Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Steps in to Fix Microsoft's IPTV
NYGiant writes "Microsoft IPTV isn't cutting it for Verizon, Ars Technica reports, so they've taken over parts of the project. Verizon is in a rush to perfect its IPTV service, which is based on Microsoft's IPTV software. The problem is that to run well, Microsoft's software needs more memory than Verizon's set top boxes ship with. From the article: 'Under the terms of that deal, Verizon would use Microsoft's Foundation Edition middleware stack. Microsoft would also supply a set of customer-facing applications. While Foundation Edition remains in use by Verizon, the development of the other applications was taken over by Verizon engineers.'"
A Microsoft Product?
Late, buggy, out of spec, and bloated?
Who'da thunk?
Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
What I don't understand is why all the major TV players are signing on with Microsoft. Every Microsoft IPTV deployment has been buggy, overbudget, late, and required significantly higher requirements than Microsoft's initial stipulations. They must be vastly underbidding everyone else on the market; I'd guess Microsoft is spending hundred of millions, if not billions, on breaking into this market.
I'd love to see one of these Microsoft IPTV deployments flop (I'm betting on SBC's deployment). That'll drive the market away from the Vole, regardless of how cheap they're willing to do the (shoddy, useless) work.
How much it feel to work in one of these Microsoft shops? How does it feel to know that cut-rate out-sourced contracted programmers from India with no background on the project did it better and faster than you? I know that India has a wealth of high-quality programmers, but the general rule is that in-house (especially at major programming shops in the U.S.) is better than out-sourced; just more expensive.
In this case, it seems that with Microsoft you pay more, and get less. Given their monopoly status, I guess that is appropriate. Monopoly-sized market distortions = inefficency. It's too bad that survival of the fittest takes so long to damage a monopoly.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I knew I should've read your post to the end before replying.
I'm as virulent a Microsoft-hater as you'll find on Slashdot, but the lesson here is not that they suck (which they do, badly). It's a lesson about company A (Verizon in this case) subbing out an important business segment to company B (Microsoft, the promise-anything, and ship whatever company). If something is THAT important to your business, dammit, get it done yourself! 9 out of 10 times something goes to shit, and you either had smart lawyers (as Verizon clearly did) that at least gives you -some- chance of inconveniently, expensively bailing the project out.
The deal-making pinheads will never figure this out however, their retinas, and the brains behind them, are all fatigued from staring at Powerpoint slides and Blackberry thingies.
They have Verizon backed so far into a corner that it appears verizon can't walk away. MS is laughing all the way to the bank on this one.
The license costs that one monopoly is paying the other will, no doubt, lead to a -really- expensive set top box.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
"The real goal is to figure out a way to get an 'operating system'
royalty per TV. 10's of millions of TV's per year at $10-$20 per TV
is a nice little 'operating system' business." -- Jeff Raikes of Microsoft
Just for the record, FIOS TV is not IPTV. IPTV is delivery of television over the internet. Verizon's FIOS delivers TV over fiber, than to coax--exactly as cable systems do. The difference is that the termination of the fiber in FIOS is at the side of the house, while in a traditional cable environment, the fiber is terminated further upstream (at a central office of sorts).
I guess that the Microsoft apps were not up to the level of suck that Verizon likes so they had to add the suck themselves.
IPTV is far from a monopolys s_cable_franchise_030906/
Yeah, and that's because the bill giving them the "national overlay" monopoly is still wending it's way through the system. http://telephonyonline.com/regulatory/news/congre
First-movers and whatever is left for cable companies in the States are dead as soon as this one passes.
And then there's:
VOIP Regulated away to the telcos/cable co's. Proverbial toll roads on the internet will be the final nail in the coffin.
CellularIs my service better or cheaper than it was 5 years ago? No. Please explain how they would jam -so- many bits down the average phone connection?
Digital Phone ServiceIs this service better or cheaper than my POTS service? As a former subscriber no. Emphatically no.
I agree they are set to see erosion of their customer base, but I would argue that they aren't meeting competitors in the marketplace, they are meeting them in Washington DC, where they have the money to raise barriers to entry. The average quickie-mart economicthink doesn't apply.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Verizon paid MS to do a job. Because MS does the same oh/same oh, Verizon found the software unusable. So rather than suing MS and getting back their money for a failed job, they are spending loads of money to have a crap system that can run better. In addition, I would guess that the Verizon ppl will turn over the code to MS. IOW, the Verizon managers are so bad, that they do not want to admit that what they bought, failed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.