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?
It wasn't shown for the same reason new ipods weren't shown: they are consumer products. Wait for Macworld.
Computer = active entertainment.
TV = Passive.
TV in the home is essentially radio with pictures. When's the last time you made a point to listen to a radio program, and only listen to a radio program in your home? I'd stop everything when I was younger to listen to Royal Canadian Air Farce or my tapes of Eclectic Circus, but other than that.
Computer's can't do that. Even the most banal of websites requires more of your attention than a TV show or radio, and then there's gaming, which is a 100% immersive, active experience.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
What happened to the MP3 phones? They lost out to devices that can do the job better and cheaper. The same with media PC's. Given the size restrictions, media PC's performance are heavily watered down and harder to interface with (a remote that gives you little control or a mouse on a couch), so when you expect a full on media experience you instead get a mediocre one. You could buy a decent home theater system that's more powerful for around the same price, sans PC functionality.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
While I agree with TFA that people simply aren't ready to turn PCs into TVs and vice versa, maybe they're overly harsh on the Mac. It doesn't have video in/out features, nor do any Macs have integrated TV tuners... The remote is the only media-center-esque feature on the Macs, but that hardly means Apple meant to make it a media center machine.
The problem is really one of cost and usability. An HTPC costs too much. When confronted with the option of the $100 set top box provided by the cableco vs. a $600 HTPC, what is the obvious choice for the average user? Not to mention the set top box is plug and play, and requires no finangling with software (or God forbid, Windows).
I'm sure many home users would love to have the power of MythTV, but until we can build a MythTV box for $300 and make it plug-and-play and config-free, it simply won't take off in the mainstream.
Dunno about other markets, but in Finland name brand media PCs keeled over and died due to immense suckage of Windows Media Center Edition.
- No official support for DVB-C cards (large chunk of the country gets TV using cable, and DVB-C), cutting down potential market
- No support for DVB subtitling (used by finnish national broadcasting company YLE), decimating the leftover market
- Generally crappy DVB support - and analog transmissions end next year over here
- Horrendously complicated install on selfbuilt systems (whitebox PCs are more common over here than in many other countries) coupled with difficulties in actually obtainining MCE legally without buying an OEM system.
Most 'Media PCs' built over here tend to be selfbuilt, using linux or WinXP with separate software, and it's non-trivial to set one up, so they are still a niche market.
I'm sure the big name OEMs will try again when they get Vista with MCE features, and proper DVB-T/DVB-C and DVB subtitling support.
Too many of them.
Most video files are problematic.... they uses wrappers (AVI, QT) so most people throw any CODEC they feel like using (DivX 3 for video, VBR MP3 for audio even though the AVI specs don't really allow it AFAIK) and we end up with a mess of incompatible files unless you install 500 different CODECs.
Screw AVI, screw Quicktime. Use MPEG-4/H.264 and AAC. Depending on the video size, bitrate and all, they can play on OS X, Windows, Linux, PSP, GBA (with Play-Yan micro), PDAs, etc.
Thanks in advance.
Content. Content. Content. Just like in real estate (location location location) these are the three things media corps care about the most. Until they make it easy (i.e., open standardized protocols) for information to be moved around, any media center is going to be locked in to proprietary difficult to use formats and only /. esque users will really be able to take advantage of these possibilities. The average user will never pay for something they need to spend more than 5 min trying to get to work. Trying new approaches to media delivery and exchange is veerrryy scary for corps that think their livelihood depends on "owning" the rights of Green Acres and Two's Company.
DNA, the splice of life.
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.
Realize, they're called MEDIA PC's, not TV PC's. Of course, for the average TV watcher, the cable company's set top box will work quite well, but, for those that understand the potential and have a use for it, the MPC is a big step above.
This is more of a niche than people thought it was going to be, it's not turned out so much to be for the average user. In regards to price, setup, maintenance, etc, it's just not worth it for most people.
Yes, we are indeed building them ourselves. However, we are doing so primarily because we can't find what we want on sale anywhere for any price. The below is an adapted version of a recent Usenet post of mine describing what I have come to daily take for granted with my high-definition MythTV setup:
------------
. . . MythTV works, and works well, for those who are interested in a "HD TiVo" without any of TiVo's limitations. I must admit to chuckling whenever I see a question in alt.tv.tech.hdtv or elsewhere asking how to record from a HD video source with a computer in terms that make it clear the poster and the respondents view the task as something akin to cavemen discovering fire.
I work long, long hours and, when I get home, often don't have any more energy left to do more than want to just relax in front of the tube. When I do so, I want to have as much choice in what to watch as possible. Let me tell one and all of what I with 100% reliability do with my MythTV setup every day:
If any of this intrigues you, I recommend visiting:
[1] Home Theater Master MX-500 universal remote. I programmed it using a $30 infrared keyboard/mouse combo.
[2] MythTV does an *excellent* job of deinterlacing 1080i recordings into 1080p for those displays that can handle it. Any Nvidia video card from the FX5200 to the present will work.
[3] Westinghouse LVM-47W1. Under $2500 from Crutchfield for 1080p LCD goodness.
[4] MythTV tells me that I have "242 programs, using 1.7 TB (427 hrs 33 mins) out of 1.8 TB (54 GB fr
Why would you get an ATI card? ATI is not the leader in either TV Tuners or Video Cards.
For TV Tuners, you can get an equivalent Hauppauge PVR150MCE for $30, or go with the Fusion HDTV if you want digital. And as far as nVidia in the TV tuner market, they recently released the DualTV, with 2 tuners, which beats anything ATI has produced, and gives the Hauppauage PVR500 a run for its money.
For the video card, nVidia has all the hardware accelerated MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 decoding, starting with 6xxx (fanless, silent, low profile 6200 is $30).
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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
1) Complexity.
2) Price.
That's simple, really. The price one is the most obvious, media PCs just aren't cheap enough for most people, even those with higher end setups. A good DVD player, like really good, is $200. An audio/videophile quality one is like $500. You think a media centre PC has a chance against that?
However even more than that is the complexity. Media gear is all real simple. My DVD player has a simple interface, so simple that it only has 3 buttons on the unit. There's more on the remote, of course, but the 3 are all you really need. Put in disc, press play, movie goes. Done. I suppose, with sufficient messing around, one could make a MCPC that simple, but I've not seen it and remember, the DVD player came that way out of the box.
Heck my roomate decided to try and mess around with a MCPC. My DVD player plays MPEG-4 videos (Yamaha S657 if you were wondering) but there are limits on it, most notably it doesn't do HD (there are ones that do) and he wanted to mess with that. So he thought to use a PC to replace it. Ya well that didn't last long. Waaaaay too complicated. The PC has gone away and the DVD player continues to be used.
They must bring down the price, but more importantly things must be simlified if MCPCs are ever going to see more than a token showing.
The biggest drawback is DRM.
If JS (Joe Sixpack) can't record what he wants, while he could do that with a normal VCR, he's not going to buy it.
JS also wants to share his recordings or the media he bought with his friends (again, this could be done with a VCR).
Offcourse, there are DRM-less solutions (like MythTV 'n stuff) but that's just too complex for JS.
I built a media PC that IMHO does the job:
The industry needs to change in two fundamental ways:
1) Accessibility - software needs to work in a greater variety of environments. That means high-DPI and low-DPI displays, and low-resolution displays, multiple aspect-ratios.
2) TVs and Video Cards: non-interlaced, DVI/HDMI, no overscanning, >60hz, standard aspect-ratios.
P.S. Also, I have yet to see a media PC with surround sound. That's because sound cards use 3 stereo cables, while receivers use Dolby encoding over one pair of cables. This is just one of those cases where computers do it differently than all other consumer devices (although they do it better).
Hey, he never said how old the kids were. Maybe they're all 30+ living at home.
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty