After reading some of the recent threads about the benefits and drawbacks of certain receivers, I got to thinking that it might not be a bad idea to ask what the "perfect" next-generation FTA receiver might include. One way to think about that is, what does your current receiver NOT do (or do poorly) that you wish it did? Or, what feature do you most like about your current receiver that wasn't present on your previous receiver?
If we had some idea of what people find desirable, this would give us a base of comparison against new and existing receivers. But I'm realistically most interested in thinking about features that should be able to be added to a low cost (under $100) receiver. I think that in the coming years, any receiver costing over $100 is going to be kind of a hard sell unless it is a total package. A company that stands behind the receiver and that can speedily address bugs and add new features would tend to make a receiver more valuable in my mind, but only if they are open to suggestions by users and and not the type of developers that take the attitude that they'll only add the features that interest them, and screw everyone else.
But anyway, I'll start the list, so here are the features that I think receivers of the future should have as a minimum:
* A GIGABIT, or at very least, a 10/100 Ethernet connection (WiFi is optional; in most cases a wired connection is much more reliable). Some of the following requires being able to connect to a local network or the Internet.
* A clock that keeps time without having to be reset every week or two. If the receiver has an Internet connection, then it can use an Internet-based timeserver to reset the time once or twice a day.
* PVR functionality. And the PVR should be able to save recordings to either a locally-connected USB drive, or to a network share on the local network. If the receiver has a USB port and you connect a hard drive to it, the recordings on that drive should be accessible (for example as a SAMBA share on the network). A PVR that only saves to a USB connected device that is not accessible from the local network is something I'd personally never pay more than about $50 for (and only do that very reluctantly).
* FAST and ACCURATE blind scan. Like it or hate it, the X2 seems to be the "gold standard" for this right now.
* Support of as many of the existing formats as possible - definitely S2. And even if the receiver doesn't have enough computational power to play a 4:2:2 signal, it should at least be able to record it, though as faster processors become available, playing 4:2:2 should be a greater possibility. Also, it should have a decent tuner that receives those "edge case" signals that some receivers just can't quite seem to pull in.
* A web interface that can be accessed over the local network from a web browser, similar to the way many networked devices are configured nowadays. From this browser you should be able to change settings on the device (particularly the video output setting, so that if you manage to set that to something incompatible with your TV and your screen goes dark, you can fix it from the web interface), and you should be able to schedule PVR recordings or see what's already been scheduled. It would also be nice if there were a way to view online TV schedule services (such as TitanTV) and then select a program for recording, but I have no idea whether that is really feasible.
* RELIABLE DiSEqC switching, particularly when controlling a VBOX or any other positioner/controller.
* Desirable but I could live without it if it would significantly increase the cost: The ability to steam live signals to other computers/devices on the network.
* HDMI output, of course, but also SPDIF (TOSLINK) audio output (some of us do still have perfectly good older audio equipment). And it had better not downscale 1080p signals, or compress 5.1 channel audio down to stereo! I would rather have a receiver that does not have built-in video and audio outputs at all than degraded video or audio (I'd just watch the recordings using VLC or XBMC or some other software on a HTPC).
* And one thing to omit (and I know I'll probably get an argument on this, but hear me out): The serial port. The problem with these is that very few newer computers even have a serial port anymore - they sort of died with dial-up modems - and anything that used to be done using a serial port should be able to be done via the ethernet connection. And that serial port takes up space on the back panel that could be taken over by other types of I/O that are more widely used nowadays. For the true hardware guys that feel they need a serial port connection, that could always be provided using a set of pins (similar to the GPIO pins on a Raspberry Pi) and an accessory serial port connector, or for that matter perhaps a USB to serial port converter. But a serial port is like a fax machine; they sort of refuse to die even though by all rights they should, because they have outlived their usefulness.
I'll stop there; if I thought about it longer I could probably come up with a few more things, but I realize the <$100 "sweet spot" price does not allow throwing in everything but the kitchen sink (though as CPU processing power improves I certainly expect that sooner rather than later, nearly everything I have suggested would be doable at that price point. Moore's Law and all that).
As for those manufacturers that want to cater to high-end customers, all I can say is, get ready for 4K and 8K (as demonstrated at CES 2014). That's how you'll sell your >$200 receivers in the future, by supporting the latest and greatest video formats. Of course, there will need to be ultra high def content on the birds first!
If we had some idea of what people find desirable, this would give us a base of comparison against new and existing receivers. But I'm realistically most interested in thinking about features that should be able to be added to a low cost (under $100) receiver. I think that in the coming years, any receiver costing over $100 is going to be kind of a hard sell unless it is a total package. A company that stands behind the receiver and that can speedily address bugs and add new features would tend to make a receiver more valuable in my mind, but only if they are open to suggestions by users and and not the type of developers that take the attitude that they'll only add the features that interest them, and screw everyone else.
But anyway, I'll start the list, so here are the features that I think receivers of the future should have as a minimum:
* A GIGABIT, or at very least, a 10/100 Ethernet connection (WiFi is optional; in most cases a wired connection is much more reliable). Some of the following requires being able to connect to a local network or the Internet.
* A clock that keeps time without having to be reset every week or two. If the receiver has an Internet connection, then it can use an Internet-based timeserver to reset the time once or twice a day.
* PVR functionality. And the PVR should be able to save recordings to either a locally-connected USB drive, or to a network share on the local network. If the receiver has a USB port and you connect a hard drive to it, the recordings on that drive should be accessible (for example as a SAMBA share on the network). A PVR that only saves to a USB connected device that is not accessible from the local network is something I'd personally never pay more than about $50 for (and only do that very reluctantly).
* FAST and ACCURATE blind scan. Like it or hate it, the X2 seems to be the "gold standard" for this right now.
* Support of as many of the existing formats as possible - definitely S2. And even if the receiver doesn't have enough computational power to play a 4:2:2 signal, it should at least be able to record it, though as faster processors become available, playing 4:2:2 should be a greater possibility. Also, it should have a decent tuner that receives those "edge case" signals that some receivers just can't quite seem to pull in.
* A web interface that can be accessed over the local network from a web browser, similar to the way many networked devices are configured nowadays. From this browser you should be able to change settings on the device (particularly the video output setting, so that if you manage to set that to something incompatible with your TV and your screen goes dark, you can fix it from the web interface), and you should be able to schedule PVR recordings or see what's already been scheduled. It would also be nice if there were a way to view online TV schedule services (such as TitanTV) and then select a program for recording, but I have no idea whether that is really feasible.
* RELIABLE DiSEqC switching, particularly when controlling a VBOX or any other positioner/controller.
* Desirable but I could live without it if it would significantly increase the cost: The ability to steam live signals to other computers/devices on the network.
* HDMI output, of course, but also SPDIF (TOSLINK) audio output (some of us do still have perfectly good older audio equipment). And it had better not downscale 1080p signals, or compress 5.1 channel audio down to stereo! I would rather have a receiver that does not have built-in video and audio outputs at all than degraded video or audio (I'd just watch the recordings using VLC or XBMC or some other software on a HTPC).
* And one thing to omit (and I know I'll probably get an argument on this, but hear me out): The serial port. The problem with these is that very few newer computers even have a serial port anymore - they sort of died with dial-up modems - and anything that used to be done using a serial port should be able to be done via the ethernet connection. And that serial port takes up space on the back panel that could be taken over by other types of I/O that are more widely used nowadays. For the true hardware guys that feel they need a serial port connection, that could always be provided using a set of pins (similar to the GPIO pins on a Raspberry Pi) and an accessory serial port connector, or for that matter perhaps a USB to serial port converter. But a serial port is like a fax machine; they sort of refuse to die even though by all rights they should, because they have outlived their usefulness.
I'll stop there; if I thought about it longer I could probably come up with a few more things, but I realize the <$100 "sweet spot" price does not allow throwing in everything but the kitchen sink (though as CPU processing power improves I certainly expect that sooner rather than later, nearly everything I have suggested would be doable at that price point. Moore's Law and all that).
As for those manufacturers that want to cater to high-end customers, all I can say is, get ready for 4K and 8K (as demonstrated at CES 2014). That's how you'll sell your >$200 receivers in the future, by supporting the latest and greatest video formats. Of course, there will need to be ultra high def content on the birds first!
