HP Unveils Its Digital Media Receiver
strictnein writes "Looks like HP is getting into the media box market. Today they introduced their new HP Digital Media Receiver 5000 series. Some of the key specs are: Wireless networking support (on the ew5000 model), S-Video and composite video output, and MP3 and WMA support. The OS support is limited to Windows ME or XP. This is an interesting addition to their Windows Media Center based 863N, 873N, and 883N desktop models."
Will it support ogg?
*ducks*
-twb
... Is there a market for this kind of thing?
I'm a hardcore geek and have expert certification on everything from Windows 2000 to A+ certs to Novell Network certs to CISCO certs to _____ . You name it, I've done it.
But I personally could probably just barely piece one of these "home media units" together. Furthermore, I wouldn't even know what to use it for.
Some of us, like myself, still buy CDs from BMG and Columbia House. Yes, you read that correctly -- some of us still buy CDs.
So, we have more need for 6 disc changes than we do for 10 GB discs of hard drives on which to store mostly-illegally-obtained mp3s.
Sorry to rant, but:
1) HP clearly is out of their league and doesn't know their market,
and,
2) No one aside from the most hardcore Slashdotter would even know what to do with one of these
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
HP got crap reviews for their first overpriced stripped-down media PCs. I'll stick with my Slimpy, thanks.
Video Output: NTSC, 30 FPS, 60 Hz
NTSC? That is so 20th century. Where the hell is the high-definition version with DVI and component analog outputs? I'm not greedy; even 720p will do!
Hell, if the XBOX can do 1080i and 720p output, this piece of junk-- er, extremely worth market entrant ought to be able to.
I mean it's not like the thing is recording or playing back video, for crying out loud; it just does still photos. Given that most digital cameras are recording pictures in 1600 x 1200 or bigger, even a 1280x720 output would be nice, nice. But no, we're stuck with lame-ass interlaced NTSC. Pfft. I'd rather describe my vacation snaps to my friends than show them in crappy NTSC.
I write in my journal
check out the picture . Looks very cool.
If their target market is someone with a "home network", they better tend to needs of uber geeks and release a linux version of their software.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
For $300 I can build one myself, stuff it into an old vcr box, and play anything I want on it, including but not limited to:
1) Music ( All formats )
2) Video ( All formats, inc. dvd )
3) PVR
4) MAME, SNES, NES, ect ect ect
5) Digi Cam Pict Viewer Gallery Thingy
6) Internet
Of course, I would run a cable to mine, the budget is not there to go out and buy wireless just for this. ( Plus the speed of the connection is a factor )
You can do this too, just go out to ebay or pricewatch and do some research with google.
Just me 2 cents worth.
a) Ananad Shimpai talks high level about Microsoft Media Center Edition, the HP unit, and the hardware requirements issues (i.e. need for an MPEG encoder, high CPU power requirements so that it will keep running)
b) PC Challenge is for a PC-based unit for Home Theater. The challenger built a butt ugly slime green unit, but the editor used a shuttle
c) The Linux TV-out issue with Macrovision. This covered issues that I didn't know about, namely card manufacturers and home brew Gatos project are faced with either licensing Macrovision and going closed source, or don't built it at all if there is a chance it will play material which should be macrovision encoded.
d) Alex St John talks about HP's 873n and Media Center
and most importantly e) Malda talking about typing his column on his girlfriend's macintosh
I think the pc-based PVR market is enormously interesting, because it serves both DIY and pre-built units in distinct markets. It brings new easy to use software to the TV, where entertainment is. And it creates a new market for selling pc's (both in lieu and in addition to a home pc)
Personally, I would be happy with just support from Apple for the Vorbis audio codec in a Quicktime wrapper.
It would be difficult for me to find a way to care less than I do about the OGG wrapper format, but Vorbis seems to actually be a rather good audio codec. In OGG, it is decent, but in QuickTime, it could be outstanding!
As one example, the ability for a Vorbis stream to be stripped to a lower bitrate on the fly seems to be a perfect match with the QuickTIme Packetizer API to create a Packetizer/Reassembler combo which can compensate for lost packets by replacing them with packets at a lower bit rate, keeping the total stream bandwidth below the specified limit!
Plus, you wouldn't have to decode all of the headers in the stream (to read the granule positions, to determine at what time each frame starts) before being able to seek around in it, as in Quicktime the Sample Table Atom holds everything you need in one place.