Opinion on the HD200

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Can we do without the name-calling, please?

That's fair. I'll admit, I took my last post a step too far, and for that I apologize. You've been a tremendous help on these forums pretty much since you stepped foot on them, and I know I've directly benefited from the work you do; and for that I'm thankful. I should have been more respectful in that comment.

However, I stand by my statement that people don't respond to criticism directed at Sage very well. But, there's no point in arguing over that.

[shootler]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Seriously? I think we're seeing fanboyism hitting a new high on these forums. Some people just refuse to accept any sort of criticism of Sage on these boards. There is no question in my mind that there would be some level of outrage if, say, Microsoft did this as opposed to Sage.

Some people just don't take constructive criticism well, apparently even when its directed at someone else...

I think part of the problem is the culture. For better or worse (and I'm not sure which), Sage still seems to operate like they're working out of a garage. As far as I know, that might not be far from the truth. They view customers as fellow tinkerers, and expect them to act accordingly. As such, they'll release things that might not quite be ready, but they know a lot of customers will be excited just to try them out. The problem is, I think Sage is making a half-hearted attempt to woo less saavy customers that aren't going to think the same way.
Also, I think Sage sort of views betas differently than other customers. I suspect they view them as being nearly ready for prime-time (and if not, what in the world were they thinking with the HD200 release?). A few years ago I might have been inclined to agree, but I think that's becoming less and less true. I remember trying out the v2 betas years and years ago, and never really having problems. I tried out some of the v6 betas and they scared me off indefinitely from trying betas. I'm trouble by the bugs that slip into the betas and are immediately caught by the community (e.g., when they tried to add EVR support to Sage). I think that shows quality assurance "problems" in the betas that ought to prevent them from being sold to customers (which is essentially what happened in the HD200 release), at least without proper warning.

I've been critical of Sage's actions with the HD200 release, but I'll admit they were in a tough position. But, I suppose I shouldn't criticize without providing a possible alternative. Sage wanted to the HD200 released before Christmas for a business and customer relations standpoint. But, it seems to me that it would have better if they would have done a limited release of the HD200 on these forums. Basically, invite forum members to be paying beta testers. At that point, it'd be tough for someone to complain that things didn't work, because you're basically telling them there's a good chance some things wont' work. Once Sage felt ready, they could have publicly released v6.5 and the HD200, perhaps coinciding with CES. Without more information its impossible for me to say whether that plan was a viable option for Sage. But, it seems like it could have worked. The initial release was small anyway.

I completely agree...Iam admittedly a 'less savvy' customer and was completely confused about my purchasing decision - the sales literature surrounding the STV software was ambiguous at best. heck, i still dont know if i needed to purchase it as a bundle with the hd200 as i only wanted the extender feature. We will see how long the beta ver lasts and whether i might have to eventually plug in a serial # in a couple weeks.

When I finally got it working as an extender, I noticed an ongoing stutter and lag in almost all video playback. I can get no audio whatsoever for any mkv files and I have no idea why.

This plus the fact I have a support ticket in since last week which has not been responded to.

Iam honestly debating whether to send this thing back. i live in Canada and by the time I paid the shipping, exchange and duties this thing was $350 cdn, or about teh same price as a PS3 which will do everything i originally wanted out of the HD200 plus a heck of a lot more.

Based on my experience so far, the HD200 is a LONG way from mainstream.

[eded9698]

Originally Posted by gplasky

He said he installed the beta software-Sage media center. He said he did not want to run beta firmware on his HD200.

Store policy: This is for hardware returns.

If he didn't apply the beta firmware, which would have fixed most if not all his problems, and he was unhappy with the product what choice did Sage have BUT to ask him to ship it back? Without the firmware nothing was going to fix the issues. The other alternative was for the user to sit and wait until the firmware was declared production.

I don't see where Sage did anything wrong. They worked with the customer, gave him an RMA number to return it because he was disatisfied and charged the 10% restock fee that is stated very clearly in the store policy.

Gerry

This is what I did. I installed every beta Sagetv offered for HD200 and Sagetv software. I reported every problem I was having with the HD200 from the first day I installed it. I explained to them in my emails to George, tell me how to fix it or send me a new one. His response at that time was the restocking fee situation. I hope that makes it clear to everyone

[eded9698]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Well, it does say that the media center software is optional, and when used as an extender, software version 6.5 is required. The released software in the store is clearly marked V6.4.

I'm not saying it couldn't have been spelled out more explicitly. But the information is there on the store pages.

6.5 is only needed if you want to use it as a extender. Not in stand alone mode. But having to install a beta firmware was not mentioned on their web site.

[webwalker]

At the risk of wandering in to the middle of a high noon encounter at the OK corral, I'm afraid I can see both sides of this.

The product lit. for SAGETV is poor. I think it would really cut back on STVs percent of 'buyers remorse' if they would take a week off from coding (AFTER they get 6.5 out the door) and rewrite their docs. Hire a technical writer or product marketoid if necessary. Diagrams for how the whole shebang fits together are great. (Not everyone learns best by RTFM or just stumbling around with software, banging their shins on the furniture as they try to puzzle out what STV and its extenders WILL do, won't do, and Can't DO.

That said, even a cursory look at the forums will tell you that the hd200 has two modes. Its a pity they sell a product that is stated to be 'beta'. But I don't see anywhere that they try to hide it. I just don't think they do a good job setting expectations and so some customers feel (rightly or wrongly) burned in the transaction.

Concerning updates: I have a unique position on this -- a product that is produced with the ability to update the firmware should (QED) be updated regularly by its manufacturer. My position on this comes from my experience with the Palm Zire71 which was bleeding edge when released. I opted for it over the less expensive models because it was firmware upgradable. That has always been my beef about programming in silicon: inevitably you find something that needs fixing AFTER the product has gone to fab.

Palm produced the Zire71 with the utopian statement about future-proofing and I believed it. And then they never released a firmware update for it, despite the thing having more bugs than a bait store. And (Here's the critical part, to me) they never opened the API to let other people do firmware improvements to it, either. If you sell me something, you'd better damn well support it and don't just tell me that the solution is to just buy 'this year's model.' If you're not willing to support it in deference to your 'new hotness product' then at least open the API so those who are interested in pursuing it may.

Despite Sage's playing in the Linux space, this does not seem to be their corporate mindset. I'm glad they have the sense to keep the interface configurable, and provide a lot of tunables. But once they entered the hardware business, the rules change, and the bar is raised. I'm waiting until 6.5 goes GA to see how rough the conversion is.

M

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by webwalker

I think it would really cut back on STVs percent of 'buyers remorse' if they would take a week off from coding (AFTER they get 6.5 out the door) and rewrite their docs. Hire a technical writer or product marketoid if necessary. Diagrams for how the whole shebang fits together are great.

I think you have a very good point here. The SageTV manual is quite extensive, and helpful. But, I'm not sure its terribly accessible to less savvy individuals, and it doesn't really provide a very good "big picture".

Originally Posted by webwalker

That said, even a cursory look at the forums will tell you that the hd200 has two modes. Its a pity they sell a product that is stated to be 'beta'. But I don't see anywhere that they try to hide it.

I think we probably mostly agree on this issue. I never meant to imply Sage was trying to actively hide the fact that Sage v6.5 is still in beta. I mostly think they were probably a bit oblivious to the issue because of the culture of Sage, as I discussed in my previous post. But, they certainly didn't go to any effort to make it clear to customers that v6.5 was still in beta. Realizing it doesn't do much good to complain on a message board, I sent them an e-mail asking them to make things more clear should something like this happen again.

Originally Posted by webwalker

I have a unique position on this -- a product that is produced with the ability to update the firmware should (QED) be updated regularly by its manufacturer.

Sage was quite good about issuing firmware updates for the HD100, and I'm sure they'll do the same with the HD200.

Originally Posted by webwalker

Despite Sage's playing in the Linux space, this does not seem to be their corporate mindset. I'm glad they have the sense to keep the interface configurable, and provide a lot of tunables. But once they entered the hardware business, the rules change, and the bar is raised. I'm waiting until 6.5 goes GA to see how rough the conversion is.

I'm not sure what your point was here, or what you're concerned about. Are you saying you wished HD200 was a more open platform? Or, are you just saying Sage is really on the hook to make these things work out-of-the-box?

[webwalker]

One the greatest things about Open Architectures is that they can have a 'long tail' productive lifespan. Look at the Tivo! Some of the best features are NOT written by Tivo; they're created by programmers that are tapping in to the powerful hardware platform that Tivo has provided. If you're content with what you get out of the box...you'll never be troubled by the hacking culture. If you choose to hack your box, you do so both to your benefit, and to your peril. But it is only a hack-enabled open architecture that permits this.

I understand that SageTV labors under limitations that they may not choose: NDAs. licensed SDK components, etc, that they use to leverage their product and reduce their time to market, rather than writing everything themselves. All well and good. But without API access to the product, the consumer is fully at the mercy of the vendor, which is often how the vendor wants it.

The fact that things like AnyDVD, iPhone Jailbreak, pyTivo always exist for closed products means, to me, that the vendor has had a failure of imagination about how much people WANT to feel a sense of ownership of something that they have paid for.

Obviously, you can see my Open Systems heritage. I have yet to see a market segment be harmed in the long run by offering an Open System.

I'm going to zip my lip now, before I get my STV license revoked.... :^)

M