What’s going to happen with TiVO?  The pioneering Digital Video Recorder company is still in business with around a million subscribers and it has lately been settling patent infringement cases with big companies like Echostar and — just this week — with AT&T, but the longer term prospects for the company are dim. Yes, they’ll likely rake in hundreds of million more in settlements from companies including Verizon, but at the same time their subscriber base is dwindling and a point will come when their hardware will simply disappear as the company loses manufacturing economies of scale. That is unless they want to start shipping each new unit with a $100 bill attached — something public companies are generally loathe to do.

So I’m guessing a better end for TiVO would be to sell out, despite (or perhaps even because of) the recent court successes. They’ll find a buyer that covets the subscriber base, covets the IP portfolio, covets the revenue stream from recent and future settlements, and maybe sees buying TiVO as some masterstroke in a competitive industry.

There are only two logical buyers for TiVO in my view — Cisco and Motorola. As the two largest manufacturers of cable boxes either could use a kosher DVR implementation to its strategic advantage.  I think Motorola is the more likely buyer because it is about to be flush with $12 billion GoogleBucks from the sale of its Motorola Mobility division and because Cisco has been pointedly concentrating lately on its enterprise businesses and might see buying TiVO as sending the wrong signal to Wall Street.

But none of this means a hill of beans to me.  I’m not a TiVO subscriber, just an observer.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

If you were Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, faced with suddenly becoming the number two mobile phone company in America following an AT&T/T-Mobile merger, what would you do?  You could try to buy Sprint, and for all I know Seidenberg will do just that.  You could make a counter-offer for T-Mobile, but that would just be too darned expensive. If I was Seidenberg, though, I would try to poach customers — millions of customers — from T-Mobile.

AT&T is paying $1300 per T-Mobile subscriber and by the time the deal is finished extra costs will probably raise that to $1400 or more.  Were I Seidenberg, then, I’d spend right up to that level to snag customers from T-Mobile.  Anything under $1300 is a bargain.

At a minimum, I’d match or beat whatever those T-Mobile customers are paying per month now, I’d cover their cancellation fees, and I’d replace all their phones for nothing.  Got a smart phone? Have an iPhone 4!  But why stop there?  Have a feature phone? Have an iPhone 4! Or Android or Blackberry or Windows Phone — whatever you like.

All smartphones all the time at Verizon!

Then watch five million or more T-Mobile customers defect to Verizon, raising AT&T’s per-subscriber cost by $300, pushing break-even on the deal to 2016.

But hey that’s just me.  Maybe Ivan’s a pussycat.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Apple has a long history of milking early adopters. Even the crappy products (remember the Newton? the Mac Cube?) would sell a few hundred thousand units to the faithful before those faithful learned the sad truth. But just as they were learning that truth, along would come Steve Jobs (okay, not in the case of the Newton, but generally) gleefully proffering the real fantastic product people had been expecting months before. Then those same early adopters, reenergized, would buy all over again, whether it was an iMac, iPod, MacBook, iPhone, whatever. Why should we think this week’s Verizon iPhone announcement is any different?

Where’s the Long Term Evolution (LTE) network? Where’s surfing while talking? Where’s the damned white case?

June.

We’ve been here before, remember? The first iPhone worked only on AT&T’s slower Edge network so the early adopters all upgraded to 3G a few months later, paying again. Worse still there was that big price drop only weeks after the original iPhone introduction when Apple clearly intended to punish the faithful for being, well, faithful.

What will happen if, come February, AT&T drops its iPhone 4 price to $99? Verizon will follow suit, that’s what, and a million early adopters will have been burned.

Steve Jobs can’t help himself. It’s in his blood.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

No other explanation makes any sense.

Certainly there is no supply problem that could keep Apple from introducing a white iPhone.  But what if white is a Verizon exclusive in the USA?  That would to a certain extent pull the branding rug out from under AT&T and even put a bit more oomph behind those iPhone users who might choose to jump carriers.

It’s silly, I know, but as Mrs. Cringely always says, “Husbands die every day.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Last weekend a story in the New York Times blamed the bad reputation of AT&T’s wireless network on iPhone technical problems, not the AT&T network at all. Going further, Global Wireless Solutions, a network testing company, said the AT&T network is actually faster than Verizon’s, backing to a certain extent AT&T’s now-aborted legal effort to silence Verizon Wireless commercials that said otherwise. I doubt this is actually the case. Last summer as my family and I wandered across the United States in our old Winnebago motor home equipped with two iPhones from AT&T but also cellular data from Verizon, I can say with some certainty that Verizon coverage was consistently better, no matter what the Times has to say.

But the real issue here, it seems to me, is the obvious gag order successfully imposed on giant AT&T by Apple. Now that part I believe.

Apple and Steve Jobs (they are one and the same) feel a tremendous need to control stories about them. No other computer company I know of has sued its own customers to silence them, yet Apple did just that a couple years ago. Steve Jobs now reportedly controls most of the copyrighted photos ever taken of him, which is why editors and TV producers keep using the same few shots over and over again. The company, too, imposes on its commercial partners a virtual gag order. That’s the case here with AT&T, which apparently isn’t allowed to refute Verizon’s network performance claims even if AT&T has contrary data.

I’ve seen this before. PortalPlayer (now part of nVIDIA) was under a similar gag order when I went there in 2006 to shoot a NerdTV interview. PortalPlayer designed the innards of all early iPods, yet the people I spoke with at the company weren’t even allowed to acknowledge that Apple was a customer, much less that it represented 85 percent of their business. “We aren’t allowed to say their name in any context,” my interview subject told me. “They want the world to believe that all iPod technology was invented in Cupertino.”

And so it is with AT&T where the wireless carrier reportedly could respond to Verizon’s claims but generally doesn’t because doing so might piss-off Steve Jobs.

That must be very frustrating for AT&T (unless of course, as I suspect, Verizon is correct in its claim to have the better network). But the kind of inferiority complex it implies — one that would have the company accepting such a galling deal from Apple — shows up near the end of a long history of bonehead moves by AT&T or by its earlier incarnation SBC — Southwestern Bell Communications — one of the original Regional Bell Operating Companies.

Consider, for example, SBC’s onetime ignorance of Moore’s Law, as described to me recently by a friend who used to work there:

“Do you remember Americast? It was a cable TV joint venture between SBC and Ameritech. I was involved in evaluating set top boxes for that mess. They finally settled on a box and in the telco tradition signed a contract requiring the manufacturer to make ‘the same box at the same price’ for 10 years. The execs who cut the deal thought they had really won big because (they were convinced) the cost of the box had to increase over the next ten years. But, they really signed a contract requiring the company to build a box that looked the same, had the same connectors and the same functionality for the next 10 years. Then I asked if they had figured-in Moore’s Law?

“They, being Telco Executives, had never heard of Moore’s Law. When I pointed out that the cost of the electronics in the box should drop by a factor of between 8 and 16 over that ten years, they denied that there could be such a thing as Moore’s Law or it would have shown up in all their other purchasing. About a week later my boss asked me to write a memo on Moore’s Law and hand deliver it — paper only — to the President of TRI, later known as SBC Labs, now a tiny part of what is left of AT&T Bell labs. I was later told that paper copies of that memo circulated widely among executives at SBC.

“SBC had a corporate purchasing culture based on the idea that everything gets more expensive over time. I guess that is an example of people who should know better investing in things they didn’t understand. In this case they had an entire building full of people who did understand the technology but were either not consulted or were ignored.

“The SBC executives didn’t believe they needed help because they were experts. I mean they had to be experts to become executives, right? ”

Right.