements include:

Enhanced linear TV, plus on-demand support
Subscription and pay-per-view (PPV) support
Conditional access and digital rights management (DRM) capabilities
Mobile and fixed device, plus companion device support
Hybrid delivery (broadcast and broadband), combined with pushed content

Right ATSC 3.0 will be a marriage of cloud plus OTA technology.

Or maybe it will be like the marriage of disneyland’s “it’s a small world ride” with the “spinning teacup ride”. Too much happy, happy, happy combined with motion sickness.

You all realize that that tablo does not stream you content from anywhere other than your antenna. In order to store in the cloud your tablo would have to upload that content to the cloud. I don’t think that behavior is what they are going for.

3 Likes

The viewing of cloud based centralized strorage of OTA content even through private encrypted channels to an end device was declared to be a illegal broadcast of copyrighted content by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Aereo Supreme Court Case

There’s a very very very good chance that local home based PVRs with copyrighted content going over the Internet even in a secured private manner could also be found in violation of copyright (e.g. Tablo, Tivo, etc. and even home grown solutions).

IMHO, the Supreme Court botched this one. I for one would support Aereo if they could (they can’t of course) sue the Supreme Court. What they did was wrong, evil and it killed a successful company.

Augmenting the Tablo through the cloud is not meant to imply viewing or storing of channels but having other supplementary apps powered through the cloud (which is coming anyway with ATSC 3.0). The Supreme Court decision was about unpaid channels being streamed from the cloud, not streaming channels per se. Otherwise PS Vue would be illegal. Aereo was not reimbursing local channels for the right to transmit their programming which CBS, NBC and FOX asked for (to be in line with satellite and cable services).

“cloud” is a very easy word to spell. So people think it’s intended for everything.

It’s good at scalability, redundancy, cost reduction, app distribution and develop, etc.

So every time a class of products encounters a forthcoming technological change they are forced to address the magic word - “cloud” - whether it makes product sense or not. “Cloud” has to be somewhere in the marketing literature. And once Rovi/Tivo indicated they may leave the hardware business, it’s game on.

Not true. How much do you pay for OTA channels? They are free. The difference between Aereo and Tablo is that Aereo’s secured private personal PVR was stored in a centralized datacenter. No re-transimission was being made merely the playback of time shifted data uniquely stored per individual end user. Thus the Supreme Court declared the playback of cloud based copyrighted content recorded by an individual on private accessible cloud space was an illegal broadcast.

You really really need to look into how scary this case really is.

Cable companies are a rebroadcast in that they are taking source signal and rebroadcasting over a single protocol to many end users simultaneously. It’s a very different animal. Apparenty the Supreme Court could not see the difference.

Now… let’s say Tablo allowed one person to host and many many different people to watch off their hosted system.
(the Tablo can’t really do this btw. but if it could)… that’s “like cable”…

Thus I’m using one antenna, and one massive PVR and re-broadcasting to multiple end user devices, not just to one “home”. You need to pay to have the rights to do that with their copyrighted content (if they will allow it at all).

If cable were like Aereo or my fake Tablo above, they would have to run an indivudual cable to each house and have it connected each to a different satellite antenna.

Cable is ONE source being broadcast to many households. Aereo was designed to be one-to-one across the board.

Aereo was one antenna per household, one private PVR per household. Effectively Tablo in the cloud. Not a rebroadcast but rather a cloud based PVR system for people that either do not want antenna, can’t have an antenna or can’t receive signal even with an antenna by providing them a non-shared antenna with proximity to majority of broadcast towers. With that said, Aereo was still regional only. Thus (without circumenting the intent) a person couldn’t be in “Dallas” when they really lived in “Timbuktu”. Obviously one could circumvent that system, but no different than how people circument other copyright rules designed to limit based on region today (it’s wrong, and you have to break the law or at least terms of service to do it).

Taken to it’s fullest, the Supreme Court case could be used to prohibit the backup of copyrighted content to “the cloud”.

It was a really really bad decision that sets a very dangerous precedent.

1 Like

I too was disappointed in the Supreme Court ruling in the Aero case, but I understand it. Aero differs in one key respect from Tablo, though, and I think this is where the court drew the distinction.

Tablo, much like the VCR in the court’s Betamax decision, involves the purchase and personal use of a device for recording and watching over the air content (ignoring the watching of licensed, purchased content such as movies for now, which was another nice feature of the VCR). Tablo took the concept one step further tho, in combining Slingbox-like functionality, enabling it to do both time and place shifting of OTA content.

As far as I know, Slingbox use hasn’t been ruled on by the Supreme Court, but as placeshifting grows in popularity, I can see where its use might be tested at some point. If the court is smart, they will follow the Sony Betamax decision in ruling that placeshifting is acceptable for personal use, because if you’re entitled to view the material, it shouldn’t matter where you do so, so long as you’re not selling access to material covered by copyright.

Back to the Aero decision, it’s a little different in that you have a third party, Aero, profiting off the retransmission of OTA signals. I think that’s where the distinction lies… a company setting up the equipment and charging you a monthly fee vs. you buying, installing and using the equipment yourself. Maybe if Aero had let the broadcasters wet their collective beaks, there never would have been a court case. Note that Dish and DirecTV negotiate retransmission fees with broadcasters in order to be able to carry their content.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter, your mileage may vary. Tax, tags tips and gratuities not included.

1 Like

Sigh… Aereo did not “profit” over “retransmission” of OTA signals as that signal was NEVER retransmitted by Aereo.

Tablo/Tivo/etc.: Your home, your antenna, your pvr.

Aereo: Your home, your rented antenna that works, your rented pvr.

Aero charged for the rented invidual antenna and rented private pvr and guide content. And they didn’t charge much for that (less than … well… less than Tablo). So two reasons to get Aereo. One was cost for sure, though you had a very small rented PVR storage space. The limited the amount of end devices you could use to 5 as well. But proably the ideal reason for Aereo is that the US gov’t took away “snowy picture” and replaced it with “no picture”. Aereo helped restore TV access where it used to exist and now even in places where it never existed (talking regionalized again, but just “blocked” by various things that block broadcast signal).

Aereo never charged for OTA, they simply made a way to individually receive antenna OTA for regionalized Internet users. The model was very clean, and while there were certainly things to nitpick at… the Supreme Court didn’t go after any of that and instead made one of dumbest rulings in history (perhaps paid off to rule a particular way?).

Anyway… consider this thread very hijacked now :slight_smile: