Slashdot Mirror
What Happened to Media PCs?
timrichardson writes to tell us that Slate is asking what happened to the promises of a living room PC? The lack of any news at Apple's WWDC prompted the author to look at the promises made at the Consumer Electronics Show a la Viiv and other "uber-consoles" in addition to the launch of Apple's downloadable videos and "couch-surfing remote." While some pundits blame the state of the technology this article claims that the PC and the TV provide two very different roles that aren't going to converge anytime soon.
I think the demand simply isn't there, I wouldn't blame the technology. The majority of people wouldn't see the point, or understand the possibilities. Many people still struggle with TV remotes...
By and large, people want to spend money on their plasma displays, not "uber-consoles".
What's your GCNSEQNO?
For computing in the den, give me a laptop.
For my entertainment-center, give me a DVR or something similar.
Sure, they are both computers on the inside, but for most "computing" tasks like email, office work, etc. I'd rather use a laptop or desktop, not stare at a screen several meters away.
I can think of one major exception: anything that involves two people sharing a single physical display, such as videoconferencing or playing a multi-player game.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
When you turn on a TV, you expect it to work. Immediately. No loading screens, no choosing applications, and a relatively minimal amount of button pressing and stuff to figure out.
Computers tend not to deliver on these sorts of things, and will most likely only make the TV experience MORE complicated.
Take the "MOXI" DVR for example. I've had some experience with this atrocity. Some particular things about it that bother me, that really aren't an issue with simpler set-top boxes (or with a lack of a set-top box entirely), and that seem to be the way things are going what with the pretty interfaces...
- Very long channel-changing lag
- Necessity to hit TWO buttons (with a pause of up to 3 seconds between) to choose a program from the listings
- Pretty pictures of the channel names, but no actual station name text (making it anyone's guess which local channel is assigned to which)
- V-Chip lockouts that take non-rated documentaries, independents, and foreign films as collateral damage
- Sound effects (thankfully they can be disabled)
- The interface is so pretty, why put a program grid in? Instead, you can only see at a glance what is showing at this exact moment, needing to hover and wait for a load to see what's next on each channel.
- Cooling fan that runs 24/7
- 3-5 minute reboot time, should you need to reboot (what, reboot a system that's been on for months straight?)
- Lack of a "close on-screen displays" button or mechanism... gotta just wait for it to go away.
- Very deep menu-digging necessary for some features
My point is that as TV stuff makes its way toward greater computerization, it is very easy to lose the easy-access TV mindset and make a totally user-hostile experience in the name of gradients, pretty buttons, lots of options, and "oh cool!" features. I get upset with the channel-change delay of digital cable compared to analog cable... adding a computer to the mix will almost always compound the problem. It's irritating enough using different TVs with remote control buttons in slightly different locations.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
No, the fundamental disconnect is between techno-fetishist nerds and those still anchored in reality.
The mistake that techno-fetishists make is assuming that "technologically informed" inherently equals being some techno-fetishist nerd. You know the kind. The kind that thinks that a computer automatically makes everything better, for no other reason than being a computer. And thus actually thinks that it's a good idea to have a web server on his fridge, so he can check the temperature in it from work. Or than it's a good, nay, a _great_ idea to slap a browser and an LCD display on a microwave oven so you can surf on it (supposedly for recipes) while you heat your TV dinner in it. (Don't laugh. Some company came up with just that product. Literally.)
But mostly just because. Because in their mind the computer is a purpose in and by itself, and everything else is just a means and an excuse to interact with the oh-so-cool computer.
It doesn't equal. There are plenty of us for whom the computer is just a tool, like any other tool. And just as you don't need a hammer to cook your dinner, you don't need a web browser for it either.
There are plenty of cheaper gadgets which do one job well, and which don't really need a pimped-up gaming rig to do.
E.g., a fridge is just a fridge. All it needs is a thermostat. I don't need to check its temperature over the internet every hour. I just need the confidence that it has a simple and robust thermostat that will work for years or decades without any need to babysit it. The simpler and lower tech, the better.
E.g., a microwave oven is just a microwave oven. I don't want to browse for recipes on it. Any recipes I might have in mind have been (A) researched _before_ even buying the ingredients, and it's by definition too late for that at the time of cooking them, and (B) cooked in the normal oven, if it's a recipe worth researching and not just a TV dinner. It doesn't need a web browser and LCD display driving the price up. All I want from it is the peace of mind that if I set it to 15 minutes, it will stop after roughly 15 minutes. It doesn't have to be synchronized to NTP and it doesn't need micro-second accuracy either. As long as it stops somewhere between 14 and 16 minutes, it's ok.
And so is it with "media" computers or "home theathre" computers too. It's not that people are somehow not "technologically informed", it's that it's such a techno-fetishist use of technology. To record a show, even an ancient VCR is enough. (Though you might go for a DVD recorder nowadays.) To watch a rented DVD with your family, you only need a DVD player. (If you got a DVD recorder at the previous step, it will have that included.) To have some music in your living room, you just need a CD player. (And again, the DVD player or recorder from the previous step, it might have that included.) You don't need an expensive renamed gaming rig to do those, and you don't need the whirring of its fans and hard drives while you watch a movie.
Even with TVs, it's not that anyone is "technologically uninformed" and doesn't know about HDTV. Trust me, everyone has at least heard that they exist. It's that normal people have other priorities to spend their money on. Sure, a big LCD HDTV screen is nice, _but_ you could use that money on something else instead. That's where those nice big TVs fail for the majority of the population. The improvement exists, but it just isn't worth the cost, or more precisely giving up something else you could use that money on. You can spend the evening in front of an old-fashioned 60 Hz interlaced idiot-box just as well, for a fraction of the cost, and from 10 ft distance it won't look that much worse.
They're currently just a conspicuous-consumption status-symbol thing. They're like gold watches or pimped-up sports cars at mid-life crisis: something you buy just to show everyo
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.