The Engineer Behind Microsoft's TV Strategy

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "A high-energy engineer named Joe Belfiore, age 37, has led Microsoft's Media Center team for four years. The effort has gained momentum in the past year, the Wall Street Journal reports, bolstering Microsoft's defense against a challenge from Apple's Front Row for control of home-entertainment software. 'The Apple threat seems menacing, in part because of recent history: Its iPod was a late entry in an established field of digital music players but soon stole the lion's share of the market,' the WSJ writes. At Microsoft, Front Row is already causing ripples: [Bill] Gates in an email to Mr. Belfiore asked why Apple's remote control had just six buttons. The standard Media Center remote from Microsoft has 39 buttons. (Mr. Belfiore's explanation: Front Row computers don't have TV or digital video recorder functions and thus don't need as many buttons.) At stake is more than just another piece of software for home computers. Both companies, and others, are trying to build the foundational technology for all home digital entertainment.'"

Comments

TV remote's numeric buttons

[wesley96]

Apple's 6-button approach is effective, but it DOES miss out on the numeric buttons you see in most TV remotes, so that might pose a bit of problem when Front Row has TV function added for those who channel surf by entering channel numbers. That's about the only argument I can see making sense about the but-it-doesn't-do-TV-or-DVR excuse.

Still, the 6-button approach is better in general over 39-button one IF the buttons are assigned in a clever way. It's obvious that most of those 39 buttons only get pressed once in a while or never get used at all.

Except...

[2nd Post!]

The XBox wasn't a baby step. It was jumping in feetfirst into the deep end, losing billions and costing billions.

The Mac mini is a baby step; cost effective, profitable, yet tentative. The iPod with video is a baby step; heck, even the original iPod was a baby step.

Apple has undertaken several baby steps to get themselves into the living room:
iPod
Mac mini
iMac with Front Row
Airport Express
iTunes Music Store
iTunes Video Store

Each one works on the experiences of the others and feeds off the successes of each other. Apple watches how Creative (mis)handles MP3 players and comes out with the iPod, watches how Sony and Creative and Real create jukeboxes and creates a correspondingly better one itself, watches how poor music stores are written and creates a nice one, etc.

Microsoft, in comparison hasn't taken any baby steps. It debuts the Media Center PC without any segue devices into the home, then years later introduces the XBox sans media center functionality, then introduce the XBox 360, again sans Media Center functionality.

If Microsoft were doing baby steps, why not release the XBox with build in Media Center functionality? It had the harddrive already, the DVD drive, the CPU! Why not use the XBox to refine the media center functionality, instead of a gaming PC? Why not introduce the XBox mini, who's sole purpose is to lower the price point for the XBox to $99, act as a DVR, and a digital hub? Of course they can't do it because Intel sees no reason to, but that is why you parter with AMD! Create a purpose built CPU, integrate the GPU and other hardware, for a system on a chip so that they can release an entire console with only three components and four devices!

Instead they end of life the XBox the same day the XBox 360 is released; unlike how Sony has successfully kept the PSOne and PS2 alive these past years, and likely will continue to support PS2 for years after the PS3 is out.

Re:buttons buttons BUTTONS.

[norminator]

The buttons could easily function like this:

Menu Navigation: 1) Up, 2) Down, 3) Left, 4) Right, 5) Select, 6) ?

Live TV: 1) Volume Up, 2) Volume Down, 3) Channel Down, 4) Channel Up, 5)?, 6) Menu

Recorded Videos: 1) Skip Ahead, 2) Skip Back, 3) Rewind, 4) Fast Forward, 5) Play/Pause, 6) Menu

It's the overloaded buttons you're talking about, but it can be done very intuitively. I don't know how they do it on the iMac, but I think it could work farily well for DVR purposes, too. The iPod uses its wheel for scrolling through menus, adjusting volume, seeking through songs, and even various functions in the simple games it has onboard. Overloading doesn't have to be bad. If it can be done in an obvious way, it's better than having a remote with 40 buttons, 30 of which have absolutely no function most of the time. I hate the MS Media Center remotes. There's not only a button for the main menu, but buttons for each of the main activities, which can all be easily accessed from the main menu. Five buttons where one would work fine.

Home entertainment versus computing

[Glowing Fish]

As someone who uses computers semi-seriously, and who knows many people who use computers seriously, I wonder at what Microsoft is doing spending so much focus on the exact design of a sophisticated home entertainment center.

While Microsoft's good choices at picking and promoting a standardized user interface are certainly not to be overlooked, I wonder if it means that they are taking the actual guts of the system less seriously than they should.
After Linux first showed signs of becoming popular, Microsoft quickly upgraded Windows NT into a passably professional server product (Windows XP). But if Bill Gates' big speech to the CES was about a home entertainment computer, I wonder if the company is going to actually think about making their server product more secure at all.

To me, this is like someone going in to buy a utility truck for work...and having the salesman spend all of his time explaining how the car stereo system works.

Re:Six buttons vs. 39 buttons

[Compholio]

Of course, the Lunix community will begin a new era of six button jokes as of this year.

Well, as a good Linux user I see several buttons: left, right, middle, "thumb 1", "thumb 2", "roll forward", and "roll backward". I suppose you could get rid of one of the thumb buttons, but then how would you reload your weapon without the keyboard? ;)

Re:Not too bright, are they?

[pomo monster]

Either way, he still doesn't "get it." Elegance, tastefulness, featureful simplicity--call it what you like, Bill Gates and the crass masses in his employ will never understand.

but they *never* achieve simplicity

[matt_maggard]

I would go along with that if Microsoft occasionally delivered simplicity. But they never do. I think it just shows that intelligence without insight may take you far but doesn't allow you to capture the 'hearts and minds' like apple's products do. Afterall, gates has seen and demoed MCE with the remote for years now - he could have put down a change order at any time if he thought it was a mistake.

I can easily picture an interface for front row that can be add dvr functionality without adding buttons to the remote - and I got a way lower SAT score than gates. MS has always tried to figure out how to get a product to do *more*; apple has always tried to figure out how to get a product to do what it does *better*. The latter speaks to me and my interests more than the former.

The ONLY thing I think that should ever be added to the front row remote would be numeric buttons for channels. I wish all my av gear had as simple a remote/interface.

-matt

Re:Front Row does NOT have TV/DV record ... yet

[Overly Critical Guy]

psst, Apple would probably just add a scroll wheel to the remote, not buttons. No need for Channel Up/Down or Volume Up/Down. It'll behave like an iPod currently does where all that functionality is packed into one clickwheel, making things feel immediately intuitive and reducing interface clutter.

Microsoft has a lot of reason to worry.

Re:Why 6 bottons?

[dgatwood]

My TiVo has 37 buttons and it controls only a single device. Of course, IMHO, about a third of them are unnecessary. For most devices, the extra buttons are needed because they naively try to jam universal remote functionality into a device remote, generally resulting in a device that sucks for pretty much every device it controls. I have never in my life found a universal remote that comes with a device to be particularly useful. They invariably lack some critical feature.

I now use a OneForAll Kameleon 8. You're not going to get that level of functionality in a remote that comes with a $200 device, though, and if you aren't going to go that far towards building a universal remote, you should build a well-designed single-device remote instead.

• Clear and enter are unnecessary. You should be able to do that in other ways nearly as easily.
• Thumbs up and down are also unnecessary. You could easily do that by hitting select and using arrows over to "rate this show" and give it a 0-5 rating or something. Why do you need two extra buttons when there are already up/down buttons?
• Play really isn't necessary if you get rid of single-stepping with the pause button.
• Slow definitely isn't necessary. I think I've used it... maybe twice. Ever.
• Record isn't necessary, as you can record by hitting select a couple of times even with the existing TiVo software.
• The TV power button isn't really necessary, IMHO. It's not like the TiVo remote gives any useful control over the TV. (Woohoo. Power, mute, and volume. Really useful.) That's four more buttons you don't need.
• The ten number controls could be replaced by a single "channel select button". Most people don't punch in channels on their TiVo. I've done that... maybe once.... No, I don't think I've EVER done that. I select a show in the guide or search for a show in the upcoming listings or pick a show from the now playing list. Selecting a channel by number... there are too many channels for that to even be useful. For the rare occasions where someone actually needs to punch in a number, it doesn't take THAT much more time to use the arrows and select to punch in a number in a 3x4 grid. Heck, forget the 'select channel' button and just make the number pad be to the left of the cursor when you hit select while playing. Make that ten fewer buttons.
• The channel up/down buttons are redundant. You have up/down buttons. The TiVo uses that as a page-up/page-down, which is also unnecessary. Scrolling should be more natural---holding down the button should scroll faster and faster like an iPod scroll wheel instead of requiring you to single-step through a long list. That's two more.
• The TiVo is always on. No matter how hard you try, you can't REALLY turn it off with the power button. So why, then, does it have one?

Thus, I'm down to 13 buttons that actually are actually necessary for a non-universal remote for a TiVo-like device. Play and slow-mo might sometimes be useful, so 15 on the high side. On the low side, 11---you can cut out the left and right arrows, too, if you work at the UI design hard enough.

For a device remote for a media center, if your best hardware designer says you need 39 buttons, you need to hire somebody who actually understands human-device interaction. That's not saying you should can the guy. He's probably a very good hardware designer. He just isn't the right person for designing a remote control, menus, and other HCI stuff. It takes a special breed, and sadly, most of the major electronics manufacturers have failed miserably at it.

Re:Why 6 bottons?

[dgatwood]

The fact is that most people don't really want all this crap on their phones. They just believe that they do because the cell companies hype all these features. When they actually get the phones and find that the features have a clumsy UI, subpar quality, subpar performance, etc., they complain about how complicated the phone is. Then they turn around and buy the cheapest phone that they can get the next time they upgrade. I hear cell phone users complaining about relatively simple cell phones being too complicated all the time. Most people really just want a phone that is a phone.

The problem is that as these people stop buying the junk features, there is always a new crop of people who are coming in on the bottom end and buy those features. We call them teenagers. In a few years, they grow up and are replaced by a new batch of clueless consumers. However, while they make up one of the more vocal portions of the cell phone market (like totally, duh, and he said "no," and I was like...), they are by no means the majority.

I have a camera phone. The camera sucks big time. I bought it because the only bluetooth-enabled phones I could find have a camera. Waste of hardware.

It has a damn web browser. Every time I accidentally bump the @(&*#^$^*& M-mode button, I get charged about $0.50 on my next phone bill for the data transfer. I have computers around me all day. Why would I want to browse the web on a crappy little screen the size of my two thumbs?

My cell phone has email. If I want to get email, guess what? I'll get it on a computer. Why would I want to read hundreds of ads for herbal Vi/\gra replacements on a screen the size of my two thumbs at ten words per screen?

My cell phone has text messages. It also has a second, separate set of text messages that all seem to be advertisements from the phone company (WAP push). None of this ever gets used because the phone company charges me money every time I do.

For me, it's not a case of not being able to figure out the interface. I can navigate it just fine. What bugs me is that my eyesight isn't that great right now. In twenty years, navigating a cluttered, clumsy interface will be a real problem. And I shouldn't have to. None of those features add anything useful to the cell phone experience for me. Why can't I get a phone that is JUST A PHONE?

Okay, okay, so I do like having an address book with bluetooth syncing. That still falls really close to what a phone was intended to do, though. A phone being a phone book makes sense. A phone being a web browser and camera and IM client and email client and phone and phone book and personal organizer... not so much.

Just my $0.02.

Looking at the iPod video you can see both sides

[SmallFurryCreature]

Or anyone who has played a PC vs Console version of a game can tell the difference.

A console has a very restricted interface. Simple but restrictive. A pc has hundreds of buttons. Complex but freeform.

One of the simplest examples is spell/weapon selection in game. On a PC you usually get a list handily labelled with the top row buttons 1-0 or in case of EQ2 1 to =. This allows fast switching/selection.

A console usually requires you to use and forwards/back setup.

Yet is this actually simpler? Depending on the game constantly having to search through a list could be considered a pain. Perhaps that is the reason Halo put grenades under a different button instead of making it a selectable weapon?

The Grenade under G is a nice feature however that also made it to PC land.So perhaps the limited input on the console made the PC with its 101 keys even easier to use? I can easily select my weapons directly AND thanks to consoles now can use grenades with a main weapon equipped.

The iPod is similar. I have had a lot of MP3 players and the iPod is my latest and it is nice. Yet at times I long for my iRiver player (wich died a painfull death) because while it had far more buttons and some odd button overloading once you figured them out it was so much easier. I never accidently changed the volume or skipped because all basic actions had their own function.

Simple example of how fewer buttons can be confusing? Well perhaps it is me and my fat clumsy fingers but I hate those buttons that combine skip and fastforward. The price we pay for saving two buttons is that you cannot instantly fast forward. You got to wait for the timeout and the fastforward to start.

There are other problems with the iPod, it is all to easy to screw up the volume as you try to change other settings. Yes the wheel is very nice usually but sometimes I just want to shuffle the selection (is it me or does iPod not support dynamic shuffling?) or change the equalizer settings without going deaf or losing all sound.

But this is nothing new. You got three kinds of gear control in cars. Full automatic, the american half-breed, and full manual. The fact that all three continue to be sold tells us that perhaps all three serve a segment of the market.

Perhaps it should be up to the consumer to decice what they want. For all the mac fans I do suggest that an awfull lot of people do not like the minimalist approach if it limits them in their speed. Proof? How many mac's are actually used with the original 1 button mouse?

Yes it is simple and the most default upgrade for a mac machine is a "real" mouse.

MS has always been in a sort of middle ground anyway. If you want total control you use a unix. If you want total simplicity you use a mac. The middle market is windows. It served them well. MS has plenty to worry about but their remote having more buttons is not one of them.

Re:Why 6 bottons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they make a "grandparents" line of mobile phones? My grandparents have a pretty nice phone with a camera and a few other tricks. They hardly answer it because it's too confusing for them. If it was made as simple as, oh, I don't know...a phone to operate, they may use it and understand it. It's not like they're using corded telephones at home or anything, they understand a few screens and how to operate it. What they don't understand is hitting a wrong button and getting taken into same crazy-ass settings menu when all they're trying to do is make (or receive) a phone call. I've never actually looked at their cell phones data, but I'm pretty sure it's full of pictures of them getting the flash bulb in their eyes.

Oh, and on the other end of the spectrum are my cousins, ranging from 16 to 8, and they all share a cell phone. Top of the line sony ericson, with everything. They just run around constantly yapping on the thing and taking pictures of fucking everything. They know how to use all the features, but big deal. It's a 400 dollar toy to them. The features impress and entertain them, but are not actually useful. I'm sure they understand how to use it, but not why. Meh, kids.

My older brother (30) has a nice phone too, and uses all the features, but mostly to take pictures of the back of my head, or my dog attacking him. Um, yeah. Nice camera phone. yippee. Pictures that are quickly deleted, because they're of no god damned use. Sure, it's convenient to have a camera all the time, but what is really being missed is that the pictures have no meaning. If you can take a picture of anything, people will. If you don't want it in a scrapbook or something, why aim the lens at it?

They annoy as a camera, suck as a phone, and are pathetic at mp3s. They should just be a phone, and maybe IM. That's my experience with modern cell phones. It's enough to turn me Luddite. I'm the only one in the family without a phone. They hate me for my freedom. :)

Re:the unspoken battle

[Zathrus]

That's why an update to the mini is in order

Agreed. It's certainly in need of an update, although I suspect they're holding off for the Intel CPU line (as with many of their other badly needed updates).

Thing is, if you cram all of that in one box you'll completely blow the price ceiling -- you'd be looking at closer to $1000 instead of $500, and that will appeal to a much smaller community of users. It would definitely be a serious competitor to MS based HTPCs though.

It's a lot to cram into that small of a space, but I think they could do it.

The biggest problem will be cooling. Put in a large enough HD to be useful (particularly for recording HD content) and you'll completely blow the cooling budget for the box -- 250G+ HDs are warm. And they don't have enough real estate to put in a large, slow moving (and thus quiet) fan on the current form factor.

I think the smarter bet here would be going for a chassis that's larger than the current Mini, but smaller than your normal box. That would probably solve all of the heat and space issues.