Microsoft Ready To "Take On'' Google and Apple TV

Sure by DurendalMac · 2011-01-04 10:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Once again MS arrives late to the party with an offering that likely won't offer enough to be competitive. Good ol' MS: Reactive rather than proactive.

Re:Sure by teknopurge · 2011-01-04 10:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

You mean like they did with the Xbox?

--
Website Hosting
Re:Sure by Fluffeh · 2011-01-04 10:37 · Score: 1

Actually, from memory, they have been flogging net TV as a stupid idea and useless from when Google busted out the idea. I think that they are more likely to be "tagging along... just in case" rather than thinking it really is a good product to try.

To me, it is along the lines of "Lets make Bing to combat Google." and "Lets make the Zune to combat iPods.". I think it is arriving too late and with too little - not to mention that it really isn't in their core product offering. They didn't get to where they are by making hardware and these types of products, they got there by making software that anyone could install on their own hardware. Apple is the lot making hardware - and even when Google decided to start crashing the MS operating system party, they did so by making it for phones first rather than trying to compete head on.

My guess is that this will be an expensive learning experience for MS. It isn't a totally new market, Google has product, Apple has product, it's not like when Apple plopped out an iPod that had zero competition and had a bull market.

--
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Re:Sure by Jose · 2011-01-04 10:37 · Score: 1

yep, defintely late to the party. *cough* WebTV *cough*
yea, OK some different functionality..but the idea was there. and yes, they bought a company to make it happen.
This one could make it though..MS tends to not get things right until the second patch to the 3rd release of their code..

--
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Re:Sure by Toe,+The · 2011-01-04 10:39 · Score: 1

Hey! I hear Zune is really nice (and at least one people will reply to this confirming it). And heck, at last count, Zune was coming in with 1% of the market share.
I had to check to be sure, but yeah, apparently Zunes still exist. I think Microsoft just thinks it would be too embarrassing to discontinue their, ahem, iPod-killer.
Re:Sure by devxo · 2011-01-04 10:42 · Score: 2

Also, since Xbox already has somewhat relevant online TV capability, Microsoft has a good starting point. The most important thing is also that Microsoft will most likely work with TV companies to bring the content on the system, unlike Google TV which just tried to stream it all for free.

Microsoft actually has a good change in succeeding bringing this product to market, if they succeed competing with Apple TV.
Re:Sure by trollertron3000 · 2011-01-04 10:45 · Score: 1

Eh I don't know. They have this one device that's in quite a lot of homes called the XBox, a related network that makes a ton of money, and existing delivery already in place (Netflix, Hulu, etc). I would not count them out. In fact they are probably way ahead of Google and Apple if anything.

--
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
Re:Sure by Eponymous+Coward · 2011-01-04 10:59 · Score: 2

Google tried to organize what was being published by the content owners. The content owners want to negotiate different types of deals for different clients which seems a bit silly to me. Do you think it makes sense to stream to Flash clients that report themselves as a IE plugin but deny streaming to Flash running on a PS3 (for example)?
Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:04 · Score: 0

Considering how few people bothered with Apple TV I might argue that they are all competing with the likes of Boxee and Roku rather than Apple...
Re:Sure by devxo · 2011-01-04 11:05 · Score: 1

Yes it makes sense, because there might be a lot of different contracts in the way or they need to get the advertising dollars in right way. We all like to have everything for free, but you can't just ignore what the content producers need.
Re:Sure by ThePromenader · 2011-01-04 11:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Oooooo! I can't wait! ZuneTv!

--

No, no sig. Really.

ThePromenader
Re:Sure by RobertM1968 · 2011-01-04 11:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Once again MS arrives late to the party with an offering that likely won't offer enough to be competitive. Good ol' MS: Reactive rather than proactive.
Not entirely accurate. Microsoft has went to this party before, and been "kicked out" before. This is just their most recent attempt. WebTV (launched 1996, bought by MS in 1997) being one such attempt. Followed by Windows Media Center. Followed by a "new and (un)improved" WebTV, followed by updated Windows Media Center, followed by even more Windows Media Center releases (in total, since and including launch, release/versions 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, Vista, Windows 7, and TV Pack 2008), xBox Media Center somewhere in that timeline, Portable Media Center for things like the Zune and so on.
Maybe this time they will succeed. The point above isn't slamming Microsoft. My point is you aren't quite correct in blaming Microsoft for being reactive instead of proactive. They were one of the first companies that saw the worth of this marketplace (even if they didnt figure out how to capitalize on it). Often it's hard to START a marketplace. Now, Microsoft has the advantage of seeing what's working for other companies in this marketplace. Thus my point is, it is NOT fair to claim they are reactive in this situation. They saw the potential gains of such a scenario when they purchased WebTV and later released WMC. They simply didnt know how to approach the market properly.
Now, it (if they want to succeed) will be a combination of their previous proactive attempts at Online TV plus a reactive look at ensuring their next offering addresses the needs, concerns and desires of those consumers who enjoy and use GoogleTV, AppleTV and NetFlix.
Further in Microsoft's defense, the technology has advanced light years since WebTV, making this marketplace a lot more attractive to the disaster that the initial WebTV boxes provided. And one step even further in that direction of defending them (at least for WebTV), besides the fact that the hardware was light years behind today's, WebTV and it's nightmare was an acquisition. MS did indeed try to rectify a lot of the issues with it, and in many cases definitely did so. But still ran into hardware limitations. Yes, there were still mistakes MS made in not judging what the majority of the marketplace wanted or needed, but my point is, it still would have been unlikely for them to succeed at THAT time (due to hardware and bandwidth limitations), even if they avoided their other mistakes.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Re:Sure by bonch · 2011-01-04 11:15 · Score: 0

The original post reads: "Once again MS arrives late to the party with an offering that likely won't offer enough to be competitive." The Xbox offered enough to be competitive, though that's becoming less true with the rise of mobile devices.
Re:Sure by h4rr4r · 2011-01-04 11:30 · Score: 3, Informative

What they need is to get their heads out of their asses. NEWSFLASH ASSHOLES: the computer that I watch hulu on is connected to my HDTV over HDMI and there is nothing you can do about it. It reports Firefox because it is firefox, just modified so it has a reasonable 10 foot interface.
Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:46 · Score: 0

Actually last I checked they were first to the party with Windows Media Center which has been out almost a decade.
Re:Sure by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2011-01-04 11:47 · Score: 2

Oooooo! I can't wait! ZuneTv!
Squirting to your living room Summer 2011!

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Re:Sure by Abstrackt · 2011-01-04 11:48 · Score: 1

Oooooo! I can't wait! ZuneTv!
I look forward to the day when I can squirt all over my house.

--
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Re:Sure by frank_adrian314159 · 2011-01-04 12:12 · Score: 1

You know, TV used to be simple. You brought one home, you plugged it into the wall, hooked up an antenna, and you had your choice of three stations (maybe four, if you had one of those "educational" channels"). And although most of the programming wasn't stellar (Mr. Ed, I'm looking at you!), it was at least something that had pictures along with the sound.
The came color TV. Again, simple... Well, sometimes people looked a little too orange or green, but you know, Star Trek made green chicks sexy.
Then along came cable. A bit more complex, but since most of the installation work was done by "the cable guy" (even though you did have to wait the entire day for him), it was still understandable - you changed the antenna connection to a connection to a box installed and owned by the cable company. So now you had thirty or forty channels, even though you had to suffer with two remotes (and they fixed that when the "cable ready" TVs came out) - but you still had a lot of the stuff that was worth watching.
But TV started dying the day the video recorder came along. Sure, you could rent a movie from the local video outlet (Porn even!), and look at it. And, if you were smart enough, you could even figure out how to set the time right and record a TV show that you might not be home for. However, you now had (at least) two remotes, figuring out how to get signals from the VCR to the TV and from the cable to both of the units, and things were not so simple. But when you got all this stuff hooked up, you noticed that the number of items you actually wanted to watch on TV weren't quite as large as it had been.
And then came DVDs. But, since there were still things available only on tape, you had to figure out how to hook up the DVD player to the rest of your system. You needed a TV with multiple video inputs. And now you had three remotes. Or maybe you sprang for one of the "universal" remotes, which were never quite as universal (or easy to program) as they claimed to be. So now you might have three or four remotes which you had to futz around with for five minutes before you got everything going right. But oddly enough, the number of TV shows you actually wanted to watch was diminishing at an alarming rate (not that you ever saw the beginning of any of them, because you were futzing with the remote).
Of course, along the way we bought TVs with larger screens. Some folks had projectors put into their houses so that their living rooms started looking like theaters. In fact, said the equipment execs, "TV is not enough! You must have a Home Theater System!" And so it was said; and so it was done (though to be honest, the sound coming out of our old TV systems was getting a little tinny). So we bought 5.1 surround systems, which needed to be "integrated" into our current systems (because simply "hooking up something" was long behind us). And, lo! For our efforts we were rewarded with... another remote! But oddly enough, the home theater seemed to sit silent much of the time, because by then, we had gotten laptops and, save for the occasional movie that we rented (which, to be fair, were often watched by ourselves on the laptop), there really wasn't anything to watch on TV.
I've left off a lot of other stuff, like DVRs, internet-ready TV, etc. But the reality is this - people long for the simplicity of the old days of the TV. They want to bring home a single box, make a minimal number of connections to it (hopefully, at most, a cable connection and a few speakers) and watch movies, TV shows, a video from the internet and (occasionally) time shift and/or save these items for later perusal. And they want one (eins, uno, ichi) remote that controls it all. Given the current level of media integration, it should not be difficult for someone to provide this. But it seems to elude most of the equipment manufacturers and/or content providers.
But, all of this being said, if something like this would come together, I'd expect it from Apple first, Sony (when partnered with a cable provider) second and, from Microsoft, about fiftieth. And Microsoft would still screw it up by trying to put a Windows UI on it...

--
That is all.
Re:Sure by geekoid · 2011-01-04 12:48 · Score: 2

exactly.
They arrived late, the intital opffering was shit, and now it's as good at others...assuming you pay the annual fee.
And MS did not create Kinect; which is kind o creepy good and fun.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Sure by DurendalMac · 2011-01-04 12:50 · Score: 1

And when did the XBox come out? 2001. Over nine years ago. A lot has changed since then.
Re:Sure by Spazzz · 2011-01-04 12:52 · Score: 1

I agree with this sentiment. I never understood why some contracts with Hulu, for example, will allow streaming to my laptop while connected to the VGA input of my TV, running in full screen mode, but not with my Sony Blu-Ray player. It's slightly more inconvenient to have to get out the laptop, but when I do, it defeats ALL forms of "We do not want this content to be displayed on televisions and mobile devices" licensing.
Suck it, content providers. Pull your heads out of your collective asses.
Re:Sure by geekoid · 2011-01-04 12:57 · Score: 1

Since SOMEONE else created WebTV, and MS bought it, I would say they are still reactive.
They have never gotten the internet. I would argue that is they had never bought WebTV and it was allowed to got hey way the creators had intended, we would have had TV on the net 10 years ago.
But MS tried to make it just like TV, with the net slapped on top of it.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Sure by geekoid · 2011-01-04 13:02 · Score: 2

interesting. I bought my TV last year, took it home, plugged in the cable box, stereo, and it was good to go.
Not sure what your difficulty is, but it seems to be a wetware issue.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Sure by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-01-04 13:06 · Score: 0

Late to the party.. You do know Windows Media Center has been around for ages, right?
Re:Sure by rahvin112 · 2011-01-04 13:44 · Score: 1

The First DirecTV DVR was powered by Microsoft and still has fanboi's that rave about it being better than everything else including Tivo.
Re:Sure by hairyfeet · 2011-01-04 13:50 · Score: 1, Redundant

And as anyone who has used WMC on windows 7 will tell you they know how to make a damned good 10 foot UI now. if they make it as butt simple and user friendly as WMC? Yeah they could grab some decent share. People see that easy peasy WMC interface and it really isn't a hard sell, one of my biggest sellers is USB TV Tuners thanks to having a box in the corner running WMC broadcasting the cable in the shop. when folks say "How did you do that?" and "Is that a PC running the TV?" I just hand them the remote and let them play awhile, easy sell. Then you point out that Win 7 and the X360 play REALLY nice together? No problem getting them to open their wallets.
So if they keep the UI of Windows 7 WMC and the easy X360 connect? Yeah it could be a hit. And don't forget the WMV Janus DRM has yet to be reasonably hacked which will make content owners a lot less spooked about dealing with MSFT. Finally MSFT looks to be finally getting that the key to the home is "easy peasy" without the layers of submenus and options MSFT has been known for in the past. By getting WMC, WMP and the x360 all playing nice with each other the initial setup of the new MSFT stuff has pretty much been "plug in and go" which really appeals to the average Joe.
Of course it will all depend on whether MSFT can keep from shooting themselves in the foot which is always a big risk with them. Just look at how they were changing code damned near until Gold on the Vista subsystems which broke many drivers and pissed off the OEMs. So I'd say whether it has a shot will largely depend on whether MSFT can resist the urge to do something mind numbingly stupid, which is anyone's guess at this point.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Sure by jedidiah · 2011-01-04 14:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a crowded area that's getting more crowded by the day. Microsoft's half-hearted attempts thusfar have done nothing to slow the rest of the market down and likely won't in the future. Microsoft simply doesn't have the mojo that it once did. Microsoft spewing vapor doesn't impress as much as it used to.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Sure by jedidiah · 2011-01-04 14:22 · Score: 1

Microsoft's attempts have been warmed over and disconnected up to this point. Many of the things you mention are ample demonstration of that. This includes the previous generations of extender hardware that never really went anywhere and were quickly discontinued. MCE and friends continue to be fringe products used by people comfortable building their own custom PCs and cobbleware solutions. If this becomes less the case in future it will be due to the increasing prevalence of systems like the Acer Revo that are cheap and suitable. Although they are so cheap that Best Buy tends to hide them in a corner if they sell them at all (kind of like netbooks).

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Sure by jedidiah · 2011-01-04 14:23 · Score: 1

No non-Tivo DirecTV DVR is better than anything. Especially not a Tivo.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Sure by jedidiah · 2011-01-04 14:24 · Score: 1

...around for ages and mostly neglected.
Where are the ready made solutions? Where are the nettops preloaded with MCE and ready to become cheap and easy extenders?
Even MCE tuner/capture hardware support is nothing to write home about.
Apple may say that AppleTV is only a hobby but that seems much more apparent with Microsoft and MCE.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Sure by Nyeerrmm · 2011-01-04 16:08 · Score: 1

Really? The party for a good, adaptable, expandable, extensible set top box has just started.
Personally, I think there are so many things out there right now about to take hold its hard to know what to do. Boxee Box and their new less ugly version they announced today are promising, but the software is missing important features. Apple TV has potential, but it really needs apps and get more content. Google TV needs to get the content providers on board. The consoles, Roku and the WD solutions are decent but have less refined UIs (I really like the computer Boxee interface).
I'm planning to keep my power hungry computer hooked up to the TV with boxee for another 3-6 months and then figure it out then -- showing up now to the party is just being fashionably late.
Re:Sure by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-01-04 17:02 · Score: 0

Even MCE tuner/capture hardware support is nothing to write home about.
You call a quad tuner cablecard tuner "nothing to write home about"?
Re:Sure by rtfa-troll · 2011-01-04 18:36 · Score: 1

The content providers do not really care that you can work around their limitations. They only care to screw over the normal consumer. They will continue to try to stop you but that's just out of a) a spirt of vindictiveness and b) the fear that something that works for you might get packaged as a product for the masses. The only way to "defeat" them is to try to get other free content to become popular. I really don't see much evidence of that happening.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Sure by alexandre_ganso · 2011-01-04 19:37 · Score: 1

I don't get it. If you can, please elaborate a bit further. What someone needs to do what you do? A computer with an usb tv tuner, than an xbox connected to the tv and then.. what?
And is this enough to do what they are trying to do with this new product? It is all confusing.
Wouldn't it be more logical just to update the xbox 360's software to provide that capability instead of having another crap to try to make a dent in this market?
Re:Sure by alexandre_ganso · 2011-01-04 19:39 · Score: 1

So if they have this, what are they trying to do? Create another crap? In what it would be different from what the xbox already have (or could)?
By the way, 200 bucks is too much. I don't know how much an xbox costs in the us, but I would suppose it is around that.
Re:Sure by Billly+Gates · 2011-01-04 20:45 · Score: 1

Sounds like a bad gay porn advertisement to me.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Sure by John+Betonschaar · 2011-01-04 21:42 · Score: 1

Sounds like a bad gay porn advertisement to me.
What is gay about squirting?
Re:Sure by hairyfeet · 2011-01-04 23:31 · Score: 1

What I said was QUITE simple. It is that when exposed to the 10 foot UI of the new WMC it is such an easy sell because it is well designed, then I point out it will ALSO allow instant connection and streaming to any X360? Here comes the money.
So for you and the clueless mod who I'm sure based their mod on the fact you didn't get it, THIS IS EXACTLY what it has to do with TFA: If they use the SAME INTERFACE that they have ALREADY PERFECTED along with the SAME CONNECTIVITY which they have ALREADY PERFECTED then this will be a slam dunk, because their new WMC design is so simple my mom can use it. Is that REALLY SO HARD to understand?
And as for why NO, simply updating the X360 won't do, it is because you have a LARGE segment of the population that will NOT BUY anything that has the word GAME connected to it. It won't matter if you explain that you can do other things besides gaming on it, they won't touch it. Same reason they will walk right past the PS3 while looking for a Blu Ray player. That is because in their minds the PS3 is a GAME MACHINE and what they want is a PLAYER. Now you may or may not agree with that, but I deal with the public in retail 6 days a week, and that is how they think, period. You could offer them the X360 for $100 and they would walk right past it for the $200 PLAYER that does the exact same thing.
So I'm sorry if you don't seem to follow, I take it from reading your post English is not your first language, yes? From what I understand it is one of the more difficult languages to deal with so it is understandable if you have trouble if not a native speaker. But I hopefully have made it VERY clear what I was talking about, which as you can see is VERY much ON TOPIC.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Sure by alexandre_ganso · 2011-01-05 00:02 · Score: 1

I don't know why you got so pissed off. Bad day in there?
So I have an xbox. I also happen to have more than one pc. I asked because I was curious how could I make them work together, because it is not that obvious as you seem to imply. You probably need something that my windows does not have. Reading again, I notice that you explicitly mention connecting the pc itself to the tv. I though it was about connecting the windows to the xbox and having the tv ui in there on the first article.
So you talk about streaming to the xbox, then you mention connecting the pc to the tv directly...
If you want to rant about my language skills, fine. You are correct, it's not my native language. It is actually the sixth. Sorry, but you are the one not being clear in here. And writing some words in uppercase doesn't make them any clearer by the way.
You have a point with this game thing though.
Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-05 01:11 · Score: 0

You mean the Xbox that is in a distant second to a system that is built on out of date hardware and according to everyone is home of a lot of shovelware?
MS claimed they weren't in the same market as the Wii and therefore being beaten by the Wii doesn't matter but then they turn around and steal the Wii's motion controlling idea late in the game. The 360 had a year lead over the more expensive PS3 and the PS3 is only a few million behind the 360. The 360 is hardly what I would call a huge success. Had it came out at the same time as PS3 it would be in 3rd place. They got lucky. That is hardly a showcase for success.
Re:Sure by sootman · 2011-01-05 03:38 · Score: 1

If I get in line early for concert tickets, then I fall asleep in line and everyone else gets ahead of me, do I deserve to be called "proactive"? MS might have done some work in this area but they never enthusiastically pursued it.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:Sure by Eponymous+Coward · 2011-01-05 04:23 · Score: 1

I don't blame them for trying to get paid, I just think the way they go about it is counter productive. A big part of it is out of their hands because of the way viewers are counted and advertising value is determined. The entire industry needs to be dragged into the 21st century.
Content producers may want to put up artificial barriers, but it's a disservice to everybody else. What they are doing is stifling innovation and competition and in the long run, that isn't good for anybody.
Re:Sure by ArhcAngel · 2011-01-05 05:10 · Score: 1

b) the fear that something that works for you might get packaged as a product for the masses.
You mean like PlayOn

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:Sure by ArhcAngel · 2011-01-05 05:18 · Score: 1

I'd like to agree with you but with all the U-Verse subscribers in the US (I is one) and similar service in Canada and abroad they have a pretty large footprint even if we don't know about it. I recently added MediaRoom to my Xbox 360 and can connect it just like any other set top box. The media companies know that they can depend on Microsoft to be anal about DRM so they are more likely to embrace an MS based solution. They have been late to the party many times in the past only to become the dominating force.

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:Sure by RobertM1968 · 2011-01-05 05:53 · Score: 1

Microsoft's attempts have been warmed over and disconnected up to this point. Many of the things you mention are ample demonstration of that. This includes the previous generations of extender hardware that never really went anywhere and were quickly discontinued. MCE and friends continue to be fringe products used by people comfortable building their own custom PCs and cobbleware solutions. If this becomes less the case in future it will be due to the increasing prevalence of systems like the Acer Revo that are cheap and suitable. Although they are so cheap that Best Buy tends to hide them in a corner if they sell them at all (kind of like netbooks).
I agree. But that was not my point. As I think I mentioned, they messed up every attempt so far. My sole point was that this isn't so much reactionary, as opposed to continuing a battle they started in the mid/late 90's.
I also agree there are already viable options. And, to add to what neither of us has discussed, the days of people waiting with baited breath for an announced, but not released piece of vaporware or vaporproduct from Microsoft are long gone. They MUST win this one on compelling reasons to choose their solution. Whether or not that happens will be dependent on their implementation.
Honestly, they have EVERYTHING they need to make THE most compelling Internet TV experience ever. But that doesn't mean they will do so. So, the opportunity still exists for them to enter and conquer this market. Only time will tell whether they take advantage of it, or like we both noted, remain disconnected from reality and consumer wants/needs and squander yet another opportunity.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Re:Sure by RobertM1968 · 2011-01-05 06:02 · Score: 1

If I get in line early for concert tickets, then I fall asleep in line and everyone else gets ahead of me, do I deserve to be called "proactive"? MS might have done some work in this area but they never enthusiastically pursued it.
I'm not sure if I agree with this one, and as my comment history will show, I'm all for bashing Microsoft when they screw up (I can tell you nightmare stories about the deceptive and/or illegal things they've done to corner markets... but much of that came out already in their various lawsuits). But in this case, I don't think I can agree, because they did aggressively pursue this. Aggressively pursuing something, and knowing how to pursue something are two entirely different things.
If I am running a race and run the wrong direction, I'm not going to win, no matter how fast I run. For a time (quite a long one), Microsoft very actively promoted WebTV. For a time (quite a long one), Microsoft (or the OEMs they worked with) very actively promoted and pushed their Media Center products. They had numerous WebTV releases and fixes. They had almost ten releases of Windows Media Center and Media Center like products (ie: TV Pack, xBoxTV, etc).
They were not asleep... they weren't heading in the right direction (a direction that was compelling enough to the market), partially due to their own ineptitude, partially (at least early on) due to technology not being at a level where they could release a compelling product.
There's a difference between not really trying (falling asleep) and not knowing what the heck the market really wants or how to properly create a market (going the wrong direction at full tilt).
Though to be fair, I am not sure which is worse. In thinking about it, what did happen (going the wrong direction for 15 years) may be the worse of the two. Sometimes being reactive is better than being proactive. Think Google. Very late to most of the markets they currently dominate. Reactive entrances into those markets. But then ran full tilt in the correct direction and became the dominant force, all while creating compelling reasons to use their products (by going the extra steps in improving or revolutionizing those markets).

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Re:Sure by RobertM1968 · 2011-01-05 06:07 · Score: 1

Since SOMEONE else created WebTV, and MS bought it, I would say they are still reactive.
I'd agree, except the time frame between WebTV being released and Microsoft buying them is rather small, and at that time, no one saw the value (and no one was really using WebTV). So... I wouldn't call it reactive. But you may be right, it's not quite proactive either since they didn't create the product. On that note though, it describes every product Microsoft has bought and rebranded, from DOS straight through the components of Office.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Re:Sure by Spazzz · 2011-01-05 06:47 · Score: 1

The irony of this is that a good part of why I watch "restricted" content on my TV is out of the spirit of vindictiveness.
I *think* one of the points that you are trying to make is that by doing this, I am giving content owners the false impression that their restrictions aren't hurting viewership or sales, because they still see the "PC viewers" count increase. If this is the case, then you're right.
What other free content is available? I have 3 different Internet-enabled devices attached to my TV, not counting my laptop, and there's a pretty big lack of completely free content. There's only so much break.com, or Funny or Die, or podcasts that I can handle in a given week. Right now the only free service that offers a substantial amount of free television programming is Crackle, and they seem to be limited mostly to 25+ year old television shows. They have the right idea, just not enough content (yet).
I am looking forward to the day when I can fire Comcast and still be able to watch the things that I want to watch, when I want to watch them.
Re:Sure by trollertron3000 · 2011-01-05 09:18 · Score: 1

I would say it's for people that want a more "adult" viewing device and see the game part of the XBox as an extra. They can then consolidate the two or more in a new XBox. Just speculation. But they do have a head start in front of the others, not the other way around.

--
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
Re:Sure by hairyfeet · 2011-01-05 11:58 · Score: 1

Sorry about that, probably shouldn't post after finding a nail in a BRAND NEW TIRE &^$&%$&^%$&^$! Now, are you talking Xbox 1, or the X360? Because the xbox one is pretty worthless without being modded first.
And what I was explaining was having ALL of them together...the X360, your cable/sat TV, and your PC, all working as one. It is really quite simple and quite cheap. 1.- add a cheapo $40 TV Tuner, either PCI or USB, 2.-connect X360 to network. 3.-Allow X360 to stream from PC, 4.-voila! You have a fully networked home! I leave the TV plugged into one of the PCs just to give the customer something to play with, then when they are interested I give them the spiel about how if they have the x360 Windows 7 will play nicely with it, thus giving them a networked home. This gives them the advantage of recording from the cable if it is in the clear, as well as having their fat home PC HDD to fill with movies to stream.
And 6 languages, how in the hell do you keep up with all the rules? But if you have an X360 then wiring it into Windows 7 is a piece of moist and delicious cake. Here is a nice tutorial that will give you the steps. I'd be happy to recommend a tuner, but it would depend on whether you ran x86 or x64. Personally they are getting a little hard to find but I prefer the ATI TV Wonder USB 600. You just have to make sure to get the 600 if you are on Windows 7 x64, as the 650 and 700 really don't care for anything but x86.
But now I have hopefully explained it clear enough. you can have ONE TV hooked to the PC in one room, another TV hooked to the X360, and basically move around your house with video or music piped anywhere you are. Very cool. The 10 foot UI of Win 7 is a dream to use and is simple enough even dad can record his shows with it just by feeding the analog out of his cable box straight into the Win 7 box. Makes it REAL simple to have your favorite shows always recorded and waiting on you when you get home!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Sure by Idbar · 2011-01-05 12:24 · Score: 1

The question is, would the TV networks and Hulu block them too?
Re:Sure by alexandre_ganso · 2011-01-05 19:33 · Score: 1

Thank you very much! Now I got it. Will try that.
Now answering your last question, as you noticed, mostly I make mistakes in pretty much every language I speak. But most languages are closer to each other than not, for the simple fact because they have the same purpose and is used by the same animal. And even without being that generic, there are big language branches where the rules more or less are the same - the latin, the germanic, etc...
Of course none of that applies to French, which is latin, but as based on the exceptions as on its own rules, and that's why I stopped bothering learning it. Oh and basque, which is closer to martian than anything else.
Re:Sure by hairyfeet · 2011-01-05 22:51 · Score: 1

But it is the placing of the verbs that always seem to throw me. for example you would say in English "I am going to the store" but in many languages the verb comes LAST IIRC, so the sentence would be "I, to the store am going" which is not so hard on simple sentences but when you are trying to convert a complex English sentence in your head? NOT easy my friend.
I bet you started with something OTHER than English first yes? Everyone I've known that was great with languages usually got to English late. I think English (especially American English) is such a messed up hodge podge with no real rules that once learning it as a first language it really messes you up trying to pick up others. And one can usually pull some really bad English and still get their point across, but something like bad German? You sound like a total loonie.
But anyway if you have an x360 give it a shot. Windows 7 will actually run quite sweet on a P4 3GHz with 1.5GB or better, and WMC will plug right into most capture cards (especially the ATI TV Wonder, which is why I recommend them) and stream to the x360 very well. With the setup I described you can capture on the PC while you sleep or are at work like a DVR, stream it to your 360 like a media box, but unlike either of those you can save and burn your shows for later viewing.
When it comes to media it is one of my best selling combos, the only thing that sells faster are Nbox Media Players which if you have clueless family or relatives that aren't good with tech or kids are like a Godsend. These puppies will run off thumbstick, MMC, or USB HDD. Just load a cheap 250GB portadrive with cheap movies off of Amazon and hand them the remote. That's it. Low power, simple controls with nothing to screw up, just rip your movies on your PC and transfer them to your media tank. I love these suckers so much I got my dad one for Xmas. I just picked up some great classic westerns and loaded them up, and now whenever he can't find anything on TV he just flips the button and voila! Insta-movies. And if you have kids or family that has kids they will look at you like a God if you give them one loaded with some kid DVDs. You can even offer to rip their kids DVD collection for them as a nice gesture.
Anyway if you have a room you just want to have movies and music in (also plays MP3, WMA, JPG, and BMP) or relatives that you need to give a nice gift that won't break your wallet, give one a try. Folks around here just love them to death and I haven't had a single complaint yet. I even have the girls at the checkout stopping me asking "Hey, aren't you the guy that sells them TV Box things? If I bought one would you show me how to use it?" which of course takes a whole 15 minutes counting setup. Easy money my friend, they're happy, I'm happy, gotta love those win/wins!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Sure by alexandre_ganso · 2011-01-06 00:27 · Score: 1

I never did a formal course in english. Learned by myself when I was a kid. In my place the native languages are portuguese and german, but german was later forbidden and my father and grandparents were tortured if they spoke german on the streets and school, so no german for me. Which is a shame, now that I am in germany and need to learn it too.
Spanish, on the other hand, is really easy. It took me two days to be speaking it well, and around a week to started correcting my native spanish students on their own language. Rules are simple than, say, catalan, portuguese and the colloquial vocabulary is smaller too.
I have one of those boxes - a tvix one, with an internal 2tb hard drive. For ripped stuff, it is excellent, and it is connected to my linux cluster through nfs. As it can stream from internet too, it is not that hard to fake a dvd menu with http connections on it to some fixed locations.

Vs Google? by nametaken · 2011-01-04 10:23 · Score: 1

If a Revue is $300 and an AppleTV is $100, it seems like a $200 device is aimed at both of them.

Netflix by Toe,+The · 2011-01-04 10:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are any TV solutions relevant now that Netflix is streaming? Granted, they don't stream everything, but that library seems to be growing.

Many new TVs have Netflix interfaces built right in. What's the point of these other solutions?

(And doesn't Microsoft make a set top box... Um, the Xbox??)

Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 10:46 · Score: 0

Media Center supports Netflix so this probably will too. Also, WP7.
Now please get
Re:Netflix by MBCook · 2011-01-04 10:46 · Score: 1

I see them as cable box replacements, for when you don't watch much or the shows you want are easily available on services like Hulu (which they would have to let you access). The problem with Netflix is that most TV shows are months late (although I think they just inked a deal with someone to improve that).
I don't think this category of devices is there quite yet, it's a little ahead of the market at the moment.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:Netflix by c0d3g33k · 2011-01-04 10:47 · Score: 1

Are any TV solutions relevant now that Netflix is streaming? Granted, they don't stream everything, but that library seems to be growing.
Many new TVs have Netflix interfaces built right in. What's the point of these other solutions?
Well, they potentially make money for the competitor, rather than Netflix, which is a powerful motivator for producing solutions that aren't Netflix.
Aside from the very huge flaw that these solutions are typically hardware based rather than installable in commodity hardware, the other point is that there is competition, which I view as extremely healthy. I don't want my choices limited to only Netflix - I want to be able to choose from a healthy selection of other streaming providers. That forces Netflix to become better, and it increases the odds that one of the competitors comes up with a service that's better than Netflix, or at least better for me. The more the merrier, IMHO.
Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 10:48 · Score: 0

Uh... that is, now please get Netflix working on Android & Google TV! I can hope, right?
Re:Netflix by Maltheus · 2011-01-04 10:51 · Score: 1

Netflix aside, those new TVs have support for apps in general. Why not just add a Microsoft/Google TV app? These new set top boxes seem dated before they're even out. Google should apply the android model to TVs.
Re:Netflix by Stregano · 2011-01-04 11:01 · Score: 1

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-media-center/netflix.aspx

--
The world is how you make it
Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:05 · Score: 0

I love my XBOX. But I just bought an apple tv. XBOX is just way too loud, and has a finite amount of running time. SEE red ring of death. I'm already on my second motherboard.
Apple tv is $100. Quiet as can be, and can play anything I put into itunes. I can control it from ANY remote control as well as an iphone/ipod/ipad.
What's microsoft going to call theirs???? ZUNE TV?
Re:Netflix by AshtangiMan · 2011-01-04 11:07 · Score: 1

They lack the functionality of an OTA DVR, which would make them the true cable box replacement. The ability to record OTA is apparently not what anyone (aside from me) wants unfortunately.
Re:Netflix by rogabean · 2011-01-04 11:13 · Score: 1

You aren't the only one. I have a Windows 7 Media Center that does just this. OTA DVR. If one of these "boxes" could get that functionality I'd jump on it it quickly.

--
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
Re:Netflix by timeOday · 2011-01-04 11:29 · Score: 1

I see them as cable box replacements, for when you don't watch much or the shows you want are easily available on services like Hulu (which they would have to let you access).

The TVs that stream Netflix also stream Hulu (at least, Sonys do).
Except it's Hulu Plus, which is similar to Hulu, except some content is missing and you have to pay a monthly bill for it. But I doubt Hulu Plus will be any more attractive through Microsoft than Sony.
Re:Netflix by DragonWriter · 2011-01-04 11:44 · Score: 1

Netflix aside, those new TVs have support for apps in general. Why not just add a Microsoft/Google TV app? These new set top boxes seem dated before they're even out. Google should apply the android model to TVs.
GoogleTV isn't an app, it is Android for TVs (including a plan to roll-out support early this year for apps from the Android Market.) Just as Android normally comes installed on a device, it comes installed on TVs. It also can be run on set-top boxes using the TV as a display device (this is a cheaper option for those with an existing TV, since you don't have to replace the TV.)
Suggesting that GoogleTV -- which is really Android for TVs -- should made available as an app for the other "smartTV" platforms is like suggesting that Google should make Android available as an iPhone app.
Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:47 · Score: 0

They lack the functionality of an OTA DVR, which would make them the true cable box replacement. The ability to record OTA is apparently not what anyone (aside from me) wants unfortunately.
Oh, people want it - but CableCard is so colossally fucked up (thanks to the cable companies) that no sane manufacturer would want to deal with the support hassles. That's why you see DIY stuff supporting it, but no off-the-shelf solution.
Re:Netflix by tool462 · 2011-01-04 11:50 · Score: 1

Competition. Right now Netflix service is fantastic, in large part because their survival as a company depends on them being very good. If Microsoft/Apple/Google/Boxee/Hulu/Roku/etc all decide that they don't want to try anymore and let Netflix have the whole market, there is no incentive for Netflix to improve or even maintain their product at a reasonable price. As a happy Netflix subscriber, I want there to be as many competitors as possible to keep them honest so I can _stay_ a happy subscriber. And I do use several of those other services, so relative quality does affect my usage and if Netflix doesn't stay competitive I won't stay subscribed.
Re:Netflix by Maltheus · 2011-01-04 11:51 · Score: 1

Hmmm, interesting. I wonder if that's why my Samsung youtube app is so crappy. Google doesn't want to compete with themselves. It's too bad I was forced into getting a new TV this year. I would have loved the ability to develop my own TV apps. In another 5 years, I may not even need my HTPC.
Re:Netflix by lysdexia · 2011-01-05 02:12 · Score: 1

Vis Netflix: my only complaint about the Roku I got my wife for Christmas is that I'm watching way too much fscking TV now.

The more competition, the better by mlts · 2011-01-04 10:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

If MS has something like all-you-can-watch video similar to the all-you-can-download subscription system for the Zune, it might be something worth considering.

However, why does MS need a TV set top box? They already have one... the XBox 360.

Re:The more competition, the better by ArcadeNut · 2011-01-04 10:31 · Score: 1

However, why does MS need a TV set top box? They already have one... the XBox 360.
Probably because a lot of people don't want a "Gaming Device", they just want to watch TV. I know a lot of people that this would be a good fit for.
If the price is right and it's open enough (i.e. I can play what ever media I want on it), then it should do well assuming the price is right. If they restrict it to say only MS formats, then it's not going to make any headway.

--
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Re:The more competition, the better by Archangel+Michael · 2011-01-04 10:34 · Score: 1

Rename the basic XBOX 360 Slim to "Microsoft WEB TV, with Gaming". Add the HD and controllers later to upgrade it to XBOX if you want.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:The more competition, the better by hackstraw · 2011-01-04 10:49 · Score: 1

If MS has something like all-you-can-watch video similar to the all-you-can-download subscription system for the Zune, it might be something worth considering.
However, why does MS need a TV set top box? They already have one... the XBox 360.
And this thing still left over from the 90s: http://www.webtv.com/pc/ Still looks like it belongs in the 90s with the big, ugly keyboard and the CRT 4:3 TV.
Even a non-microsoft apologist like myself can give MS credit where credit is due. They have persistance as if no one else on the planet has even heard of it. They can continuously throw engineers at horrible products until they become usable or even comperable if not even superior to other products (DirectX comes to mind).
I too welcome competition. Especially from Microsoft, because they have such a known brand. Its an uphill battle for them though, because they cannot seem to make things simple enough for embedded devices like TVs.
Re:The more competition, the better by Experiment+626 · 2011-01-04 10:51 · Score: 1

The XBox360 has potential as a set-top box, but Microsoft's business strategy really undermines it. To watch Netflix on it, you have to subscribe to XBox Live, even if you have no interest in online gaming. Meanwhile a network-enabled Blu-Ray player is half the price, has no recurring costs, and can play Blu-Rays. I'm not sure if any have as good of a DLNA client as the 360, but there's no reason they couldn't. The 360 is nice if you want to play games, but in a purely media box role, there are better options out there.
Re:The more competition, the better by Threni · 2011-01-04 10:58 · Score: 2

Throw in a powerful fan, and price it up at about £50 and I'm in!
Re:The more competition, the better by h4rr4r · 2011-01-04 11:38 · Score: 2

I know of one in the market that supports DNLA, has no reoccuring costs to play netflix, plays blurays and also plays games. I think sony makes it, playstion 3 or something like that.
Re:The more competition, the better by Abstrackt · 2011-01-04 11:50 · Score: 1

However, why does MS need a TV set top box? They already have one... the XBox 360.
I find the fan on the 360 a bit too loud. I don't really want to have to turn the volume on my TV up just to drown out the whir from my set top box.

--
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Re:The more competition, the better by nine-times · 2011-01-04 12:10 · Score: 1

Well if they could make an Xbox360 cheaper by getting rid of the gaming components and focusing on video offerings (Hulu Plus, Netflix, etc), then maybe it would make enough additional sales to warrant development.
Re:The more competition, the better by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 12:33 · Score: 0

They need one that doesn't catch fire.
Re:The more competition, the better by dubbreak · 2011-01-04 12:33 · Score: 1

They already have one... the XBox 360.
And I can get one cheaper than $200 brand new (~$130 CAD for a 4GB unit). If they pull the optical drive and provide a remote and no controllers.. then why would it be more than an xbox 360?

--
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
Re:The more competition, the better by puto · 2011-01-04 13:10 · Score: 0

Samsung makes a DLNA TV, they have sold it for almost 2 years now. In the states, and the one I bought here in Colombia, South America, plus it connects to my network via ethernet and plays every format on my video server, which most go back until 2002. Sony does not.

--
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Re:The more competition, the better by zachriggle · 2011-01-04 13:28 · Score: 1

An XBox isn't at the same price point as either a Google or Apple TV. Even Sony has $90 BluRay players that do NetFlix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon On Demand, among other things.
Re:The more competition, the better by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 22:50 · Score: 0

Who in their right mind would want a 360 in their living room for anything besides gaming? They sound like a jet engine taking off and break approximately every 6 months. All these people suggesting this here are either deaf or mad.
Re:The more competition, the better by im_thatoneguy · 2011-01-05 12:33 · Score: 1

I would be putting everyone I know onto an Xbox 360... except a lot of them don't play games so even $40 a year for Xbox Live on top of a $250 device is kind of a waste.
A Roku works just as well for 1080p, is quieter and has no annual fee so that's what I bought my Mom for Christmas and she loves it. Me? WMC + 360 is amazing, but my mom setup the Roku without me even talking to her on the phone. I just said "when it comes, plug it in where it fits." She plugged the HDMI in. Plugged in the power. Plugged in an included Ethernet cable. Done.

does the perception of guaranteed failure by Dan667 · 2011-01-04 10:24 · Score: 1

have a higher or lower price point?

My bet by Jugalator · 2011-01-04 10:24 · Score: 1

A sluggish box built of mediocre parts, running a new "Windows 7 Home Center Edition" that really wants 2 GB but only get 1 GB. Shipping from Samsung at the time of CES 2011! Can play anything, such as Windows Media Video and DivX, although users of FLAC, Ogg, or other "obscure formats" are out of the picture. People start wondering why they can't just as well buy a Boxee and be much better off for a similar price, and Steve Ballmer has no answer to that.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Re:My bet by Opportunist · 2011-01-04 10:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here's my bet: A box with a fairly conservative design, maybe available with different fronts to blend more neatly into your living room interior. Of course, those would cost extra, it comes with a simple, flat brown front.
It will take about 3-5 minutes for the box to finish booting and will require some kind of rather complicated authorization and verification process before you can use it the first time to make sure it's a genuine product. Now, one might wonder, why this is necessary, but since it's running a Media Center Edition of Win7, that pesky registration process could not be patched out easily without pretty much giving away how to do it in Win7 as well, it was left in and is redubbed "personalization" of the box. The goodie you get for it is that your settings will be stored online, just in case you have to replace your box one day and want to use your settings. This will be considered a neat feature until people notice that by the time they could replace that box, a new version will be out that is incompatible with their settings and no converter exists.
It will have a network jack and it will require an internet connection to operate (obviously). You will have to open about half the ports on your router and forward it to the box, or it simply will not work. MS will recommend connecting the box directly to the internet with a dedicated IP address. Yes, even for functions that have nothing to do with the internet.
Of course you cannot access "the internet" directly, because that would, of course, be far too dangerous. To keep you safe from trouble and malware, MS will provide a "Microsoft TV network", at a fairly affordable fee per year. You can spend more for more advanced membership options that also allow you additional features, like doing something but watching TV with your MSTV.
And so on, simply take what MS has done so far and extrapolate, I'm sure you can do it just as well as me.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:My bet by puto · 2011-01-04 13:32 · Score: 1

My Samsung TV plays natively vob, mkv, mp4, wma, asf, avi, and 3ggp, out of the box. NOW.

--
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

WMC??? by Stregano · 2011-01-04 10:26 · Score: 2

I have my own "internet" box that also run cable. The total cost of the entire system to build? About $200 or $300. It is a pc with Windows 7 on it and it uses Windows Media Center. Why would they try to push out more hardware when the software company already has a solution? I guess it seems like a waste or resources to me. They could be working on security for Windows 7 or getting more people working on stuff for IE9 or something. There is absolutely no need for a Microsoft set top box when for the same price any reasonably intelligent person can build a small pc with W7 on it and just use WMC instead

--
The world is how you make it

Re:WMC??? by Microlith · 2011-01-04 10:29 · Score: 1

Well, I suspect that this set top box will be locked down and have direct access to various "stores" and such. Depriving the user of control is all the reason they need to pursue something more than simply using existing solutions like building an HTPC or plugging your TV into your existing PC.
Re:WMC??? by Jugalator · 2011-01-04 10:31 · Score: 1

I agree. I don't get why they have to present a "device" for this when they can just spend their resources on a "WMC 2011".
Maybe they want some of Apple's entertainment device market share cake. :p
Would be quite a shift in business if they start building more MS-branded devices though...

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:WMC??? by tepples · 2011-01-04 11:37 · Score: 1

Depriving the user of control is all the reason they need
Depriving the user of control allegedly makes technical support easier, as it's harder for the end user to fcuk something up.

solutions like building an HTPC
Only geeks build their own PCs, let alone HTPCs. It's not like I can walk into a Best Buy and walk out with something marketed as an HTPC.

or plugging your TV into your existing PC.
A set-top box is more likely to have SDTV outputs and analog YPbPr component video for use with a "television" monitor as opposed to a "computer" monitor, and it's more likely to already be in the same room as your television.
Re:WMC??? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 13:42 · Score: 0

That's where you as a geek fail at understanding the masses. We don't want a PC hooked up to our TV's. We want a simple box like a DVR/DVD with a dumb remote that we can easily change channels and view stuff (Tivo). Not a computer.

Oh wait I was just handed something....hmm, seems you can have that with a win7 box too... [Needs to be marketed correctly]
Re:WMC??? by jedidiah · 2011-01-04 14:29 · Score: 2

> Only geeks build their own PCs, let alone HTPCs [pineight.com]. It's not like I can walk into
> a Best Buy and walk out with something marketed as an HTPC.
When the first generation Revo was still around, you could walk into Best Buy and buy one. Although
Best Buy did their best to keep them hidden lest all of the consumer rubes find out that you could get
a desktop PC for a mere $200.
Admittedly these things weren't marketed as HTPC machines but they were pretty much universally
pounced on by the HTPC community as cheap, small and quiet boxes that could do all of the basic
things that an HTPC needs to do.
"Geeks" don't just build boxes. They're also smart enough to know when they can just buy stuff off
the shelf and slap some software on it. ...although some of you will probably try to claim that installing desktop software is complicated.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:WMC??? by tepples · 2011-01-04 14:46 · Score: 1

When the first generation Revo was still around
Someone I know bought one. It did the job. Is there anything like it nowadays?

They're also smart enough to know when they can just buy stuff off the shelf and slap some software on it.
I tried that once. I looked in a few electronics stores (Best Buy, Circuit City) prior to the great HDTV transition, and few if any PCs had an SDTV output. Even now, I have trouble recommending a specific brand to people who may still have an SDTV or an early CRT HDTV with only component in.
Re:WMC??? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 23:55 · Score: 0

I have my own kit "car" vehicle that also has wheels. The total cost of the entire system to build? About $20.000 or $30.000. It is a car with Audi engine on it and it uses Pirelli wheels. Why would Toyota try to push out more cars when the kit car company already has a solution? I guess it seems like a waste or resources to me. They could be working on improving its prefab houses business or getting more people working on financing for kit cars or something. There is absolutely no need for a Toyota new car when for the same price any reasonably intelligent person can build a small kit car with Audi engines on it and just use its own biodiesel instead.
Re:WMC??? by bkaul01 · 2011-01-05 02:52 · Score: 1

My setup is similar, though I went with OTA digital broadcast rather than cable. It works great. It also takes a do-it-yourself enthusiast to really set up in the entertainment center in a nice-looking, well-integrated manner. If they release a purpose-built STB based on that software, it'll be much more accessible to users who just want to plug a pretty black box into their TV and have it "just work." HP and Dell have failed to do it on the hardware side, so Microsoft is leveraging its Xbox experience to do it themselves.
From a geek perspective, I get why you'd say "why bother?", but from a market perspective, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to do this. Most consumers aren't going to build their own HTPC to do this. They just want a simple device that they can plug in and use. That's why "I'll just use WMC" isn't the first response everyone has on hearing of something like the Google TV box instead of "wow, that's cool!", and why all my non-techie friends are ridiculously impressed with my setup and have never seen anything like it before. Microsoft has needed to do this for a couple years now, and it's really a smart move if they can market it right. (That last bit has never been their greatest strength, though ... as evidenced by all those non-techie friends not realizing that their computers already have the software I'm using built-in.)

I want my MTV by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 10:29 · Score: 0

I want my, I want my, I want my M$ TV.
I want my, I want my, I want my M$ TV.

Now look at them yo yo's, that's not the way you do it
You don't watch the Internet on the M$ TV
That ain't workin, that's not the way you do it
Money for nothing and your netflix arn't free
Now that ain't workin', that's not the way you do it
Lemme tell ya, them guys ain't dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb

Dear Microsoft, by scubamage · 2011-01-04 10:31 · Score: 1

Seriously, stop trying to be cool. Your software was originally marketed toward professional desktop computing, giving you an image of the professional dad. Your trying to be cool makes you look like the old dad who tries too hard to compensate for a life with little to show for it. You have chosen your path, and you have given the world some pretty awesome things - look at windows (haters can hate, but you have to give credit considering the sheer volume of its install base), look at the xbox. Just stop trying to be trendy and hip; pick something and do it damn well. How can someone like me who has a BA in psych have better business savvy than you? Sincerely,

Matty

Re:Dear Microsoft, by BitZtream · 2011-01-04 10:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm guessing you've never used Windows Media Center with XBox (old or 360) as an extender.
It is simply put the best DVR system on the planet for the home.
You get complete control over your TV, you get the ability to burn to DVD as DVD movies anything you record so you can use it elsewhere. You can archive your videos if you want.
I have the ability to record or watch live 8 HD or SD streams at a time while watching them on the local display, another Windows PC or any of my XBox 360s. Or I can watch any combination of live and recorded across my systems. Or listen to my music, watch my home videos.
The interface is fast and looks good. It supports plugins so you can do stuff like commercial removal if you want, but its almost pointless to bother with since the 'skip forward' feature is exactly 30 seconds and makes commercial skipping almost instinctual with the remote in hand.
The only thing that prevents WMC from being perfect is the fact that cable companies encrypt their content rather than filter it from entering the home so for premium channels you need STBs from your provider. My solution is to simply ignore those channels, and the cable co can ignore the money they could have had in the process.
In short, I'm sure MS is perfectly capable of pulling this off, they already have, you just haven't heard about it before now.
Take a look at WMC, it makes others DVRs look like a joke.
And before anyone tries to mention MythTV ... don't. Seriously, its only useful if you would rather spend your time screwing with it to get it to work at all rather than watching recorded shows. Forget about using it like a normal TV, its architecture makes the lag in user input to system response completely unbearable. Its a joke all on its own.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Dear Microsoft, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:05 · Score: 1

The interface [...] looks good.

No, it looks like a Microsoft product!
Re:Dear Microsoft, by ArcCoyote · 2011-01-04 11:32 · Score: 2

Don't forget CableCARD and the new Ceton tuner. 4 digital cable channels from one card, no additional fees from your cable company.
That is the real advantage of WMC: provider support.
No one else can do CableCARD. Not yet anyway. There is no reason MythTV couldn't record from a CableCARD tuner, at least for unprotected programs. As a matter of fact, it works almost exactly like the HDHomeRun tuner...
And before anyone spews Cheetos all over their keyboard and rants about how everything recorded from CableCARD is evil DRM-this-and-that.. CableCARD tuners only apply DRM if the content is flagged as protected. The only channels I see any copy-control bits applied to are the premium networks like HBO... which I don't care about. Most non-clear-QAM channels such as Discovery HD, SciFi HD, TNTHD are recorded with no protection at all.
Re:Dear Microsoft, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:32 · Score: 0

It's sad to see people who failed at MythTV settle for 2nd, or 3rd or Xth best.
Re:Dear Microsoft, by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-01-04 13:10 · Score: 0

Yeah, after all those quad cablecard tuners work great with MythTV. Oh, wait... no. They don't work at all.
While you're showing people your cool music collection and the x264 rips you spent 30 minutes of time on each, I'll be recording four hi-def TV shows at a time and actually using mine on a daily basis.
Re:Dear Microsoft, by jedidiah · 2011-01-04 14:35 · Score: 2

Silly Lemming.
I've been recording HD cable for about 2 years now. All of the recordings I make come with
absolutely no BS attached as they are completely DRM free. I can do anything I want with
them include watch them in another room or put them on an iPhone or Archos.
Cable Card tuners for PCs are mostly vaporware.
The solution I use with MythTV to record HD satellite cable is available at the local Frys. ...as far as rips go. That's pretty automated. Most of it is the computer processing data.
OTOH, there is no suitable automated solution for DVD collections in Windows or MacOS either.
So a script centric environment comes in very handy. Automation is king, not shiny buttons.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Dear Microsoft, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-05 02:45 · Score: 0

Your comment stayed pretty rational until the last couple of sentences. Not everyone likes the complete control one gets when they install Linux, and not everyone is up to the task of selecting the proper configuration for their needs. That's why companies like MS and Apple have marketshare even though free/libre solutions exist for the same problem-set. For example: I know people who enjoy installing retro-fitted kernels on their rooted Androids, and others who prefer a well-tended walled garden from the iPhone.
The point is, why begrudge the choice of someone else? You make a rational case for why someone should check out WMC if they haven't, and then you bash MythTV for maintenance & usability concerns that were true five years ago? Might I suggest you and anyone else try MythTV if you haven't seen it since its infancy. It still automatically skips commercials and can record from any source (including any premium channel you can receive). It does everything you mention above & installation is incredibly simple if you choose MythBuntu or any modern distro.

The more TV, the better by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 10:34 · Score: 0

Perhaps because a game console is geared more for, you know...games. There are formats that the Xbox 360 doesn't play. There's also the issue of noise and reliability. Not to mention user interface.

OK by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-01-04 10:39 · Score: 1

Oh. Great.

(sniff)

Mmmyep.

.MKV by Bioxoxide · 2011-01-04 10:41 · Score: 1

When MS adopts .MKV file container I'll give it mind share.

Re:.MKV by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 10:46 · Score: 1

Really? You won't look at MS because of a video container? Honestly, that's pathetic.
Re:.MKV by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 10:59 · Score: 0

Really? You'll accept whatever proprietary, locked in, DRM-infested, short lifespan manure that MS shovels down your throat? "Pathetic" doesn't cover it. Moo!
Re:.MKV by Bioxoxide · 2011-01-04 11:01 · Score: 1

Go back to reading a book. You obviously are new to the internet.
Re:.MKV by dotwhynot · 2011-01-04 11:05 · Score: 1

When MS adopts .MKV file container I'll give it mind share.
Default support would certainly be nice, but you can play .MKV on Windows 7, also in MCE, quite easily with the codec from DivX.
Re:.MKV by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-01-04 13:11 · Score: 0

Shut up, moron. The container has nothing to do with DRM. One could easily develop DRM'd content that would fit in an mkv file.
Re:.MKV by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 13:52 · Score: 0

Eat shit and die you ignorant fanbot moron. You are probably the most clueless poster on this site and you do Microsoft a disservice "cheering" for them.

Can MS push the ISP not to cap / slow this down? by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-01-04 10:44 · Score: 1

Can MS push the ISP not to cap / slow this down?

The one think they can hold over them is Windows update and how bad it can be for that to get capped or slowed down.

Hack it. by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-01-04 10:45 · Score: 1

I wonder if it make a good hacking platform. The under $200 pricetag puts it on my radar for a hacking project.

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?

Re:Hack it. by Samantha+Wright · 2011-01-04 10:50 · Score: 2

Wouldn't that violate your sig's Microsoft-free lifestyle?

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Hack it. by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-01-04 15:31 · Score: 1

If I decide to buy one for hacking I will change my sig. :) But not until.

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?

If they can deliver network content... by jfine · 2011-01-04 10:49 · Score: 1

Netflix is great when you want to watch old content. Hulu is OK for newer content. Both suck when it comes to more specialized content, Comedy Central, SiFi, HGTV, Sports etc. If MS can crack that nut then they might have a chance. Currently I'm considering switching from OSX / EyeTV to Windows 7 Media Center because when it comes to shuttling encrypted content (ie cable card) around the house MS is the only game in town.

Re:If they can deliver network content... by h4rr4r · 2011-01-04 11:45 · Score: 1

Syfy stuff is on their website or hulu.

What competition? by hellfire · 2011-01-04 10:58 · Score: 2

The Zune gave no competition to the iPod. The Kin gave no competition to any phone. The Windows phone isn't giving any real competition. Hell, why are we talking about MS and competition? They didn't even compete with Windows and DOS! They stifled competition rather than compete with it.

Microsoft's corporate culture doesn't know how to compete. In fact it's funny you mention the xbox 360, because Microsoft is so bad with competition that they just created something that will compete with their own product!

--

"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

Re:What competition? by contrapunctus · 2011-01-04 12:59 · Score: 1

but MS held a funeral to the iPhone for windows phone 7
maybe they can hold a funeral for Google and Apple TVs
Re:What competition? by Nyeerrmm · 2011-01-04 17:06 · Score: 1

Because there is no established leader in the digital streaming set-top box segment. I'm hoping to replace my HTPC with one of these small boxes in the near future (3-6 months maybe) and if the MS offering is good I'll consider it, even though I don't have any windows machines, or an xbox, or anything but a student copy of Office and an MS wireless mouse.
If they have something like the newer Zunes or WP7 quality (which have good reviews but suffer from being too late to have much impact), I'd say they have a good shot. I'm glad they're making an effort and hope they have a good offering, even if its not my eventual choice. Real competition in a segment too long smothered by cable monopolies and paranoid networks is a good thing.

Attention OLPC apologists! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:02 · Score: 0

Here's what happens when you just hand a computer to a poor person: http://www.freep.com/article/20101230/NEWS01/101230095/DPS-says-teacher-tried-to-pawn-school-laptop

NO. NO, GOD, NO by ShooterNeo · 2011-01-04 11:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

From a Microsoft stock holder : NO. NO, NO, NO.

Microsoft does ONE thing well : it hires thousands of competent programmers and it makes usable software. There are many critics but the stuff isn't all bad and they do try to improve it. It SELLS the software to users, and because it has so many customers, the revenue vastly exceeds the cost of paying thousands of programmers. They have a swanky corporate headquarters with all the free soda you can chug, and many many 6-figure jobs.

It's failed miserably at EVERYTHING ELSE IT HAS TRIED. As far as I know, it has not made ONE DOLLAR OF NET PROFIT ON ANYTHING ELSE.

It's wasted billions of dollars trying to compete as an online portal and as a search engine. A company crammed to the brim with top CS grads and extremely good custom software SPECIALIZES in search and basically nothing else. Expecting to ever beat them and make more money is a fool's errand.

It's wasted more billions, with little or NO net profits on gaming consoles. (MAYBE it's finally breaking even on that, but I doubt it)

And 50 other assorted ventures that never made a dime that we don't hear about.

Software is STILL a good idea. How about the executives pay dividends and focus on doing their core business WELL.

XBox 360? MCE? by SpryGuy · 2011-01-04 11:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

They already have Media Center for Windows, the XBox 360, and Media Center Exteders... they're going to add something ELSE to the mix? Never mind Zune.

What is it with Microsoft always just throwing layers and crap out there, making things confusing and complicated. Can they ever stop and think something through, and put out something that is cohesive, simple to use and understand, and useful?

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't

Slow down the hate train... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:11 · Score: 1

I'm all for MS bashing, but really guys, do some research first.
1) Microsoft has been slowly perfecting their TV delivery platform via Mediaroom. It is licensed exclusively to service providers such as AT&T or TELUS right now.
2) Microsoft has also granted these providers permission to use any Windows 7 PC/7 Phone/Xbox 360 as an endpoint for Mediaroom.
3) All Mediaroom compatible set-top boxes are already running embedded Windows CE.

So if you're going to say "they've tried this before a million times, they can't do it", I assure you, they can - all these devices need to do is receive a Mediaroom stream from the Internet. AT&T and TELUS deliver their streams using Multicast to your house and charge you $50+ per month - Microsoft can do the same via Unicast for free.

Re:Slow down the hate train... by Mulder3 · 2011-01-04 12:24 · Score: 1

Sure... and they will piss off the telcos that are paying them to use mediaroom... Also, about xbox, operators don't even want their xbox thing... i know that at least 2 operators(one of them is a very very big) who are developing mediaroom apps to act as a client to cloud games platforms(like onlive) Unfortunately, MS doesn't like this, so they are having problems (MS has do add gamepad drivers to their custom wince build used in mediaroom)
Re:Slow down the hate train... by Undead+Waffle · 2011-01-04 15:52 · Score: 1

"Perfecting" is the wrong word to be using there. That crappy software combined with the slow hardware was one of the reasons I canceled my AT&T TV service about a month ago. Really the only thing that would get me to go back is if they cut the price in half and let me use my own set top box.
Re:Slow down the hate train... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2011-01-04 17:44 · Score: 2

There's more to it that technical capability. Usability is important and MS don't have the best track record in that area. If they require the use of a remote like the one Sony made for Google TV, I can't see it making that much headway.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Jugalator · 2011-01-04 11:17 · Score: 1

If there's one mistake I can see Microsoft making in 2011, is losing their grip on the enterprise so much that their competitors will gain a stronger foothold there. It's long been a pretty MS exclusive zone, but these efforts on Kinect, consumer-oriented Windows Phone 7, and rumors of Windows 8 being a cloud-oriented OS sounds risky if they're still shooting for the enterprise. These guys want to control their own network, they often don't want to rely on clouds, and they want enterprise-oriented phones, not awesome Facebook integration as a priority...

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by wondafucka · 2011-01-04 11:20 · Score: 2

From a Microsoft stock holder : NO. NO, NO, NO.

Microsoft does ONE thing well : it hires thousands of competent programmers and it makes usable software. There are many critics but the stuff isn't all bad and they do try to improve it. It SELLS the software to users, and because it has so many customers, the revenue vastly exceeds the cost of paying thousands of programmers. They have a swanky corporate headquarters with all the free soda you can chug, and many many 6-figure jobs.

It's failed miserably at EVERYTHING ELSE IT HAS TRIED. As far as I know, it has not made ONE DOLLAR OF NET PROFIT ON ANYTHING ELSE.

It's wasted billions of dollars trying to compete as an online portal and as a search engine. A company crammed to the brim with top CS grads and extremely good custom software SPECIALIZES in search and basically nothing else. Expecting to ever beat them and make more money is a fool's errand.

It's wasted more billions, with little or NO net profits on gaming consoles. (MAYBE it's finally breaking even on that, but I doubt it)

And 50 other assorted ventures that never made a dime that we don't hear about.

Software is STILL a good idea. How about the executives pay dividends and focus on doing their core business WELL.

Yeah, no. They're making hand over fist licensing the Xbox platform to game publishers. They make money by selling virtually nothing. Who cares if they give the razor away?

--
postmodernsideshow.com

Film and TV studios require DRM by tepples · 2011-01-04 11:23 · Score: 1

Virtually all film and TV works that Netflix owners demand are copyrighted to studios that require digital restrictions management. Unlike Xbox 360, iOS, and presumably Windows Phone, Android has no unified framework for digital restrictions management. So Netflix has to code to each manufacturer's DRM API.

Re:Film and TV studios require DRM by h4rr4r · 2011-01-04 11:33 · Score: 2

Or they could just give in to reality. No one is going to rip the streams you send to the tv or the phone, they rip blu-rays you nitwits. If they did want to rip these streams they could just capture it off the HDMI anyway since HDCP is a freaking joke.
Re:Film and TV studios require DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:34 · Score: 0

Not totally true. Some Galaxy S phones (maybe all; haven't personally looked) support the same Microsoft DRM Silverlight uses.

Unknown sources on new TVs by tepples · 2011-01-04 11:26 · Score: 1

those new TVs have support for apps in general.

But who is authorized to develop applications for these televisions? Do they all have the equivalent of Android's "Unknown sources", or do some TV makers shut it off like AT&T does on its Android phones?

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Wamoc · 2011-01-04 11:29 · Score: 0

It's wasted more billions, with little or NO net profits on gaming consoles. (MAYBE it's finally breaking even on that, but I doubt it)

Where do you get that figure from? XBox broke even a long time ago and has been churning a profit ever since.

It's wasted billions of dollars trying to compete as an online portal and as a search engine. A company crammed to the brim with top CS grads and extremely good custom software SPECIALIZES in search and basically nothing else. Expecting to ever beat them and make more money is a fool's errand.

So is a search engine not considered a piece of software now? You say that Microsoft should stick only to software, but when it comes to certain software you so they shouldn't try it. What are your thoughts on Windows Phone 7? Should it be tried because MS only wrote the software and gave specific requirements on the hardware to the manufacturers?

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:39 · Score: 0

Yeah, no. They're making hand over fist licensing the Xbox platform to game publishers. They make money by selling virtually nothing. Who cares if they give the razor away?

The combined losses of the XBOX program since its inception are in the neighborhood of 7 billion dollars (with a B). On a good quarter the Entertainment & Devices division makes a 300 million (with an M) dollars profit. And they're on an upswing right now because the 360 is a mature platform. The development and marketing of next generation hardware will probably eat away at those profits (IMHO they'll start losing money again). There is no way XBOX will ever make its accumulated losses back.

When Food Network is a premium channel by tepples · 2011-01-04 11:44 · Score: 1

cable companies encrypt their content rather than filter it from entering the home so for premium channels you need STBs from your provider. My solution is to simply ignore those channels

Then everything but the local channels must be "premium" because Comcast encrypts everything in my home town.

and the cable co can ignore the money

Not if they're already getting my money for Internet access.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by h4rr4r · 2011-01-04 11:46 · Score: 1

Has even that covered the sales of the original Xbox?

Who cares about eh set top brand... by kriegs · 2011-01-04 11:46 · Score: 1

What matters is having that "Netflix" button on your remote - isn't content still king here?

Re: Why... by colinnwn · 2011-01-04 11:47 · Score: 1

I have a MythTV that is somewhat of a time hog because I am constantly tweaking and updating it as part of a home server, when I should leave well enough alone. I use the MythTV more (but only slightly more) than my Roku Netflix player. Netflix lets me watch TV series on premium channels I don't subscribe to like Showtime (though a year late). But for watching current TV series, on major networks, time-shifted, and with the advertisements automatically cut out, nothing beats Myth (or other advanced DVR).

Watch the hyphen by tepples · 2011-01-04 11:50 · Score: 1

Watch the hyphen. A "Microsoft free lifestyle" in grandparent's signature isn't the same thing as a "Microsoft-free lifestyle". A "Microsoft free lifestyle" includes the use of free software on Microsoft platforms, and it includes the use of software under the Microsoft Public License or Microsoft Reciprocal License.

Partly inaccurate article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:55 · Score: 1

Makes me wonder what else might be wrong with the article:

Reuters said in November that the company had been in talks to turn the Xbox 360 into a cable TV set top box for a monthly fee, although it was said at the time any service was a year away from becoming a reality.

You can get cable TV over IP in some places with a 360 (e.g. Foxtel in Australia).

Business Model by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 11:56 · Score: 0

Microsoft has a business model that requires increasing revenue and profit.

The primary sources of MS's revenue have plateaued or are dropping: Windows, Office, Server2008, XBox are not increasing in total revenue. Phone/Mobile is not producing much revenue.

The only way that MS's revenue can be increase in a stagnant market is to take it from someone else. In this case they want to take it from OEMs. Instead of there being a 'Dell TV' running MS WMC and letting Dell take in revenue (if at all) it will be a MS TV running WMC and MS will count all the revenue, not just the WMC.

Next there may be an MS XPC which Dell and Gateway will have to compete with.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by alvinrod · 2011-01-04 11:57 · Score: 1

In all honesty, Windows 8 and 9 could be some kind of cloud-oriented giant middle finger to Enterprise and they wouldn't be hurt as badly as you might think. Look at the number of companies who are still using Windows XP and are only possibly considering moving to Windows 7 within the next few years, but may just skip it and wait for the next one.

There's the whole Vista debacle which people like to point to as part of the reason for so many businesses sticking with XP, but even if Vista were twice as polished as 7 is at this moment, there would still be loads of companies still running XP.

Microsoft honestly only needs one worthwhile enterprise operating system every decade, because it seems as though a large number of companies are perfectly happy with that. Microsoft could split Windows into two editions, Enterprise and Home. Home gets the bells, flash, and chrome. The enterprise edition gets quick bug-fixes, extended support, and continued performance tuning. If they're careful enough, they can keep the two versions compatible to a large extent.

Microsoft has been ready for a long while now by initialE · 2011-01-04 11:59 · Score: 2

What has been lacking has been clear leadership and direction, not marketshare, technical know-how or PR. And it doesn't help that they keep making new projects without thinking them through, then killing them before they have any reasonable expectation of success. Sounds more like a company self-destructing from internal politics instead.

--
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.

Not all Android phones are Galaxy S by tepples · 2011-01-04 12:03 · Score: 1

Even if Samsung phones support Silverlight DRM, other phones that run Android don't necessarily. As I understand a recent story about Netflix's use of free software on the server and not the client, Netflix would have to make an app specifically for Samsung phones and other apps for each other manufacturer.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by eulernet · 2011-01-04 12:18 · Score: 1

Where do you get that figure from? XBox broke even a long time ago and has been churning a profit ever since.

Citation needed.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by citizenr · 2011-01-04 12:20 · Score: 2

Yeah, no. They're making hand over fist licensing the Xbox platform to game publishers. They make money by selling virtually nothing. Who cares if they give the razor away?

They sank >$5B over the whole life of XBOX, and only recently started reporting >$100mil profit per quarter. Heh, Kinect alone cost them $600mil in failed experimentation (in the end they licensed third party technology, there is ZERO M$ technology in Kinect) plus another $500mil for advertising.

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.

Can slashdot change the icon for M$ by kentsin · 2011-01-04 12:29 · Score: 1

I propose that the bill icon change

Re:Can slashdot change the icon for M$ by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 17:58 · Score: 0

I propose that the bill icon change
Someone does on every Microsoft story.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by TimothyDavis · 2011-01-04 12:37 · Score: 1

A couple of observations:

The biggest competitor to Microsoft in the areas they have traditionally been successful is....Microsoft. Windows XP has been "good enough" for a large audience, and 10 years from now, Windows 7 will be "more than good enough" compared to whatever version of Windows will be shipping then. Same with Office. Most of the other applications are either given away for free, or are not nearly as profitable.

The reason Microsoft is so interested in "the cloud", is that these are services they put reoccurring charges on. Xbox live memberships, Zune pass memberships, streaming media (music, movies, etc), are all services they can charge for until the end of time.

Microsoft is still hurting from the loss of market share for search (Google) and Music (iTunes). Of course they are interested in streaming video, and so is Apple and Google. Whichever one creates the market place that obtains the most users is in place to have a cash cow that can be milked for a very long time.

As a Microsoft employee and stock holder, I do want them to go after this market, because there is a lot at stake here. Unless Microsoft has a strong strategy, Apple will likely be the victor within the next year or two.

cable card readers in the 360 FTW by cenobyte40k · 2011-01-04 12:38 · Score: 1

All MS need to do to take over the set top work is put a couple cable card readers in the 360 and allow external storage for content it records. Let it surf the web and ingrate netflix and Hulu. Sell that as the premium xbox360 Media Center and sell it for around the price of a TIVO and within a year or so it will have taken over the world.

Re:cable card readers in the 360 FTW by jedidiah · 2011-01-04 14:45 · Score: 2

No. They need to create a serious home server that's basically a Tivo knockoff on steroids that would have the option of using any available PC tuner, gobs of hot swappable storage, and host local content to "extenders" running stripped down Revo style PCs that can play everything and the kitchen sink, organize local content like XBMC and preset the web as needed for stuff that's still "desktop browser centric".
The Xbox is a frontend, not a backend. They need to make a proper backend box and make it whole house and network transparent in ways that other vendors haven't delivered yet.
This is the big thing that MCE or MythTV or SageTV has going for it.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:cable card readers in the 360 FTW by Tony · 2011-01-05 04:15 · Score: 1

No fucking way. The XBox 360 interface fucking sucks. I like my 360, don't get me wrong. Gears of War is one of the best games ever. (I don't get the appeal of Halo, but Gears is a lot of fun.) I fucking hate the XBox Live interface, with its advertisements and cheesy avatars. If I wanted a cartoonish avatar living in a land of advertisements, I would've bought a Wii and moved into a mall.
Take the XBox hardware, rev it to newer processors so it doesn't need a fan, update the interface so it looks less like the old Harvey Comics adds for Little Debbies snacks (you know the ones, with Caspar and L'il Devil and Wendy the Witch), and give it a decent way to browse your music and DVD rips which you have stored on your old PC in the den, the one that's piled under your unread year's worth of Maxim and Handyman magazines. Then it might be OK. But if they just used the current XBox interface, I'd never buy it, even if they gave it the ability to modify Sarah Palin's and Fran Drescher's voices so they weren't so fucking annoying.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by alcmaeon · 2011-01-04 12:43 · Score: 1

Maybe you don't understand what drives stock price: growth. If you want to invest $20,000.00 today in MS and get $20,000.00 back 20 years from now, you probably want MS to keep doing what it is doing. It does do it well, but it also owns the market for what it does. If MS has 90% of the OS and Applications market, how does it grow unless the entire market enlarges? Ever wonder why Apple's stock is on fire? It has three product lines, all with massive growth potential. Look at the Mac. It was at about 2.5% marketshare a few years ago, now it is at about 10%. That's 400% growth. I want to see MS experience even 10% marketshare growth. It can't. This is why it is imperative that MS seek new markets and new product lines. This is a valid business strategy, not a bipolar episode.

Besides, Google TV sucks ass, so all MS has to do is make a slightly cheaper, slightly less ass-sucky product and it should be able to capture some marketshare.

Re:XBox 360? MCE? by TimothyDavis · 2011-01-04 12:45 · Score: 1

If I had to guess, this would be a multi-point approach solution. The service would feed content to XBox, Media Center PC, and a set top box.

Keep in mind that for many users (my parents being an example), an 'appliance' is what they are looking for, and the XBox and Media Center PC don't fit that criteria. I don't want to deal with the XBox UI just to watch a TV program. The XBox also does not have digital cable decoding, etc. Media Center PC requires that a geek live in the house, to keep the damn thing patched etc. I personally use a Media Center box at home, but wish I had something more basic and closer to fixed function.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 12:47 · Score: 0

Saying there's 0 MS technology in Kinect is just flat-out wrong. PrimeSense did some depth-sensing work. There's also skeleton and facial recognition and voice recognition and other technologies.

Xbox is a cash cow. by cenobyte40k · 2011-01-04 12:52 · Score: 1

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/24/the-xbox-turns-a-profit/ Xbox turns a profit starting First quarter 2008. http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20346/Xbox-Division-Records-Second-Profitable-Year-in-a-Row/ 2009 ends 2nd year of profit for entertainment division on high sales from Xbox/xbox360 even being a tough year the xbox brand carried the division. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28220/Xbox_360_Division_Pushes_165_Million_Profit_For_MS_Q3.php 10% profit for entertainment division on Xbox sales. http://www.joystiq.com/2010/10/28/microsoft-announces-record-q1-revenue-thanks-xbox-360-consoles/ MS sites xbox360 as big part of profit numbers. http://xbox360.gamespy.com/articles/110/1104553p1.html xbox live had $1billion in revenue for 2010. I know you guys hate MS and want to see them fail but that took 2 minutes.

Re:Xbox is a cash cow. by rahvin112 · 2011-01-04 13:57 · Score: 2

The XBox didn't turn a profit in 2008. The XBox 360 did, but only against the costs expended that year. That profit will never ever come close to obliterating the total losses on the Xbox and early years of the Xbox 360. (as stated by the OP the total losses exceed 5 Billion) Considering that the life of the Xbox 360 is nearly over with a new console cycle due within the next couple years it's astounding that anyone would assert that they made a profit.
They are claiming a profit against only the expenditures of that year, not the total expenditures over the life of the program. They aren't even close against the total net loses.They would need to sell the Xbox 360 with the same 165 million profit per year for about 5 decades to recoup the total expenditure or raise profit to exceed a billion a year. The Xbox has been a collasal money sink for MS, as the OP stated they would have been far better to simply give the money to shareholders rather than waste billions on a product that was 3 years into it's life with nearly zero expenditure on development before they could turn a yearly profit. Think about how scary that is, it took them 3 years after the product was produced and sold and near zero development was ongoing before they could reduce costs to the point that they actually made money.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 12:55 · Score: 0

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/20346/Xbox-Division-Records-Second-Profitable-Year-in-a-Row/

That's 2009. Profitable again in 2010.

Usually when people say xbox isn't profitable they are using a deviant definition of profitability that counts sunk costs from years previous.

Re:XBox 360? MCE? by Tordre · 2011-01-04 13:02 · Score: 1

I partially agree Microsoft does have a weird problem where they have more than one product to do the same job,

For example
Windows Media Player, The Zune Desktop Software, Windows Media Center on the desktop all for playing content on one's desktop
Play for sure and Zune's DRM for Digital Rights Management on Portable Players
Windows Live Sync, Mesh and Skydrive. All provide overlapping "cloud" storage syncing that should be merged together.
IE 6, IE 7, and IE8.. oh wait that one is a joke

But When it comes to getting Media Center on a TV the experience is less than optimal, you have 2 options

Media Center Extenders(including Xbox 360), I have tried on a few occasions to get my Xbox functional as one of these it works decently, but i kept running into issues because my home network is bad, and I have no control to fix the network. Essentially the issue was that each time I reconnected to my PC running WMC it would see it as a new computer and try to get me to re-register the device, which then in turn had to recreate the local cache of the desktops media library, which took too long to be convenient. Eventually I switched over to using another media streamer that worked with the Xbox that did not have to do registration and caching.

Roll your own Windows Media Center HTPC
Great in theory much better than using the extender.. not for the general population). The only other Media Center software,that i can think of, that can rip live TV is MythBox. Although personally if XBMC had this capability then it would be my preferred option.

As for what this new device sounds like from this article is the second option all in a self contained box, which is great if it retained it PVR functionality and is able to stream from local network computers (it probably will use home groups but that is a small price to pay). What I hope does not happen for this is removal of user addable codec. It is windows CE based so it will be ARM based as well which means some codec will need to be ported but still better than nothing.

If this is done right it should fill a demand that is not being met by their 2 other products which are meant to be working together.

it would also be wise to price it close to the Boxee, Apple TV and other products of the like. I will be willing to pay more only if it has PVR capability which in theory would mean not an additional box but rather just replacing a box, and is also not being done by any other consumer device that attempts to merge the Web with TV.

The Xbox is not a TV set box by geekoid · 2011-01-04 13:05 · Score: 2

Or if it is considered one, it's horrible. It plays a very limited amount of media.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:The Xbox is not a TV set box by indytx · 2011-01-05 00:30 · Score: 1

Or if it is considered one, it's horrible. It plays a very limited amount of media.
Most of the set-top boxes play a very limited amount of media, but I don't think the big rush is for playing media but streaming content. The Xbox 360 already gets Netflix, and Microsoft penned a deal with ATT for the 360 to work as the cable box for the U-Verse service.
What I would be interested in seeing is whether they can make a set-top box that doesn't get blocked from the popular websites like GoogleTV, and how functional would be compared to the Windows alternatives you can buy now. You can already buy an eMachines Mini-e for around $300 or less with an HDMI output that can snap to the back of your HDTV's VESA mount. While a Mini-e runs Windows and not a simpler interface like GoogleTV or the Boxee Box, you (probably) don't have to worry about having it blocked by the major content websites.
Like many people, we pay for more cable TV content then we really need, and we'd love a solution that lets us pick and choose only what we want to watch. While it really is annoying to have to plug the laptop to the TV when we want to watch something off of the internet, I would be really P.O.'d to have bought a GoogleTV and then had content blocked. I want a simple, easy, NOT UGLY replacement for my cable TV subscription. If that means buying something from M$, I'll do it. I'll hate myself, but I'll do it. You never hear anyone on this site saying how much they love their cable TV and how that want less choice.

--
Make love, not reality television.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 13:07 · Score: 0

Microsoft is new to hardware. What used to be major losses are growing into minor losses. There are some growing pains to be sure but Microsoft will make a profit outside of Windows and Office, and it's only a matter of time because it's do or die. In the meantime, we get great hardware like the Zune HD. As a fellow Microsoft stock holder, I say: bring it on.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by md65536 · 2011-01-04 13:12 · Score: 1

Microsoft does ONE thing well : it hires thousands of competent programmers and it makes usable software.

That's two things.

Oh.

I see what you're saying, now.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 14:39 · Score: 0

Yeah, no. They're making hand over fist licensing the Xbox platform to game publishers. They make money by selling virtually nothing. Who cares if they give the razor away?

They sank >$5B over the whole life of XBOX, and only recently started reporting >$100mil profit per quarter. Heh, Kinect alone cost them $600mil in failed experimentation (in the end they licensed third party technology, there is ZERO M$ technology in Kinect) plus another $500mil for advertising.

On what planet are you living that $100 million in profit a quarter isn't a miraculous corporate windfall?

Re:XBox 360? MCE? by jedidiah · 2011-01-04 14:40 · Score: 1

If MCE requires onsite tech support then that indicates a fundemental problem
with Microsoft itself since they can pretty much ensure that Dell ships any sort
of PC they want them to. They could force them to build and ship the ultimate
Tivo knockoff if they really had the will. The same goes for delivering an OS that
does not require an onsite geek to manage.

An actual Tivo is nothing but a Linux box with a proprietary GUI.

If Tivo can do it with an ancient version of Linux then why can't Microsoft do it
with Windows? Another fragmented product isn't the answer. If they could they
would by now. If they haven't then it's due to lack of will or just pisspoor tech.

The family likes the HTPC more. After using MythTV, they don't want to go back
to the Tivo. I would have a revolt on my hands if I tried to force them. They really
do like the user side of the HTPC experience more.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Can MS push the ISP not to cap / slow this down by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 15:03 · Score: 0

no, but one legislation could do the trick

it is called 'net neutrality'

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 16:29 · Score: 0

A planet where, out of the previous 30ish quarters, the division had like 2 that weren't losses? Shit man, if you think 100 million is a windfall and all they had to do was spend a few billion more than they earned, you can give me every cent you can get your hands on. I will return a windfall of 1/2 of one penny per dollar in a year's time. We can both consider ourselves ahead of the game.

Here we go copying again by Billly+Gates · 2011-01-04 20:44 · Score: 2

Can't Microsoft ever make something original. Why do they have to stop or feel threatened by any product out on the digital market? Look, Zune and WindowsCE lost. They just wont give up.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:XBox 360? MCE? by Mr_Silver · 2011-01-04 21:52 · Score: 1

They already have Media Center for Windows, the XBox 360, and Media Center Exteders... they're going to add something ELSE to the mix? Never mind Zune.

At a guess, they'll be creating a solution which involves a cut down version of Windows 7 and Windows Media Center so that vendors can simply load it onto some custom powered hardware.

My HTPC is an Asus EeeBox EB1012 with Windows 7 Home Premium (£280), WinTV-NOVA-TD Dual DVB-T Stick (£55) and an MCE remote (£25). Total cost is £355.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, I can buy a Humax PVR9300T500 for £189. Yes, it doesn't do everything my HTPC does, but it's significantly cheaper. They need to get the price of their own software down so that vendors can produce something in this area.

Regarding timing, here in the UK, Freeview HD PVR's are few and far between and very expensive (Humax have one for £350) and the BBC backed YouView has not yet materalised. If Microsoft can reduce their software down so that a vendor can quickly release a dual DVB-T2 product at a competitive cost, then they have a good chance of grabbing a chunk of the market as there are plenty of people who have HD TV's but not a receiver capable of getting HD content.

--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by rastoboy29 · 2011-01-04 21:56 · Score: 1

Why do you keep your money invested in them when they make all these poor decisions? I mean, their stock has been falling or flat for a DECADE. It seems to me your analysis of their business moves is a good one. I'd wait until they show signs of recognizing the essential truth of your words before investing in them.

--
expandfairuse.org

I was sooo expecting this anouncement by obarthelemy · 2011-01-04 23:44 · Score: 1

I'm really counting on MS to lead the pack with innovative, sexy, fun, easy to use and reliable stuff.

I'll go back to my smoke now... tastes funny today, maybe because it's been is the back of my dad's closet where I found it for too long ?

--
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by Tony · 2011-01-05 04:02 · Score: 1

Usually when people say xbox isn't profitable they are using a deviant definition of profitability that counts sunk costs from years previous.

Yeah, because everyone knows if you spend $5B on something in the first year, and it makes back $3B over the next five years, you can call that $3B profit.

Microsoft might be able to break even with the 360. If their next generation is any good (and there's no reason it shouldn't be decent -- the 360 is a fairly decent platform, though XBox Live is like living in a mall), they might actually turn a profit on the whole enterprise.

Microsoft has proven it has the tenacity to buy its way into a market over the course of several years. It'll be interesting to see if they have what it takes to move into the set-top box market.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Re:NO. NO, GOD, NO by w_dragon · 2011-01-05 04:08 · Score: 1

You have to spend money to make money. If they stagnate then in time they will become another Sun, just a bunch of geeks with no business plan.

Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-05 22:11 · Score: 0

Wow, now we'll have the BSOD on the TV. This company continues to amaze me.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Ready To "Take On'' Google and Apple TV

182 comments