How did people watch television before the invention of DVR? Granted I've never owned a Tivo, the Uber-DVR, but I would like to. We've always had the standard DVR that one gets from the cable company. The benefits of DVR are well known - you can watch your favorite shows whenever you want and not restrict yourself to the scheduled and the ability to fast-forward through commercials - are two of the main advantages in my opinion. However, DVR does have its limitations.
I'm not a HUGE TV guy, but I certainly don't mind it. My preference is to watch sports. My wife likes all kinds of shows, including many mind-numbing reality shows. With so many channels and so many shows on, especially sporting events, scheduling conflicts are inevitable. Our DVR can record two programs simultaneously. Supposedly the AT&T box can do four; four would be good at our house. It's bad enough when you have to decided between two of three weekly programs, but the situation gets exponentially worse when you factor in sports, which do not necessarily follow the same predictable schedule. (Weekly programs can become an even bigger issue when networks change the day and time of a given show.)
This begs the question - which program should get preference - the weekly program that's bound to be re-run or available online soon after airing, or the one-time sporting event? Certainly, the way that question is phrased shows my bias. But two people with differing opinions on television viewing inevitably leads to missing programs.
For most people, two shows at once is plenty, and for the most part, it's enough for us. Sports is the inconstant factor. So what can we glean from all of this pontificating? Multiple television programs, live sporting events, two people, and one TV/DVR combo is not enough. The solution? TWO TVS!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment