Feature compatibility is a super set of feature comparability.
Not only does the feature exist it also looks and functions the same.
Or at least functions the same. With feature comparability the feature may exist in some fashion but you may have to jump through different mechanisms.
With the Roku app these features didn’t exist.
Wow.
I almost sounds like they need to start with a clean sheet of paper, do the feature set right, and simultaneously make sure all the apps are full players with that feature set.
(This makes me think of the running joke with ReplayTV, around the question of “when will we get HD?” The answer was an unspecified “Q3”. Of course that year’s Q3 came about and it never happened, but the community never forgot. Everything from that point on that came up, the answer was “Q3”.)
well, but he actually said:
Parity has a very specific meaning.
I’ve never seen that definition, and am having trouble searching for it on the internet.
Ah ha!
Thank you for pointing that out.
@zippy, the whole compatability vs comparability discussion is irrelevant, cuz feature parity does mean feature comparability.
My bad, sorry.
However, I still don’t see a promise.
There are other threads but why go on. The question is does the feature exist at all.
“The Roku update we’re working on NOW is being done custom, from scratch to create a look & feel that more closely mimics our other
platforms.”
You’re not still waiting? Now, I’m wondering… is this as good as it’s gonna get?
Personally, as deplorable as commercials are, I can skip them with a 1min, 30sec or 15sec skips… a few taps and they’re gone. It’s not a major issue for me, but I tell-you-what …
I always enjoy being required to use two or more devices when you should be able to accomplish what you need to do using one device.
in some sad way, I think I know what you mean
but back to how all this started, how many devices does it take you to prioritize your recordings?
@TabloTV I am trying to decide between a Tablo and a TiVo after I cut the cord. The one thing that is stopping me from going with Tablo (I would be waiting for the Tablo Quad to come out in late March) is the lack of series priority. Both TiVo and my current Comcast DVR have this feature. Let’s say I have 47 series recordings. Series priority would be ranking them #1, #2, #3, …, #47 so that conflict resolution would be handled automatically. Tablo arbitrarily deciding that the latest recording shouldn’t be recorded in case of a conflict is silly. In an earlier reply, you said that you would be looking at your conflict resolution algorithm later this year. Please consider asking your developers to implement this. I don’t think it would hard and it would give you market value by making this feature on par with your competitors. Thank you.
Love it when people say that to me at work. 
I do agree with everything else you said, though.
While I can’t even remember the last time a recording conflict occurred, my system is conflict free only because the low number good OTA signal channels received.
That number will go up when the taped to an inner wall OTA antenna on the 1st floor moves to the roof. 
Series priority conflict resolution would be great.
If tablo was exactly like all the other competitors why would someone buy a tablo DVR? Since I already have a lifetime Plex pass, why wouldn’t I just power off my tablo, power on my Nvidia Shield attach my Hdhomerun Connect and record away.
While I’m sure adjustments to conflict management are possible doesn’t the user really want to record the shows that were scheduled? If not why are they scheduled in the first place? Why not just buy another tablo and record everything that the user wanted recorded? It’s not like users are paying TiVo subscription prices for additional units. A 2-tuner is on sale now for $99.
I pondered on this for a moment, and thought, yea, why not. It’s serious resolution. Not saying it’s cheap but it’s a one-time expense and you’re done… it’s not so much spread out over time.
I don’t think I’d go that route, but if you get a lot of channels and have regular conflicts - it’s a reasonable option.
One question is does automatic prioritization really work very well for recording “All New” episodes when there are really conflicts.
Say you have a 2-tuner and have 3 shows that possibly have new episodes at the same or overlapping times. And you prioritize the shows as 1=Jimmy Fallon, 2=SNL, and 3=Jimmy Kimmel. I don’t watch any show where guests are political or some celebrities. While some guests on these shows may interest me way more then others. So how do you use automatic prioritization in these situations. And if you can’t and have to evaluate the conflicts why not evaluate all the conflicts.
hmmmmm.
So you would advocate for, say, a car that has one door and a stick instead of a steering wheel–because “if that carmaker was exactly like his competitors, why would anyone buy his car?”??
We’re talking core functionality. There may be many ways to handle schedule priority, but giving the user the ability to handle it AND make it automatic so it’s not an every day juggling is a core feature that a DVR maker should never have gone to market without.
Sure, improve on things. You’re right. But don’t make your thing worse just because “I don’t want it to be like the competitors” as a blanket concept.
Make the priority handling BETTER. Give me a hierarchy that includes things like guest stars. Let me rank what’s important to ME. Right now in WMC, for example, the only priority is the show title and time (I can rank Big Bang Theory, for example, at 8pm differently than the reruns at 6pm and 730pm). Improve on that and let me define more things in a hierarchy.
But let the machine handle the day to day tedium of managing what I want.
Make it BETTER. But don’t just ignore it on the basis of “I don’t want to be just like the competition, otherwise why would anyone buy mine?”.
The Tablo has been constantly improving since day 1. So they clearly have been making it better over these years.
What are you replying to?
I was replying to “why should they do what everyone else does”. I say, take the core concept of what others have done, what consumers like, and MAKE IT BETTER.
Do NOT just sit there and say, “I won’t honor that core concept because it’s what others have done, and I want to be different.”
Core concept vs execution. Ponder the difference.
Your analogies are frought with hyperbole that they make absolutely no sense. Just make your feature requests and leave it at that. Tablo will listen to you appropriately.
Really? That is what is holding you back? You are incapable of resolving a conflict (that is immediately flagged) on your own?
And don’t forget that the Tablo is just for OTA channels, so there are so many fewer channels and shows to deal with than a cable/satellite DVR.
I have had a two tuner DVR since the beginning, and I have had to resolve conflict less than 10 times. And when it happens, it is very easy to do so.
There is no way this should be holding you back.
You ponder this:
“If tablo was exactly like all the other competitors why would someone buy a tablo DVR?”
and leave it at that.