Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sees Future in IPTV
linumax writes "It took 12 years and more than $10 billion, but one of Microsoft's biggest dreams may finally be coming true: The company is close to becoming a major player in the television business. This is not about PCs that play video -- the company has done that for years -- but rather a whole new platform for delivering television over the Internet, through software that's mostly invisible to consumers." From the article: "Consumers will see cool new features -- imagine four live pictures on a screen at once -- instant channel changes and more options for on-demand video rentals, including high-definition content. Microsoft TV also merges phone services, so incoming messages, e-mail and caller ID can be displayed on users' television screens. Microsoft hopes its Internet protocol television system (IPTV) will also be used in India, China and other developing countries, where it could provide education and government services as well as entertainment via the television."
I know that my money is staying in my pocket until someone introduces commercial-free subscription TV.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
IPTV is the needed "invention" to roll faster connections for less money. IPTV can offer a variable payment method - subscription (show, channel or all channels), pay per view, or ads. IPTV can bring low budget vids to a wide audience, and it can tell advertisers, content creaters and others who is really watching their shows.
But will government, cable distributors and Hollywood allow it? I already foresee the "monopoly monopoly!" posts, but I think only a few big players could start the ball rolling.
I am very interested in seeing what MS can do to overcome bandwidth concerns at the backbone, ISP and user level (TFA only eludes to it).
IPTV could destroy Tivo, Comcast and Fox if the content is broadcast quality or better. I fear blog production quality, though.
Will this eventually be a separately managed "Internet" bridged at the DSLAM or ISP level? Will MS involve enough big players to keep regulators off their back? Will it run Linux? Err...
Then again, it could be a WebTV failure as well.
We need to stop separating media into cable, POTS, cell, radio, Internet, etc. Its all just packets and it needs massive cohesion in order to be truly at-will. Use all that bandwidth for AnyPacket services and bandwidth will skyrocket while prices will plummet. Why is MS forced to chase landlines? Overregulation.
Funny though that MS is digging their own grave. IPTV = more bandwidth = more client-server software implementation.
I can't wait for the future.
to me this seems like such a waste. the few features mentioned sound like crap or not new. for instance the article says "imagine four live pictures on the screen at once" -- why would i want to watch 4 at once? anyway, picture in picture (you know, that button that says PIP that nobody uses) has been around since the dark ages. the other features mentioned are already available one way or another or are pointless.
-- lol pwned
With PC sales slowing as the market saturates, Microsoft is salivating over the potential of faster-growing areas such as television and mobile phones.
Salivating? More like clawing desperately at taking over the living room. They already failed with WMA thanks to iPod.
All Apple has to do is release a video-based iPod, and it's bye-bye Windows in the living room as well--to be more specific, WMV (VC-1) will be dead along with H.264, which is already the primary codec for Blu-ray movies (Sony is already threatening X-Box 360's streaming movie capabilities thanks to Blue-ray, thereby making X-Box 360 useless since it has no Blu-ray or HD-DVD drive).
I'm sorry, the features sound cool, but a lot of Microsoft tech gadgets have come and gone that sounded cool on the surface but just didn't provide the right interface or were too cumbersome. As usual, I'll wait and see (and hope Apple does something to actually legitimize it).
"Sufferin' succotash."
Imagine two of those being horrible brainless reality TV re-runs peppered with commercials for products you wouldn't even think about buying, one a giant fat dirty BSoD and the other a rather fetching locked-up "Do you want to send this error report to Microsoft" dialog box floating happily on a background of hills and blue sky.
Ahh yes, the future is bright. The future is BallmerVision.
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
I remember when Amiga was talking about such an environment. Where the lines between appliances were blurred. They dubbed it Digital Convergence but never went very far with it.
The idea was that all of your devices serve a single purpose (they did in 1998, when this was published). But, Amiga had this vision that they'd develop a platform that could live on a TV, a computer, a mobile phone, even a PDA. You could watch TV on your phone. Or you could use your phone over the TV (huh?). Even better, your phone and your TV could be your computer.
The next ten years are definitely going to be interesting. Will Microsoft ever get this thing off the ground? Or will all of the litigation stifle it?
I realize what Microsoft is talking about is a bit different, at least on the surface. But if they have this portable "media OS" they can certainly take it to the next level -- the level of "Digital Convergence".
My ZooLoo
Not ads or commercials but: How much DRM and proprietary hardware will be needed to view it?
Yup, nothing truly exists until Microsoft 'Innovates' it into existence. Nope, nobody ever thought of sending video over IP until today, thank God Microsoft is out there inventing the future for us.
Democrat delenda est
isolate people from one another, make them sedentary and homebound, render many hours of their days sterile and counterproductive,...
Great, that's all we need, 4 simultaneous screens filled with crap. If only they could raise the level of current programs and take commercials away, I'd pay dearly for such television. In the meantime, I'll stick to my books thank you very much.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
This brings a whole new level to the meaning of Adware and Spyware. Talk about your privacy concerns. Microsoft will know not only when you watch TV but also which channels.
I've seen this article before.
1. New MS technology to revolutionize some industry MS doesn't dominate.
2. Feature list that makes you say "wow."
3. Feature list, like most MS products is 99.9% over-promised.
4. Does anyone really want a TV that downloads spam?
5. Does anyone want a TV that can interrupt them?
6. How about a TV that controls what you watch?
I seem to remember some TV viewing software in Windows 95 that made similar promises.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
From what I've seen, the excitement of "IPTV" seems to be modeled on the wrong things. "Have four screens at once! Imagine all the TV you'll get!"
I think the real magic of IPTV will be convenience. Right now, I have an iPod for Podcasts (yes, the name sucks to some people - deal with it), and a Tivo at home. For some stupid ass reason, Tivo doesn't have their Desktop software with OS X 10.4, but that's another issue.
For me, the beauty of IPTV will be watching whatever I want. Whenver I want. Did I miss "Battlestar Gallactica" or the entire first season of "Veronica Mars" (Hey, I've seen the first three episodes - good show). Or "Firefly". With IPTV, and perhaps some sort of subscription in place of my cable, I can see them. Click the button to my set top Tivo-ish device, and I can watch the episode. Or use my account to view it on my phone as I travel nationwide. Or catch it on my laptop. I wouldn't even mind commercials so much (unless they were done in an onerous fashion - ie: if I pay $2 to watch an episode, I better damn well be able to fast forward a commercial if I want).
The rest of it ("instant channel changes"? My parents had that with a regular TV - it was called "Hey, kid, change the channel") is fluff. But IPTV has a need now. Look at how many people download episodes off of the net. I'll be honest: if I missed a show (pre-Tivo days), I'd bittorrent it and catch the other episodes later. I'm still hoping that Tivo fixes its desktop software to make it 10.4 compatible so next time I hop on a plane I can watch something there instead of feeling bad for violating intellectual property law by downloading a commercial-less TV episode through a peer to peer network. (Yes, I'm not sure if it's officially illegal or not, but since I'm assuming it is not legal, I still feel bad.)
What's going to be interesting is how Microsoft reacts. Right now, Apple has a near lock on the online music industry - and if my theory is right, they're manuevering so that within 5-10 years when iPods are down to $30-$50 apiece (aka - the price of a decent portable CD player right now), they'll make their money by being the driver of online music sales through the iTunes store, thereby becoming the Microsoft of music. (Oh, I'm sure the Apple fans are going to hate me for that one.)
My guess is that Apple is now hoping to do the same thing for online video sales. I don't predict an iPod Video tomorrow, but if Apple has an "Airport Express Video" or some other type of device with a tivo-ish remote control interface (store the movies/video podcasts/etc on your PC, stream through the wireless device in a oh-so-Apple cool and simple interface), they could make a move.
Microsoft is all about the PC - everything is the PC and serves it. Apple I think has learned that, with the iPod, they can keep the PC in there, but it's a side player; without the PC, the iPod would not function, but it doesn't matter if you use Windows or Mac, Apple still makes money. If they introduced another device that was like that, Apple could continue to have the PC be important, but not the *most* important thing.
(Which is why I think their recent market share sales went from 4.5% to 6.6% or something like that according to their latest financial statement - by making the PC unimportant with their devices, they made it easier to buy a Mac. Odd idea, and I'll let someone else tell me how wrong I am.)
If they had a device like that, the studios would be, like the iPod, forced to play with them or risk being locked out. MS would rather you bu a "media center PC" - yet another big complicated expensive box for the house, which may be giving them tunnel vision in their IPTV plans. So I'm not sure if they get it - but we'll just have to wait and see.
Of course, this is all my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Quite frankly as technology moves forward, TV becomes less and less important in my life so the prospect of 4 simultaneous screens, interactive 'this', view again 'that' leaves me cold. For the same reason, building new features into the TV is aiming at the wrong device - I spend more time on my computer than watching TV - and that's NOT to say I live and breathe computers 24/7.
The Internet is a wonderful tool that has allowed me to do my job (IT support and consultancy), keep in touch with old friends, see what's on in the local cinemas, check out local live music, order books, CDs and DVDs online and contribute to technical discussions etc. and gadgets such as a SmartPhone and PDA mean I can check email and perform remote diagnostics and configs wherever I am.
Sad techie? - not really, the portability of my support tools means I do not have to be tied to the office all day - I can be 'on the road' meeting people, working from home or even taking 'time out' to do what I want to do until something needs my attention. Far from nailing me down in front of a 'media wall' of plasma/LCD TVs, the Internet and technology has got me 'out and about', socialising and spending more time in the real world.
The prospect of more sophisticated media delivery via the Internet is 'logical' from an evolutionary perspective but right now I'd give up my TV if it wasn't for my 5 year old Son and his Children's programs, my wife's love for all things 'soap' and the fact that I watch the news every now and then.
Deliver my 'regular' TV via IP if you wish but do it because it makes it cheaper or happens to be 'the way to go', but not because you think I am crying out for wall-to-wall soaps, drama, comedy etc. 4-up on the display!
Information and learning via IP TV - well Digital analogue, digital terrestrial and satellite can do that already. but I suppose you gain interactivity 'built in'. Alert me when a phone call comes in? - er, my basic phone does that by making a noise. Well I suppose with the new system, when a call comes in it will start to record the current programme in case I miss something - well, if the program was *that* watchable I'd keep watching unless ther was some kind of emergency - but the number of times that has happened in my life so far? - er - zero; and if I miss the news it will be round again in half an hour.
The target markets are interesting - India, China and 'developing' countries - hmm, sounds like a good idea to lock every one into your 'all-in-one' system whereas right now I have the freedom to buy a TV, radio, computer (email), landline telephone service and rent DVDs from anyone I want and mix and match service providers to suit me - oh, and then what happens when there's a local distribution point failure - I lose all my comms and media services in one go?? - brilliant!!
AT&ROFLMAO
If dollars are votes, then you are NOT in the majority in your opinion.
Mine is Good
Welcome to slashdot... you must be new here :)
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
I haven't seen anyone comment on this yet, so here goes....
The summary states that MS hopes to partner with developing nations like China and India to use IPTV as an educational tool. As someone who works full-time on IT in development, I'd like to offer my considered opinion that this is one of the worst possible suggestions one could possibly make.
The resource requirements for a service such as this would be incredibly expensive, especially relative to the amount of money available. Most importantly, it would require a massively centralised infrastructure that is almost the exact opposite of the kind of setup that would actually benefit rural communities. Production studios, distribution facilities, high bandwidth network infrastructure in places that barely even have a power grid - how could this possible look like a good idea?
I'll tell you how: MS is doing the same thing that the IMF and others have done for decades. They're trying to sucker these countries into building a system that will keep them chained to MS for an entire generation, simply by tying a ribbon around it and saying, 'Think of the children!'
It is, in my opinion, a cynical and calculated move to take money from the hands of those who could make a real difference and put it into the hands of the rich.
It sickens me to see people taking advantage of others who are poor and ignorant. Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all the time in developing nations. It looks like MS is growing up as a corporation, and learning to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I'm very impressed by your theory, but it seems to me to be incomplete. For instance, where does the assassination of JFK come into play? I mean, it doesn't broach how his coffin was dumped into the ocean, or how the UN and the Rockefellers are plotting to take over America in the New World Order.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Inst(buffering...33%)ant chan(buffering...15%)nel chan(buffering...7%)ges!
You've given them too much credit! I don't have to imagine, all I have to do is open up Internet Exploder. Advertisements take up 3/4 of the screen, leaving about 1/4 for your reality TV show. Pop ups will come at random to cover the one thing you want to look at, so "Power Users" will deploy Dual and Quad screen "solutions". As Outlook does with your email, M$ PhoneHome will lose your real calls in a sea of spam.
But it will be carnivore friendly! After M$ has sold all of your buying, banking, watching habits, social and genetic index data to the highest bidders, they will happily provide transcripts of your phone call and living room conversations to Copyright^H^H^H^H^H^HLaw Enforcement on demand. Those flunkies are good for something, it's just not privacy or entertainment.
Where did you want to go yesterday (1993)? Right, there you are! Single screen GUI, not quite WYSIWYG, not very fast, insecure and buggy as hell.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
(not the regular one...i mean like "the island")....it makes me so jetsons-ly..... commentator:will he make...(TV rings..incoming call - jeff)
TV: take call??
me:yes...
me: jeff get the *&&^$& off im trying to watch the game...
jeff: (disgustingly wearing only boxers)yo did u see mark on the 4th pushes button
TV: accept time marker??
me: yes
TV splits screen in 2 half jeff and half the clip from the game he sent
me: that bastard he told me he lost his tickets...
i end call and tv goes back to playing game full screen
The wild success of DirectTV, Bell ExpressVu and it's ilk basically slammed TV over wires - even classic big fat wires like Cable badly. I was involved with one such failed venture, and at one point, there were a half dozen companies in the space. It's technically possible but makes almost no sense.
:-)
I'm not sure where microsoft sees themselves positioned, but the problem is you need to have a service provider for your IPTV -and- a broadband link, and if you believe your video streams aren't going to interfere with your bandwidth.. especially over a few boxes.. heh
It doesn't make sense, and consumers aren't stupid, educated by decades of passionate hatred for Cable companies.
You want to know where IPTV has a chance? It's in interactive pr0n services direct to your TV. That, and maybe gambling. The satellite companies must make a fortune off pr0n, but they can't do the interactive thing. The webchat adult entertainment companies make a mint, but don't have a plug-it-in-and-play (ha) solution for the bedroom and living room. Anyone want a consultant?
..don't panic
Before you guys go congratulating Microsoft for innovating the concept of IPTV or allowing telephone companies to deliver telivision services... other companies have been doing this for years before Microsoft got into the game. Check out the following companies: http://www.minervanetworks.com/ http://www.myrio.com/ http://www.orca.tv/ http://www.tutsys.com/ http://www.skystream.com/ Hundreds of phone companies in the US TODAY, and more in other countries, already offer IPTV to their customers... and no, not using Microsoft's software. There are already companies that are offering these "advanced" services, which alot of people on here thinks Microsoft innovated.
Ths is from soemone that contributes to IPTV proejcts in the FOSS community: 1. IPTV is not MS 'owned'! IPTV is an independent standard 2. Its not technical implementations that is slowing or speedign up deployment its the content rpoviders refusing to adopt 'internet' style free-wheeling acceptance of content form all producers. Cable companeis tend to want to monopolize their content so as to prevent outsiders from competing.. Wittness the death tol of DeviceTop.com owned by Espial. Cable companei sin the USA did not want to hear from outside content providers/developrs and thus the plan by Espial to get 3rd party content into USA via IPTV failed due to cable wanting to monopolize and lock out developers to avoid facing competition.
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
I work for a major, major telecom company.
After a careful and very extensive evaluation taking almost a year, the microsoft solution was rejected by both technical and administrative decision makers, because it falls short of competitors.
As you can see from this, M$ IPTV has been on the market for over a year already.
I'm certain others will find the same results. So I wonder how much of this is just artificially created hype to create more sales, because for all I know they are barely worth mentioning so far.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Broadcast TV is seriously threatened, and is only just realising it.
I have TV on demand already, in the form of 24+ hours of unwatched files on my home PC's hard drive. I'd download more but that would just be pointless, I don't have the time to watch it. Speaking to co-workers I realise that this is not so very unusual. Sure it's not mainstream, but give it a few years. I don't think there's any way to really stop this short of shutting down the internet. All this flailing around to find a business model and a set-top-box that will fix last century's media paradigm to compete with the free online equivalent of swap meets is amusing in a pathetic kind of way.
So - broadcast once, let the viewers rip to a file and download forevermore? Or will future TV show makers upload the files to the net themselves? Will this be the end of big-budget shows? Is that a bad thing?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
10 Billion dollars and 12years ?
And they still dont have a workable product.
I worked at (and designed the software for) Kingston Interactive Television where we developed an iDTV, VOD and Internet system in less than 2 years. The whole project cost less than 30m and that includes the MAN & DSLAM's for 30k installations and the actual installation in 10,000 home. We where the first to launch this anywhere in the world, it actually worked and not a MS-box in sight. It was all bases on ARM STB's, Sun Application Servers, NCube Video servers, Linux for Internet and Tanberg MPEG Transcoders.