Time article on what happens when Google buys a small company

[ckewinjones]

Originally Posted by nycjoe

It's not like I put their kids through college, and I'm not expecting them to name their yachts after me. They don't really owe me anything, and I'm sure %99 of Sagetv users would have done the exact same thing if offered the chance to sell the company.

Very well put. The simple fact of the matter is that Sage had gone as far as it could go as an independent company, and in today's economy getting themselves bought out by one of the big boys was the only way to get a positive outcome for their venture. A successful IPO was not going to be in the cards.

None of us knows how large the customer base was/is for SageTV, but my sense of it is that Sage sold enough licenses and hardware to recoup their original investment, but their piece of the market wasn't big enough (and wasn't growing enough to become big enough) to support the sort of investment and technological progress needed to remain a thriving concern. To get to "the next level" both in terms of technology and in terms of market share, they were going to need some major investment. There's only a few forms that such investment could take: borrowing a ton of money; a big infusion of venture capital; an IPO; or acquisition. ISTM that acquisition was the only of those options that was even close to being realistic.

I am sure that all of us existing SageTV users would have preferred that Sage remain independent, keep growing their product, and keep supporting it indefinitely so we could preserve our investment in the product. But that isn't realistic either. Sage probably could not have survived indefinitely as an independent, and eventually the product would have become obscolescent and therefore orphaned. As part of Google, there is at least a chance that SageTV technology will survive as part of a long-term sustainable Google platform.

[IVB]

FYI, CQC went to a subscription model for very similar reasons. Decent sized userbase, but not enough to sustain a company. Plus selling upgrades is tough. Now for $95/year, one gets all new versions.

Not sure that would be viable here due to a much smaller investment size. Home Automation is measured in thousands of dollars for equipment, so $95/year for software to control it is no big deal.

[tmiranda]

I don't blame Jeff one bit. I'd venture to say that most of us would have done the exact same thing if the speculation about the size of the user base (relatively small) and profitability of Sage (also relatively small) is even remotely true.

Let's see - work amazingly long hours for several years with little pay and then turn down a buyout offer when it finally comes along? Not likely. (An IPO wsa never a real option for Sage IMHO.) The only way Sage was going to survive was to go public or get bought. I know I would have done the deal.

I still hope they open source the software sometime in the future.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I don't blame Jeff one bit.

<snip>

Let's see - work amazingly long hours for several years with little pay and then turn down a buyout offer when it finally comes along?

They sure as hell didn't want to be the next Digg. If the rumoured Google deal back in 2006 was true, how much did this have to hurt?

[skiingwiz]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I still hope they open source the software sometime in the future.

You and me both. I think the community here could take the software and run with it.

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by skiingwiz

You and me both. I think the community here could take the software and run with it.

if there is still a community left at that point...
not trying to be a pessimist or anything... just cant help it really...

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by IVB

... Home Automation is measured in thousands of dollars for equipment, so $95/year for software to control it is no big deal.

I wish I could only spend $95/yr. on HA ... For software with the potential of Sage I would gladly pay that. - With a smile.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

if there is still a community left at that point...
not trying to be a pessimist or anything... just cant help it really...

If they ever open sourced the code the size of the community would explode.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

If they ever open sourced the code the size of the community would explode.

I'd be willing to bet we would get a lot of XBMC folks over here just so they could get the code for the pvr engine into XBMC.

That and our own talented devs would be able to cook up some pretty amazing stuff.

Too bad it's just a dream at this point...

[srothwell]

Let me go on record as saying I don't blame Jeff or anyone else at Sage. If someone came up to me and offered a lot of money I'd take it.

I'm just very disapointed that it's been over a year and, with the exception of "full speed ahead!" we've heard next to nothing.

I love sage, I lovED sage. Sage was small enough that the DRM Nazis and the networks, etc pretty much ignored them. Now, if Google even does anything with Sage (I have serious doubts about that), you can bet a year's pay that we will no longer be able to do things like automatically make a copy of a show the ipad. It'll likely be loaded with DRM.

And, I'm sure for "security reasons" the previous poster will be correct -- our current extenders will not work.

Google is a way bigger target for networks, studios, cable operators who sell dvrs, etc. If they ever put anything out, it'll be a target and we will all be screwed.

And.... don't even get me started about the VERY likely "monthly convenience fees" that will likely be slapped on everyt box, like the cable scumbags do.

I've looked around and when (ok...IF) they finally turn off the EPG, the closest thing I've found is Dish's system. But that doesn't even remotely hold a candle to Sage.

Dish, cable companies etc.... these folks still think it's cutting edge technology to "allow" you to hook up a 200GB firewire (anyone still use that?) drive to add a few hours of programming. On my sage system I have 11TB of storage. We never run out, we record everything we want with the 6 tuners we have.

I'll never find that again. Maybe MythTV... is that still around? Naaaa... I don't want to go back 7 years in time and have to put a PC at each TV.

Sigh

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

Too bad it's just a dream at this point...

Agreed. I really doubt it will ever happen.

[Skybolt]

I think we all agree -

I just don't know what phase of the grieving process I am in ...

[phareous]

Originally Posted by ckewinjones

Very well put. The simple fact of the matter is that Sage had gone as far as it could go as an independent company, and in today's economy getting themselves bought out by one of the big boys was the only way to get a positive outcome for their venture. A successful IPO was not going to be in the cards.

Honestly nobody knows here whether Sage was profitable or not. But as long as it WAS profitable, there was nothing wrong with staying a small company as long as it paid the salaries and returned a profit to the owner.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by phareous

Honestly nobody knows here whether Sage was profitable or not. But as long as it WAS profitable, there was nothing wrong with staying a small company as long as it paid the salaries and returned a profit to the owner.

Even if SageTV was profitable, who is to say that it would have remained profitable? Personal feelings aside, if the offer was at all reasonable, you'd have to be totally nuts to turn it down.

If I was Jeff, and I was offered a large chunk of change plus a high paying job doing essentially what I was already doing for a higher salary and better benefits, I know what I'd choose. I have no clue what Sage's financials looked like, but I'll imagine the investors liked the offer too. Also, founding a company and selling it to Google is a great feather in your cap when you're looking for investors for your next venture.



Drew

[hemicuda]

Originally Posted by drewg

Even if SageTV was profitable, who is to say that it would have remained profitable? Personal feelings aside, if the offer was at all reasonable, you'd have to be totally nuts to turn it down.

If I was Jeff, and I was offered a large chunk of change plus a high paying job doing essentially what I was already doing for a higher salary and better benefits, I know what I'd choose. I have no clue what Sage's financials looked like, but I'll imagine the investors liked the offer too. Also, founding a company and selling it to Google is a great feather in your cap when you're looking for investors for your next venture.



Drew

Could be, but that venture could not compete against Google's offerings pursuant to the clauses in their NDA/non-compete paperwork.

[matterofrecord]

Originally Posted by phareous

Honestly nobody knows here whether Sage was profitable or not. But as long as it WAS profitable, there was nothing wrong with staying a small company as long as it paid the salaries and returned a profit to the owner.

You have to consider that if ANY large company wanted to they could just spend spend spend on their own development and quickly eclipse sagetvs efforts. I would bet a significant amount of money that google could have developed a working pvr within a year if they really worked at it.

Buying sage is cheaper, brings is directly related experience and eliminates a company any competition could buy. Which brings me to my second point - what reason would google have for making sagetv open source. AFAIK they haven't open sourced anything they have bought and ditched. Why would they start now when Apple might take over and put it on Appletv? ( so many companies ( roku etc ) benefit from this )

Sage "is as it is" and there is no sign they are working on the PC server or client version. We keep getting these " oh I wish I could tell you more " encouragements but no evidence of any further development for the current PC version.

I would have liked to seen

1. Better xml import ( npvr is a good example )
2. One tuner frequency many channels ( like dvbe4sage)
3. Supported VideoRedo plugin
4. Handbrake/x264 encoding
5. Decent fast forward/rewind (like cyberlink powerdvd)
6. Various tuner fixes
7. Native UK HD epg descrambling

But I think we're stuck with what we've got. Sagetv is still the best around but it could so close to perfect that it irritates me.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by matterofrecord

I would have liked to seen

1. Better xml import ( npvr is a good example )
2. One tuner frequency many channels ( like dvbe4sage)
3. Supported VideoRedo plugin
4. Handbrake/x264 encoding
5. Decent fast forward/rewind (like cyberlink powerdvd)
6. Various tuner fixes
7. Native UK HD epg descrambling

But I think we're stuck with what we've got. Sagetv is still the best around but it could so close to perfect that it irritates me.

All of those are items that can be implemented via plugins. Which bring sme to my point - sage DID pick a good time to stop development. Because it's plugins architecture is so unlimited, it can still improve (gemstone appears to be near). The only thing I wish they had done was remove the licensing. That is what is going to REALLY hold back development. If sage was still easily available, you would still have the entire group of 3rd party plugin devs grinding away at it.

[matterofrecord]

Originally Posted by matterofrecord

I would have liked to seen

1. Better xml import ( npvr is a good example )
2. One tuner frequency many channels ( like dvbe4sage)
3. Supported VideoRedo plugin
4. Handbrake/x264 encoding
5. Decent fast forward/rewind (like cyberlink powerdvd)
6. Various tuner fixes
7. Native UK HD epg descrambling

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

All of those are items that can be implemented via plugins.

1. Better xml import -
   

   Yep stephans/lmgestion xmltv importer works but npvrs native example is easier and more intuative.

2. One tuner frequency many channels -
   

   I use stephans/lmgestion smart dvb recorder and it's good but it's a hassle to set up. With npvr to get this function from all tuner by default no network tuners required.

3. Supported VideoRedo plugin -
   

   Ok there is a plugin but it is not straighforward to setup if you are using default menus. I just tried and failed.

4. Handbrake/x264 encoding -
   

   I appreciate the effort people put in but the convert video tab "just" needs tweaking. Intel quick sync options would be good as well.

5. Decent fast forward/rewind (like cyberlink powerdvd)
6. Various tuner fixes
7. Native UK HD epg descrambling
   

I guess it comes down to the fact that although plugins are a valuable contribution to sagetv I think natively supported features makes things easier for non technical user. I appreciate the work people put in and I certainly don't "object" to these plugins. I just think that sagetv could have incorporated them in or at least fully supported them to make things a bit easier for everyone.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by matterofrecord

1. Better xml import -
   

   Yep stephans/lmgestion xmltv importer works but npvrs native example is easier and more intuative.

2. One tuner frequency many channels -
   

   I use stephans/lmgestion smart dvb recorder and it's good but it's a hassle to set up. With npvr to get this function from all tuner by default no network tuners required.

3. Supported VideoRedo plugin -
   

   Ok there is a plugin but it is not straighforward to setup if you are using default menus. I just tried and failed.

4. Handbrake/x264 encoding -
   

   I appreciate the effort people put in but the convert video tab "just" needs tweaking. Intel quick sync options would be good as well.

5. Decent fast forward/rewind (like cyberlink powerdvd)
6. Various tuner fixes
7. Native UK HD epg descrambling
   

I guess it comes down to the fact that although plugins are a valuable contribution to sagetv I think natively supported features makes things easier for non technical user. I appreciate the work people put in and I certainly don't "object" to these plugins. I just think that sagetv could have incorporated them in or at least fully supported them to make things a bit easier for everyone.

I was not trying to say there were already plugins that implement these things, just that any of those things COULD be implemented via a plugin. The framework is there to support new tuner types, new guide/metadata sources, etc. are all fully supported via plugins with no further involvement from Sage/Google.

[matterofrecord]

Right I get what you're saying. I misread. However the problem for me is that I'm not a programmer so the learning curve is not realistic ( or even achievable ) . I think the problem is that although the plugin structure is in place, the software ( sagetv ) just isn't widespread enough. I mean you can't buy sagetv let alone get it for free. Without a large user base the plugin base is always going to be limited. The sagetv plugins that have been developed have all been made by a small dedicated base. The same names appear again and again ( and yes fuzzy I saw yours ). I would guess that 90% of the popular plugins are done by less than a dozen people.

If sage/google open sourced sagetv or made sagetv a closed source freeware or carried on selling it at a much cheaper price ( perhaps with a pay plugin market - like the app market ) then we would see some progress but with a small user base sagetv plugins will most probably stay a very niche sector. Although the plugins could happen in theory, the small user base means that new complex plugins probably won't happen in reality.