UNCjigga
Lifer
This bugs me. Nevermind the fact that PCs can play DVDs and that we all have infinite access to torrents etc. It irks me that the first platform to support legal, DRM-encrypted H.264 content is iTunes + iPod and not the Media Center PC.
Does Microsoft just suck when it comes to doing business with content producers and distributors? They had one small success 2 years ago when Terminator 2 was released in WMV HD--but that was on a physical medium and they had no clue what to do with online distribution of video. Couldn't MS learn from their loss to iTunes? Wouldn't this have made Media Center more successful as a media platform? Or would that have been seen as 'ahead of its time'?
Did Apple then succeed due to market timing of the video iPod? I don't think so. I really think that the execs at media companies think iPod is the status quo and that there's no point in supporting a platform unless its tied to the Apple brand, and its all because of Microsoft's failures. Seriously, how does it make sense that the first viable medium for commercial online video distribution is tied to a 2.5" screen and low-res 320x480 video? Shouldn't we at least have access to a video library as large as iTunes all encoded in WMV at 720x480? A portable video player leapfrogged the home theater PC concept? It just goes to show how bad MS fvcked this one up!!!
Can't blame the media format--WMV is great for high-res video and Apple's Fairplay Quicktime variant of H.264 is just as proprietary. You can argue that H.264 is 'more advanced' than H.263-based codecs like DivX/XviD and WMV, but the difference is negligible for average users. Windows could have had far greater reach than iPod or iTunes--in all fairness MS should have killed Windows XP Home and replaced it with Media Center Edition when it first came out. Their reluctance to do that killed Media Center as a platform, and I think they're about to make the same mistake with Vista. Microsoft also should have provided more support for WMV acceleration in hardware--making that a component of DirectX 9 for example. And Xbox 360 should have had DVR or video content downloads standard, but MS fvcked that one up when the hard drive was no longer standard.
Basically, I think Microsoft and Intel better start learning from their mistakes and Apple's successes if they want to be a player in distributing video content for PCs and next-gen 'media devices'. They need to lock up agreements with MSOs (cable operators), IPTV providers like Verizon and SBC, and Tivo--and make sure Viiv PCs come standard with CableCARD 2.0 or OpenCable whenever they're finalized. They need to make sure that user-to-user video sharing is also enabled with DRM. That'll give them enough content until they can figure out a direct download solution similar to iTunes (or maybe a business model supported by the cable/telecom industry is better? Can't call that one yet.)
End of rant.
Does Microsoft just suck when it comes to doing business with content producers and distributors? They had one small success 2 years ago when Terminator 2 was released in WMV HD--but that was on a physical medium and they had no clue what to do with online distribution of video. Couldn't MS learn from their loss to iTunes? Wouldn't this have made Media Center more successful as a media platform? Or would that have been seen as 'ahead of its time'?
Did Apple then succeed due to market timing of the video iPod? I don't think so. I really think that the execs at media companies think iPod is the status quo and that there's no point in supporting a platform unless its tied to the Apple brand, and its all because of Microsoft's failures. Seriously, how does it make sense that the first viable medium for commercial online video distribution is tied to a 2.5" screen and low-res 320x480 video? Shouldn't we at least have access to a video library as large as iTunes all encoded in WMV at 720x480? A portable video player leapfrogged the home theater PC concept? It just goes to show how bad MS fvcked this one up!!!
Can't blame the media format--WMV is great for high-res video and Apple's Fairplay Quicktime variant of H.264 is just as proprietary. You can argue that H.264 is 'more advanced' than H.263-based codecs like DivX/XviD and WMV, but the difference is negligible for average users. Windows could have had far greater reach than iPod or iTunes--in all fairness MS should have killed Windows XP Home and replaced it with Media Center Edition when it first came out. Their reluctance to do that killed Media Center as a platform, and I think they're about to make the same mistake with Vista. Microsoft also should have provided more support for WMV acceleration in hardware--making that a component of DirectX 9 for example. And Xbox 360 should have had DVR or video content downloads standard, but MS fvcked that one up when the hard drive was no longer standard.
Basically, I think Microsoft and Intel better start learning from their mistakes and Apple's successes if they want to be a player in distributing video content for PCs and next-gen 'media devices'. They need to lock up agreements with MSOs (cable operators), IPTV providers like Verizon and SBC, and Tivo--and make sure Viiv PCs come standard with CableCARD 2.0 or OpenCable whenever they're finalized. They need to make sure that user-to-user video sharing is also enabled with DRM. That'll give them enough content until they can figure out a direct download solution similar to iTunes (or maybe a business model supported by the cable/telecom industry is better? Can't call that one yet.)
End of rant.
