The Home Server Cometh

narramissic writes "Apart from Apple's 'I'm cooler than you' ad campaign, you don't hear much about the Windows versus Mac battle these days. The reason: Today's battle isn't about 'what brand of computer sits on the desk in your spare room, or even what operating system it runs, it's going to be about who gets to dominate the market for home servers that will control your entertainment, television, telephony, and your home automation system,' argues Dan Blacharski in a recent article."

Comments

With the introduction of AppleTV...

[HerculesMO]

It's clear that Microsoft is winning the war for the home market.

Microsoft has Windows Media Center which, in its Vista iteration will provide support for HDTV recording, CableCard support, and downloadable content (much like iTunes). Then add in Xbox 360 which can do much of the same along with IPTV (just announced), extend Windows Media Center, and also play games. The online part (Xbox Live) is a great addition to all that.

Apple's AppleTV product is kind of lame, and I was rather disappointed in it. It only plays items from iTunes and locks you in further. Doesn't play Divx, doesn't record anything -- it's more of an 'extender' than anything else. And if the sales Linksys shows anything in regards to how well extenders do, we know we can write it off for the die-hard Mac fans.

That said... I love Apple and the way they innovate. Some products are hits (iPhone) and some are misses (AppleTV). Time will tell either way, but Microsoft is definitely gearing up to be the dominant force in the living room.

Re:With the introduction of AppleTV...

[luiss]

Yes, you have to get your content into iTunes. That doesn't mean you have to buy any content from the iTunes store.
I'm thinking of getting an AppleTV and an EyeTV product (in my case a EyeTV Hybrid) instead of spending $800 on an HD TiVo. The EyeTV will act as a DVR (except for the "live tv" features), saving my recordings into iTunes for viewing on the AppleTV. Also, I hear that you can rip DVDs and add them to iTunes also (just like any other video file).

Re:With the introduction of AppleTV...

[Ucklak]

EyeTV only has composite inputs so it's worthless in the HD arena except for OTA.

I'm not saying it's a bad or worthless device but it's not versatile for todays and upcoming market.

I want the device that will record component or DVI or even HDMI for that matter. No such thing exists yet.
I want to record content I want to record and stream to different devices of my choosing.
Everything so far is vendor lockin.

Tivo requires a cablecard which doesn't work for everyone - mainly satellite subscribers.
Satellite HD DVR's are all buggy and not worth the hassle.
On top of that, satellite with local is buggy too. Better with satellite with OTA so far.
Cable HD DVR's are worse than satellite offerings.

That leaves us with these vendors that are really reaching out to customers but aren't really giving us anything useful that we really want.

It's not worth the hassle to setup an EyeTV for just 11 digital(4 HD - the other 7 digital are weather, FM, and stretched SD content) channels in my market when satellite has and will have much more HD content.

Re:With the introduction of AppleTV...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't I do that with Apple?

WTF? OS X supports software RAID out of the box. Any third party hardware RAID solution looks like an ordinary disk. Where's the problem, exactly? I don't know the answer to your question because it seems to be based on complete misinformation.

Apple has great support for RAID.

Re:With the introduction of AppleTV...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for pointing out that intel macs already come with TPM hardware, but you're glazing over it's purpose. Were it not for that little chip, people could walk into a store that sold only Dell and HP hardware and say, "I want to buy a Mac" and have someone say, "no problem" and *legally* install an off the shelf version of OS X on standard Dell hardware.

None of this requires a TPM.

And, actually, Apple are using the TPM for developing a protected media path, and "trusted" applications... as anyone who has followed the recent release of OSX will know. I doubt that'll wipe the smug look off your face, because you'll simply invent another specious reason why Apple isn't/won't be as evil as Microsoft.

I built my own

[Robber Baron]

I built my own server in a Coolermaster Stacker case with an 8 channel SATA RAID controller and hot-swappable drive bays.
But then again I'm a geek who does this for a living and wouldn't expect your average home user to do anything even remotely similar.

I think the real truth is the PC manufacturers are scared because the market is saturated and they're trying to come up with new ways to get consumers to buy their shit.

Re:Typical myopia

[bmajik]

There is no "home server" market, except for .1% of the population that is geeky enough to need one

Microsoct doesn't agree with you. I've been keeping up with the internal information on the Microsoft Home Server product for months now and am exited its finally public.

Based on what I've read, and what anecdotes suggest, the market segment exists.

Think about how many people in the US have more than one computer at home. How many people have wireless at home, or have multiple computer users in their family, or have broadband. Look at the penetration of digital cameras.

Broadband, home routers, multiple-PCs per house, and multiple ipods, cameras, etc, are happening to normal families. The personas we've identified for who does or does not want a home server, and what they'd use it for.. are pretty well thought out IMO.

I've been running in openBSD box since college as my "home server", and the MS home server exictes me just the same because it will make some of the stuff i'd like to do at home so easy that I'll actually get around to doing it. As others have said - it is _possible_ to do alot of this stuff with todays offerings. What MS brings to the table is that normal people will be able to start doing it, and people that _could_ do it today will do so in larger numbers because the time investment will be so minimal.

My wife and I have separate computers and separate digital cameras. It's harder for us to share digital photos with each other than it should be. Why should she store all of her digital photos on her small slow laptop drive when they're already stored on my machine? Well, she should because my desktop isn't running a RAID 1. But neither of us should restrict the size of our photo or music libraries to what we can mutually replicate between our respective desktops...

The scenarios for an easy-to-use home server are real, IMO.