Microsoft's new OS based on an idea that people want to hook up computer, TV

[E-Sabbath]

Seamlessly combined technology is a good thing. Centralized points of failure are not. I have a seamlessly combined audio and video station. Without moving, I can play DVDs, PS2, Atari, music from my computer, the radio, and so on. But if any one of those parts fails, the others still work. If the internet goes down, I can still watch TV.
DRM tends towards centralized authentication and the MS system tends towards a single point of failure.

[Mac_Guffin]

WOW! So soon I will be able to hook my computer up to a low-rez TV and watch shows! Cool! Perhaps they might just come up with a way for me to port things over to my 8-track and victrola as well!

Seems to me that, before long there won’t even BE TVs as we know them. I already use my computer, with its monitor, to view media etc. The TV, set up like this, is just another kind of monitor. Why bother? Why not just get a larger monitor?

[RaftPeople]

@mswas

Heh, I find it odd that people question why combining their technology more seemlessly is desirable.

Well, for me, it’s because it IS undesirable.

When I watch TV, I want to sit on my couch, click the remote and watch a show. I don’t remember ever sitting there thinking “I wish I could do [fill in the blank]”.

On the other hand, when I work on my computer, I want to be in a different room, at my desk, and I have no desire to perform any functions related to TV in any way.

I even don’t like the stories on ESPN.com or CNN.com that are video, I avoid them. Even text articles are too wordy. My preference would be bulleted points (for most information, certainly not all) in a very compact format so I can quickly get the info and move on.

So the combination of technology only makes sense for those people where the combination gains them something, and clearly not everyone has the same desires.

[Mangetout]

@iamthewalrus(:3=

You’ll likely run into issues with simultaneous FPS and HD video together, but there’s no reason why a computer couldn’t serv up many of those things on different output devices at the same time.

I think we’re going to be moving toward a model where a house will have one heavy lifting computer and a lot of smaller “dumb” devices that connect to it. So the wife can have a little touchscreen that uses the main device to access ebay, the Dad can watch the video on the bigscreen (perhaps using a smaller, cheaper, dedicated hardware video decompressor), and the son can play FPS’s, all at the same time.

Maybe; I suppose it’s a bit like a phase diagram; there are gradients of economy in putting the grunt all in one box and other gradients related to being able to easily upgrade one part of the system independently of all the others. I’m just not sure where these gradients intersect (or indeed whether their optimal intersection is going to be in any way represented in the solutions that are marketed at us).

Of course there’s even the possibility of clashes with existing technologies; two people want to use the phone; they want to watch programmes on different TV channels; they want to play different console games; they want to visit different websites, all at times inconvenient to each other.

However, combining it all in one box has one serious disadvantage; it’s a single point of failure; when the domestic server pops up a BSOD, everything stops working. Of course that won’t happen, because we’ll design it with a stable OS. Of course we will.

[DSeid]

Re the means of convergence this article about the High Definition Audio-Visual Network Alliance (HANA) is interesting.

Just last week, Charter Communications, JVC, Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc., NBC Universal, Samsung and Sun Microsystems announced the formation of HANA, the High-Definition Audio-Video Network Alliance. HANA members are working together to create a design guideline for secure high definition audio visual networks that will speed the creation of new, higher quality, easier to use HD products.
…<snip>…
On the surface these industries [consumer electronics, service providers, content owners, and information technology] appear to be at odds. Service providers only need a monitor to deliver their services as long as there is an STB in the loop; yet, DTV manufacturers will see little profit if they only sell monitors. Content owners want to reach more consumers; but, fear the PC and home networks. And IT companies want to move into the living room, which is seen as competitive to CE and Service Providers, and potentially leading to the ‘Napsterization’ of video entertainment.

HANA’s members see a different picture. The reality is that the four business models are very complementary. CE companies make money selling hardware that stores, plays back and displays content delivered by service providers. Service providers want to reduce their capital expenditures, eliminating the need for a set top box (STB) at every TV. Additionally, DTV manufacturers compete with each other based on the quality of their picture which consumers can compare in retail stores and in online product reviews. STBs on the other hand are driven primarily by cost. Now that Congress has mandated that every DTV include a digital tuner (and therefore an MPEG decoder), consumers will enjoy a higher quality picture from MPEG sources such as the STBs 1394 port. The STB (or cable card) becomes simply a toll booth for MPEG packets. All of this requires networks and network services, storage and software, which are the domain of IT companies. The PC is still an important part of the picture. But instead of being the point where broadband networks terminate, it becomes just one more connected device.

HANA leaves it up to consumers to decide where they want to be entertained. By fostering collaboration, HANA allows each industry to play to its strengths, improving the consumer’s experience and their desire to buy more products, services and content.
…<snip>…
HANA members envision a simpler transition to networked A/V products for the product developer, the service provider and the consumer.

Connector confusion is eliminated through the use of 1394 or FireWire. Any device can be connected to any other device with a single cable, common across all HANA devices. The user interface (UI) is then delivered over the 1394 interface using well-established Web technologies – browsers and Web servers. A connected device is selected using the DTVs own remote control, whereupon that device serves up its own UI for display on the DTV. Devices do not need to have custom software drivers installed to interoperate. If they are HANA devices, they are guaranteed to interoperate. By taking these two simple steps, many of the problems with the current non-networked connection and control paradigm are solved, without changing the user interface model. Consumers continue to control their devices as they do now, except that one cable and one remote control do it all, without software updates, or having to enter IR codes on a universal remote control.

Using HANA enabled products; the consumer will see a top-level menu on the DTV that shows all of the devices that are connected. This top-level menu can be defined by the DTV or by a HANA compliant STB, satellite receiver or IPTV STB. Consumers will be able to select any product and control it using either the DTV’s remote control or that of the service provider. The choice is left to the consumer. No more switching between multiple remotes. With a simple click on the primary remote control, any connected device will display its own user interface on any connected display.

[DSeid]

I see 2007 as a year when Apple introduces a HANA-compliant device marketed mainly as an HDTV that has Apple inside, storing/displaying the music and video and allowing access to streams both from tradition service providers and via a new set of HDVideo offerings on iTunes (and other Web-based providers) and integrating with iPods in compressed formats.

[B.Serum]

I’m waiting for the day this nut is finally cracked elegantly…

I view home entertainment as one thing that’s currently fragmented into various separate machines:

• listening to audio you own (CD’s, MP3’s etc.)
• watching video you own or rent (videotapes, DVDs, etc.)
• listening to broadcasted audio (radio and radio shows, analog or satellite)
• watching broadcasted video (TV: cable, satellite, etc.)
• playing video games (Playstation, X-Box, etc.)
• browsing web sites (some sites exist as pure entertainment, ala HomeStarrunner)

Though a person can configure a home theater system to converge the majority of these elements, it involves frankensteining together dissimilar components and a complex amount setup and configuration. I particularly loathe the way that despite the promise of “universal remotes,” most homes have several remotes to control just a few components. These remotes are also usually beset with “button overload”.

I long to see a computer-based media center converge all these elements. Restrict all the complex setup to on-screen menus and commands and leave the remote control as a navigation and selection device to activate various input channels.

I want it to be logical. If I want to switch from television to a DVD, I don’t want to go to channel “3” or “4”, I want to go to “DVD.”

Though I think both Mac and Windows information architecture would be a vast improvement over the current state of affairs, I personally think that Apple has experience to deliver the simplest, user-freindly interface.

However, I see Microsoft as having the edge on actually having the hardware that could deliver all the types of input (given X-Box’s popularity and the fact that Apple has always been weak on games).

I get the feeling I’ll be waiting a while…

[E-Sabbath]

I have a lovely Logitech remote, and a cable-switching device operated by remote. I pop the button, and turn on the appropriate device. Simple, yet effective.
Oh, and a streambox for my music.