Apple recycles Media Center

I do hope the people who were so outraged about Microsoft ripping off Apple “innovations” – the Windows Vista interface, Microsoft Gadgets, etc. – are slamming Steve Jobs right now for Apple’s blatant (and frankly pretty lame) ripoff of Windows Media Center Edition, Front Row. After all the buzz earlier this year about what a cool media platform the Mac Mini would be, this is a big letdown.

Peter Near and Thomas Hawk both say, “Eh.” And Microsoft’s Charlie Owen has a similar first reaction:

Frankly, I’m underwhelmed — I really expected Apple to have much more to brag about, especially given their momentum with iPod over the last couple of years. Based on everything I’m seeing, Front Row doesn’t even have feature parity with the first version of Media Center released back in October 2002. No hint of a developer platform either — that’s a shame — I was really looking forward to dusting off my Mac coding skills again.

But don’t get me wrong — I do think this is a good thing. The halls here in Building 50 are buzzing with excitement (and yes, it’s positive excitement — we love this stuff). It’s classic Microsoft vs. Apple, and we haven’t really had that for a lonnnnnng time, and some of us miss that competition.

So, welcome back Apple, it’s good to see you again!

Yes, and the killer feature Charlie didn’t mention: There’s nothing from Apple that offers anything like the Media Center Extender.

It appears they’re going after the dorm room, not the living room.

[Cross Posted at Ed Bott’s Media Central]

Media Center hits the mainstream

Market research firm Current Analysis says sales of Media Center PCs have skyrocketed since July 9:

For the week ending August 20, 2005, Media Center PCs accounted for 43% of all desktop personal computers sold in the U.S. retail market, based on data from a sampling of U.S. retailers.

Accounting for this phenomenon was a decline in pricing for Media Center systems, with the average price dropping below $900 for the first time ever. In addition to the more affordable price points, Microsoft has lead [sic] the charge to promote Media Center PCs at select retailers in an attempt to generate a higher level of interest for the platform.

More than 70% of the PCs sold had no TV tuner, which suggests that Media Center features are being incorporated into Windows as a basic feature.

(via Mavromatic)

A rich man’s view of Media Center

No doubt about it… The Robb Report is a magazine for rich men. I say “men” deliberately, because this magazine is aimed at gadget freaks with lots and lots of disposable income, the “boys and their toys” crowd. I was pleasantly surprised to see this review of Windows Media Center Edition 2005 in the (digital) pages of the Robb Report’s Home Entertainment Design:

[T]hanks to Microsoft’s Windows XP Media Center Edition computer operating system, PCs have begun invading our home theaters. They assume the roles of DVD player, TV tuner, digital video recorder, music server, digital photo archive, online portal, and so much more—all in one box with a unified control screen.

It’s a well-balanced look at Media Center, with a focus on the high end and a willingness to acknowledge the problems with the platform:

Versatile and promising as Windows Media Center may sound, our initial experience with it raises more red flags than a military parade in Beijing. In its current iteration, WMC is more of a Band-Aid than a fully integrated, well-thought-out system. While Band-Aids work great if you prick your pinky with a paring knife, they don’t work well for severed limbs. And given the wide range of hardware WMC attempts to control, the severed limb analogy seems appropriate. Obviously, I’m overstating a bit—but severed limbs are often reattached in less time than it takes to get many Windows Media Center machines running properly.

I hope the developers in the eHome division at Microsoft have seen this article. If so, they know exactly where the challenges are to win this audience over.

Is the latest Media Center update ready yet?

On Saturday, I wrote briefly about a post that Chris Lanier published on his site, which speculated about the ship date of Windows XP Media Center Edition Update Rollup 2.

So … did that code actually ship as scheduled last week? The Neowin article that Chris used as his source was a couple months old, and it was actually pulled from Neowin’s site a few weeks later. In addition, it referred to a proposed schedule, not actual events.

Anyone on the eHome team want to take advantage of the anonymity of the Internet and clear things up? (I didn’t think so.)

When will the next Media Center update arrive?

Chris Lanier asks the rhetorical question, When Will Media Center Update Rollup 2 Ship?

According to Neowin, what we know now as Windows XP Media Center Edition Update Rollup 2 RTM’d on August 12th (Last Friday).  However, when might the actually web release be if it RTM’d on August 12th?  Take a trip down the Media Center release timeframe table and you should get a good idea of when it might ship (eg. be available for download).  I’ll have more of the content posted from Neowin later.

 

MCE v1 – Oct. 29, 2002

MCE 2004 – Sep. 30, 2003

MCE 2005/Update Rollup 1- Oct. 12/17, 2004

MCE 2005 Update Rollup 2 – ?

If Chris is reading the tea leaves correctly, Microsoft is going to sit on this update for nearly two months. I think this timeline might be off a little bit, however, because this rollup is not like its predecessors. For the past three years, each fall has seen the debut of a completely new edition of Windows Media Center Edition. In 2002 and 2003, the OS was sold only through OEMs, and no upgrade path was available. In 2004, with the release of MCE 2005, Microsoft finally made the OEM version available for white-box makers and hobbyists in addition to big OEMs, but there was still no upgrade path. This year, for the first time in four years, there won’t be a new MCE version number. Instead, anyone who owns MCE 2005 can upgrade to the latest code by downloading and installing a rollup package, and OEMs who sell MCE computers can incorporate the rollup into their new machines as well.

The files in the MCE 2005 system folders have date/time stamps of August 10, 2004. That’s when last year’s code was locked down and the process of making it ready for OEMs (and for retail sale) began. As Chris correctly notes, MCE 2005 wasn’t officially released until October 12, and it was followed a few days later (Chris says October 17, but the download page is actually dated October 15, 2004) by a rollup package that added over-the-air HDTV support and a few bug fixes.

It made marketing sense to hold the release of MCE 2005 from August 2004 until its official launch in October. MCE 2005 wasn’t a downloadable product, and the rollup was useless to anyone running a previous MCE version. But it doesn’t make any sense to delay this year’s rollup for two months. OEMs can continue to sell MCE 2005 from now until then, and they don’t have to worry about customers getting stuck with an obsolete OS version. Meanwhile, Media Center customers (a million of them as of April, with perhaps another half-million since then) can benefit immediately from whatever features are in the update. So why delay it? Microsoft has already determined that it makes no sense to change version numbers this year. Anyone who buys MCE 2005 can download the update, and OEMs can slipstream the rollup package when they’re ready.

Holding the Rollup 2 package for weeks or months isn’t good for anyone. Microsoft, if this update is ready to go, release it!

HDTV, MCE, DRM, and DCMA

My lack of connectivity last week kept me out of the latest round of the DRM debate. Chris Lanier started it with a very sensible post here. He makes the point that DRM is already a major part of the digital media ecosystem, and in fact most of it is practically invisible. If you watch digital cable TV, rent a DVD, subscribe to HBO, own a DirecTV or Dish satellite, or even drag out one of your old commercially released VHS tapes, you’re already dealing with DRM, and you probably don’t even notice.

Both Thomas Hawk (here) and Alexander Grundner (here and here, plus this related post) have jumped all over Chris with several passionate posts that essentially make three points (and I’m sure they’ll let me know if I’m oversimplifying):

  • Microsoft could support HDTV over cable any time they want to. The fact that they’re delaying this support is a stupid business decision and is bad for customers.
  • Microsoft is big enough to stand up to the bad guys in Hollywood. If they really cared about their customers, they would not give in to their demands for copy protection on HD content. In fact, Thomas asks rhetorically, “Would a better solution be to create a technology to capture a HDTV stream between the cable box and the TV, record it without restriction (remember BetaMax?), and fight the bastards in court? Would a better solution be to completely empower the consumer and scorch and burn the rest of Hollywood…?”
  • If Microsoft doesn’t preserve the open PC platform for high-definition video content, a competitor will. The most likely savior of the consumer and the open PC platform in this scenario is an open source solution for Linux.

Chris has had several follow-up posts (here and here), and there’s been a lot of discussion on various message boards about this. But these lofty philosophical and theoretical discussions so far have ignored the two elephants in the room:

  1. CableLabs. Premium content over cable is encrypted. That’s why only a closed box (your cable company’s digital converter or an approved DVR sold by your cable company) can currently decode an HDTV signal from cable. If you want your PC (regardless of what OS it’s running) to record premium HDTV, you need hardware, and that hardware must be approved by CableLabs. You also need the cable company’s active participation in the process, because every CableCARD-equipped device is individually addressable. In a post on this site about a month ago, I provided links to all the CableLabs documents on how the approval process works, and I noted that a wave of testing of PC-compatible devices is due to complete in August.
  2. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I’m amazed no one has mentioned this. The law is repugnant, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation makes a pretty convincing argument that it’s unconstitutional. But I have no faith in the current Supreme Court to overturn it, and unless that happens the DCMA is the law of the land. Those who say that Microsoft (or an open source competitor) should just say “Screw Hollywood, we’re giving you unrestricted, DRM-free HDTV” really need to read Section 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems. The civil and criminal penalties could put any company, even Microsoft, out of business. Just ask 321 Studios.

Look, if Microsoft or MythTV or Beyond TV or TiVo could get HDTV content into their platform, they would have done it long ago. Arguing that this is an epic battle of good versus evil without considering the technical and legal factors makes the debate meaningless.