What Happened to Media PCs? 371
timrichardson writes to tell us that Slate is asking what happened to the promises of a living room PC? The lack of any news at Apple's WWDC prompted the author to look at the promises made at the Consumer Electronics Show a la Viiv and other "uber-consoles" in addition to the launch of Apple's downloadable videos and "couch-surfing remote." While some pundits blame the state of the technology this article claims that the PC and the TV provide two very different roles that aren't going to converge anytime soon.
Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
By and large, people want to spend money on their plasma displays, not "uber-consoles".
Re:Demand (Score:5, Interesting)
1) A small quiet set-top box type PC
2) Records cable/terrestrial TV to HD like a TIVO/VCR
3) Has a simple kiosk type menu with a remote
4) Low power so it can be always on
5) Does internet radio
6) (*and very tellingly added as a last afterthought) Can browse the web
Since I cannot buy such a device I build and configure them myself. I use P4/celeron mini-itx boards, a good TV/capture card, 300GB SATA drives,
The OS I build (by hand, though I now have an image I burn) is a minimal GNU/Linux based on LFS which is similar to distributions like Dynebolic. It has low latency kernel, carefully tuned disk access using hdparms and carefully tweaked afs for very large file support. I buy the cases from a custom manufacturer in the UK and they are built for very low noise and low temperature operation using a rear external heatsink.
In the last month I have had requests for 5 such devices, not much you may think, but a year ago nobody wanted such a thing. What I think has happened is that the demand is there, it's been planted in peoples minds that that's what a PC should do. All the hype by major corps has led to widespread disappointment because they can't deliver what they promised, and it's left to us independent hackers to come up with the reality.
I'm not complaining though
Re:Demand (Score:2)
Go the independent hacker!
Re:Demand (Score:3, Informative)
Cable-card (or, at least v. 2) was supposed to solve all of this, choice-for-the-consumer wise, but its rollout has been far from happening. I had thought that it was at some point government mandated, but I suppose that was me dreaming instead. About a year ago, Tosh
Re:Demand (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dear Sir (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dear Sir (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a big part of it I think, though I believe that the demand for what media PCs offer exists; however, instead of buying a PC that's dedicated to the TV, I think consumers are going more for the TiVo-like boxes which offer most functionality for fewer dollars and simpler setup. I can attest that there's less a chance that grandma will bork the TiVo than the Windows Media Center PC.
In addition, I'd bet that most people (except those geeks among us with a few extra computers laying around who know about extras like old video game ROMs, MythTV, weather forecasts, etc.) would just assume leave the PC out of the family/entertainment room. By placing it elsewhere it means that somebody can use the computer without monopolizing the TV and vice-versa. Until it becomes standard to have two new computers in the average home, I think you'll continue to see a separation of PC and TV.
Re:Demand (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally own a media center box in addition to my main pc. I love it. looks fantastic, works better than other options out there, and the interface is really top-notch. It's probably the only think I like from Mi
Re:Demand (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the article that was posted here earlier comparing the virtue
Re:Demand (Score:3, Interesting)
Why replace all of those things with a media centre? Your friends won't be impressed by a computer system, they'll be impressed by your large plasma screen tv (this seems to be what my brother in law thinks anyway, I don't have a tv). You don't need a computer to have a large tv screen on the go.
The only reason media centre pc's got any attention is because the people who make the hardware and software for them wanted pe
Hi-Tech to impress. (Score:3, Interesting)
Showing off? Thats laughable (Score:3, Interesting)
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think your sweeping generalization is accurate.
People buy HDTV's because they DO look better. In addition to that, they are - for the most part - flat and don't take up as much space as previous generations of TV's.
Those two things account for FAR mo
Re:Demand (Score:4, Insightful)
A PC wouldn't add much to the TV viewing experience. The TV viewing experience is complex enough as it is.
Let's talk about getting things arranged so that I can push one button labelled DVD, and have the DVD player, sound system and monitor turn on (if they weren't already) and all other components turn off; all components set the the correct inputs and ready to go.
Let's talk about then pushing, again, one button labelled VCR, and having the DVD player switch off, the VCR switch on, and the inputs all switch.
Let's talk about then pushing, again, one button labelled SAT, and having the VCR switch off, and the satellite reciever switch on, and, yes, you guessed it, all of the inputs switch accordingly.
Let's talk about then having a button labelled OFF, which, when pressed, turns off all of the components that are on.
Finally, let's talk about the navigation and play/FF/Rew/Stop/Rec buttons follow us from function to function.
Oh, one more thing. The monitor shouldn't switch on if there is a CD in the DVD player.... you don't need it.
Finally, let's talk about all of this working with the highest quality signal at any given time. That means component, DVI or HDMI for the DVD player and satellite, and composite for the VCR, but the end user shouldn't need to know this once the setup is done. In other words, my wife shouldn't need to know, at all, ever, how this is hooked up. It should just work.
Get me there, then we'll talk about adding new components.
Re:Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me how many women have no idea what technology is set up in their own home. I do tech support, and I can't tell you how many times I've been stopped by a router or something that was password protected by her exboyfriend, and the woman didn't even know she had a router, let alone the password. Doing tech support over the phone is completely out of the with some women, because they have absolutely no clue what they have, at all. I'm sick of seeing women so damn helpless with their own technology. I'm sorry to rant at you, I thought the rest of your post was insightful, but I think you need to teach her how your stuff is set up. If you can cook for yourself when she's not home, she should be able to set up a new dvd player when you're not home.
Re:He didn't say she shouldn't know... (Score:3, Insightful)
My husband's going to be out of town for a week and a half next month. If I didn't know how the living room is wired up, what would I do if I had to move it (say, maintenance needs to fix something, or there's flooding, etc), or if the DVD player broke and needed to be replaced, or even if the cat pulls out one of the wires? Would I just not use it until he got home? What would you do in that situation?
Technologically informed != Techo-fetishist (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the fundamental disconnect is between techno-fetishist nerds and those still anchored in reality.
The mistake that techno-fetishists make is assuming that "technologically informed" inherently equals being some techno-fetishist nerd. You know the kind. The kind that thinks that a computer automatically makes everything better, for no other reason than being a computer. And thus actually thinks that it's a good idea to have a web server on his fridge, so he can check the temperature in it from work. Or than it's a good, nay, a _great_ idea to slap a browser and an LCD display on a microwave oven so you can surf on it (supposedly for recipes) while you heat your TV dinner in it. (Don't laugh. Some company came up with just that product. Literally.)
But mostly just because. Because in their mind the computer is a purpose in and by itself, and everything else is just a means and an excuse to interact with the oh-so-cool computer.
It doesn't equal. There are plenty of us for whom the computer is just a tool, like any other tool. And just as you don't need a hammer to cook your dinner, you don't need a web browser for it either.
There are plenty of cheaper gadgets which do one job well, and which don't really need a pimped-up gaming rig to do.
E.g., a fridge is just a fridge. All it needs is a thermostat. I don't need to check its temperature over the internet every hour. I just need the confidence that it has a simple and robust thermostat that will work for years or decades without any need to babysit it. The simpler and lower tech, the better.
E.g., a microwave oven is just a microwave oven. I don't want to browse for recipes on it. Any recipes I might have in mind have been (A) researched _before_ even buying the ingredients, and it's by definition too late for that at the time of cooking them, and (B) cooked in the normal oven, if it's a recipe worth researching and not just a TV dinner. It doesn't need a web browser and LCD display driving the price up. All I want from it is the peace of mind that if I set it to 15 minutes, it will stop after roughly 15 minutes. It doesn't have to be synchronized to NTP and it doesn't need micro-second accuracy either. As long as it stops somewhere between 14 and 16 minutes, it's ok.
And so is it with "media" computers or "home theathre" computers too. It's not that people are somehow not "technologically informed", it's that it's such a techno-fetishist use of technology. To record a show, even an ancient VCR is enough. (Though you might go for a DVD recorder nowadays.) To watch a rented DVD with your family, you only need a DVD player. (If you got a DVD recorder at the previous step, it will have that included.) To have some music in your living room, you just need a CD player. (And again, the DVD player or recorder from the previous step, it might have that included.) You don't need an expensive renamed gaming rig to do those, and you don't need the whirring of its fans and hard drives while you watch a movie.
Even with TVs, it's not that anyone is "technologically uninformed" and doesn't know about HDTV. Trust me, everyone has at least heard that they exist. It's that normal people have other priorities to spend their money on. Sure, a big LCD HDTV screen is nice, _but_ you could use that money on something else instead. That's where those nice big TVs fail for the majority of the population. The improvement exists, but it just isn't worth the cost, or more precisely giving up something else you could use that money on. You can spend the evening in front of an old-fashioned 60 Hz interlaced idiot-box just as well, for a fraction of the cost, and from 10 ft distance it won't look that much worse.
They're currently just a conspicuous-consumption status-symbol thing. They're like gold watches or pimped-up sports cars at mid-life crisis: something you buy just to show everyo
Re:Technologically informed != Techo-fetishist (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Technologically informed != Techo-fetishist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Technologically informed != Techo-fetishist (Score:3, Interesting)
First, I'm old enough to have seen TV go from black-and-white to color and I say, "Don't knock fetishism until you've tried it." It isn't enough to have "heard" about HDTV. HDTV is a third state of broadcast and the closest thing to looking through a window until we get 3D.
Second, we only watch a few hours of TV per week here. The biggest chunk is local news and weather. Passive entert
Re:Technologically informed != Techo-fetishist (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I haven't explained it well enough (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The techno-fetishism part. Look at the post I was answering to. It was literally dividing the world into (A) the ones with the HDTV, PVR, etc, as the "technologically informed" and (B) the rest of the world. I mean, literally, based on ownership, either you have all the gizmos, or you're too uninformed to know that they exist.
Which, sorry, strikes me as fetishism. If anyone can see a PVR as _that_ necessary, to the point where the only way to not have one is to be
Re:Technologically informed != Techo-fetishist (Score:5, Informative)
You don't need an expensive renamed gaming rig to do those, and you don't need the whirring of its fans and hard drives while you watch a movie.
OTOH, an appropriately small, low-powered, silent computer by the TV, with a noisy file server in the closet, makes a fantastically nice movie jukebox. I set mine up primarily because I was tired of damaged DVDs, but until you've seen it you don't realize just how convenient it is to choose what you want to watch from an on-screen menu. *Everyone* who has seen mine has asked how they could get one.
So, actually, there is something to the argument that people don't want one because they're technically uninformed. That's only part of it, because when people I know actually look into getting one for themselves, they get put off by the cost and complexity. I have two brothers who are actually doing it, but that doesn't count because they're something of low-level geeks anyway.
Re:Technologically informed != Techo-fetishist (Score:3, Insightful)
I've also moved all my children's videos onto the HDD, which makes life MUCH easier when entertaining our 2 year old on a wet
Re:Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have anything less than a 19" or 20" monitor this isn't going to be much fun, but it's completely workable if you have a reasonably-sized monitor and your rooms aren't large (so that the distance from your seating to the display isn't too long). I also have two sound systems that I switch between, a small set of computer speakers that I use when I'm sitting close, and a much larger set of HiFi speakers that I change to for movie-watching.
Really you just need to think ahead a little bit, and not stick your computer off in a corner somewhere, where it's impossible to see the screen.
The other thing that I think is overlooked, is the ease with which you can attach a projector to most computers. When I ran into a little extra money a while back, I decided instead of getting a standalone TV (I do have room for one now, if I wanted it), to just get a projector and attach it to the secondary monitor connector on my computer. It's smaller and less obtrusive than a big TV (cieling-mount, projecting on a painted wall) when not in use, and I can change between watching something on the CRT monitor and on the projector just by turning the PJ on, and dragging the viewing window into the alternate display's desktop space. That way the computer handles the upscaling to the PJ's native resolution, without any thought on my part.
I end up using the computer to watch TV/movies in basically three ways: when I'm sitting right in front of it, I'll put the TV or movie in a window so I can multi-task, when I want to just casually watch, I'll make it fullscreen on the regular monitor and push back my chair a bit, and when I really want the full-on home theater experience, I put the video on the projector, turn down the lights and turn off the regular display.
About the only thing it's missing right now is a remote control, but that's just because I haven't bothered to get one and I'm waiting for Apple to release Front Row for Power Macs -- based on yesterday's announcement, that'll happen with the new version of OS X.
Worldwide DEVELOPER Conference (Score:5, Informative)
Simple (Score:5, Interesting)
TV = Passive.
TV in the home is essentially radio with pictures. When's the last time you made a point to listen to a radio program, and only listen to a radio program in your home? I'd stop everything when I was younger to listen to Royal Canadian Air Farce or my tapes of Eclectic Circus, but other than that.
Computer's can't do that. Even the most banal of websites requires more of your attention than a TV show or radio, and then there's gaming, which is a 100% immersive, active experience.
Re:Simple (Score:2)
Oh, you didn't RTFA and didn't even know what a media PC is? Nevermind, carry on.
Re:Simple (Score:2, Informative)
Computer = active entertainment.
TV = Passive.
Are you saying that active entertainment on a TV won't sell? I understand games consoles are quite popular
TV in the home is essentially radio with pictures. When's the last time you made a point to listen to a radio program, and only listen to a radio program in your home? I'd stop everything when I was younger to listen to Royal Canadian Air Farce or my tapes of Eclectic Circus, but other than that.
Now you really have lost me are you now are you say
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank God! (Score:3)
I always hoped this idea would die a horrible death. First, because SDTV offers horrible resolution and the image is so blurry it's useless as a PC. Second, the interface sucks, and even with a wireless keyboard, it just doesn't work for most people in the living room. Even with a HDTV and wireless devices, it's more of a niche role.
I think the console game systems fill this niche, but not in the "living room PC" sense of the word. We have devices that offer living room gaming, DVRs, but not a "computer on the TV." Thank God! Every effort so far has sucked, not just because of its own merits (e.g. WebTV) but because the two ideas just don't mesh well. Maybe they will later on, but it's nothing I'll hold my breath for.
What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, while MP3 phones have flunked the general market, enthusiasts have totally bought into it. I can't count the number of mobile-nut friends I have that drool over their W810's. The early-gen MP3 phones really really sucked, but the W810 has a really slick interface (and an airplane mode... hint hint Motorola) and it's quite nice to have an integrated device done RIGHT.
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:2)
The new stuff they just announced may well have it too.
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:2)
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:2)
Mostly true. I've built a few media PCs and tried out the different packages available, including Windows Media Center, MythTV and a couple of the apps that came with the DTV cards. They worked, but not the way an appliance works - there
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, mp3 phones are quite well, thank you.
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:2)
Mobile phones are already taking over the digicam market, while there's still (and probably alway will be) a strong case for dedicated camera's. Good optics will probably always require space that you don't have in a phone.
Ther
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:3, Informative)
While that may be true of the US, here in the UK mp3-capable phones are pretty common. I commute daily on the (London) Underground, and a fairly large proportion of people listening to music are doing so on their phone.
Hell, I have an iRiver, and am still very tempted by a phone that can play mp3s, although I have a specific reason - I go clubbing most Saturday nights, and listen to music on the way there to get
Re:What happened to MP3 phones? (Score:4, Interesting)
P.S. I use mpegable to encode any video files for my phone.
TV out (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree with TFA that people simply aren't ready to turn PCs into TVs and vice versa, maybe they're overly harsh on the Mac. It doesn't have video in/out features, nor do any Macs have integrated TV tuners... The remote is the only media-center-esque feature on the Macs, but that hardly means Apple meant to make it a media center machine.
The problem is really one of cost and usability. An HTPC costs too much. When confronted with the option of the $100 set top box provided by the cableco vs. a $600 HTPC, what is the obvious choice for the average user? Not to mention the set top box is plug and play, and requires no finangling with software (or God forbid, Windows).
I'm sure many home users would love to have the power of MythTV, but until we can build a MythTV box for $300 and make it plug-and-play and config-free, it simply won't take off in the mainstream.
Re:TV out (Score:3, Insightful)
And it has to be the same form factor as the rest of our AV gear. Some of the so-called HTPC cases out there are a joke. Traditional sized desktops with a shiny finish and some extra flashing lights. Not what I want to be setting onto my AMP, under my amp, where the hell do I put it??
'Windows MCE sucked' is what happened (Score:5, Insightful)
- No official support for DVB-C cards (large chunk of the country gets TV using cable, and DVB-C), cutting down potential market
- No support for DVB subtitling (used by finnish national broadcasting company YLE), decimating the leftover market
- Generally crappy DVB support - and analog transmissions end next year over here
- Horrendously complicated install on selfbuilt systems (whitebox PCs are more common over here than in many other countries) coupled with difficulties in actually obtainining MCE legally without buying an OEM system.
Most 'Media PCs' built over here tend to be selfbuilt, using linux or WinXP with separate software, and it's non-trivial to set one up, so they are still a niche market.
I'm sure the big name OEMs will try again when they get Vista with MCE features, and proper DVB-T/DVB-C and DVB subtitling support.
Re:'Windows MCE sucked' is what happened (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, you need hardware aside from the PC itself for a media experience. A 27" TV and $50 Wal-Mart speakers are not going to cut it: this setup would be worse than a PC with a real monitor and computer speakers. You need some real hardware, at least a 40" screen (I have a 65" screen), although you can get away with a smaller LCD screen (DLP, Plasma, and Projection need to be larger as their pixel density tends to be lower, although HDTV is helping out here). So, that will run you at least a $1000 (assuming you get a nice screen, not bargain basement). You also need speakers. Hooked up to a receiver. Think at least Dolby 5.1 surround sound, with a decent set. Probably about $500.
So that's $1500 right there, and you're not even up to the PC yet.
But assuming you already have the above (I'd love to see Dell selling big screen TVs and surround sound setups with Media PCs: "Buy now, and get $100 off that 70" Mitsubishi DLP today!" -> right, that'll sell, you come to the PC. And a decent Media PC (running Windows), needs slightly more expensive hardware than a standard budget PC. Basically, you are bulding a pimped out gamer's machine, as no one is going to buy a Media PC to "check their email." They'd get a budget PC.
Start off with the latest and greatest ATI All-in-Wonder. That can cost at least $300, usually more towards $500. Sorry, Nvidia can't compete with ATI in the multimedia realm. Not yet, anyways. People are going to want to play games, and impress their friends. And you need that video input/output functionality. Sure, you could use seperate cards, but this solution is more elegant.
Next, sound card. Whatever Turtlebeach or Soundblaster offer from idrange on upwards (need something nice to drive those 6 speakers, and to provide 3D audio without taxing the processor).
Processor and memory need to be something decent. Thinking dual core, with at least a GB of ram. Hard disk at least 300GB, for all those movies (you've downloaded) you'll want to watch.
Keyboard/Mouse-> Logitech or MS, Wireless (bluetooth, more range), USB.
DVD writer (because).
Case -> something stylish. Common failing here, most Media PC cases are horrible to look at, work with, or upgrade. Something slick, that is easily upgradeable, but easy to work with.
Add all this up, and you have a fairly expensive PC. Sure, you could swap in cheaper components, or argue that you could get by with some of the onboard stuff, but this is a MediaPC, something that is a PC that works well with Media. And multimedia traditionally requires both horsepower and space.
Re:'Windows MCE sucked' is what happened (Score:3, Interesting)
I have my MCE server set elsewhere in the house and use my XBOX as the head unit that's plugged into my home theater system. It was really easy to do and now I don't have to pay a mo
Re:'Windows MCE sucked' is what happened (Score:2)
Why would Dell sell Mitsubishi TVs when they have their own brand? [dell.com]
Case -> something stylish. Common failing here
I agree, a standard beige case or even fancy brushed aluminum job with standard mods of flashing LED fans etc would be horribly out of place. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Mac Mini form factor would be about right. Different en
Re:'Windows MCE sucked' is what happened (Score:2, Informative)
We run the following.
42" Teac plasma ($2500) (prices AUD
Shuttle SB86i SBC with 512MB Ram, 2.8MHz Celeron!, GEForce 6200 (DVI out) (http://www.digitalnow.com.au/dntvlive/index.html ($200)
A logitec wireless mouse/keyboard (?? $60)
Win XP Home but not running media centre. We run DNTV live which seems very stable.
So we use it for: free to air digital TV, music, recording, basic
Re:'Windows MCE sucked' is what happened (Score:3, Informative)
So, if you have a server in the basement then the media PC does not have to have a HDD at all that cuts down a lot of the price (not just the HDD itself, but you also do not have to worry about cooling it and reducing its noise).
For sound card, the onboard one or a $10 CMI-8738 based one will do absolutely fine, as you are going to use the SPDIF connection.
Processing power needs are absolutely minimal: an XB
All-In-Wonder? (Score:5, Informative)
Why would you get an ATI card? ATI is not the leader in either TV Tuners or Video Cards.
For TV Tuners, you can get an equivalent Hauppauge PVR150MCE for $30, or go with the Fusion HDTV if you want digital. And as far as nVidia in the TV tuner market, they recently released the DualTV [nvidia.com], with 2 tuners, which beats anything ATI has produced, and gives the Hauppauage PVR500 a run for its money.
For the video card, nVidia has all the hardware accelerated MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 decoding, starting with 6xxx (fanless, silent, low profile 6200 is $30).
Re:'Windows MCE sucked' is what happened (Score:3, Informative)
No need to, it's pretty simple actually : no one of them has all the necessary features, thus justifying the price, and they all got useless features too.
First of all, you need hardware aside from the PC itself for a media experience
This is irrelevant. My wife is crazy about the media center I built, and would be as much crazy about it on a small TV set, especially since we're still using SD.
She actually told me the image quality was worse on the med
CODECs (Score:3, Insightful)
Most video files are problematic.... they uses wrappers (AVI, QT) so most people throw any CODEC they feel like using (DivX 3 for video, VBR MP3 for audio even though the AVI specs don't really allow it AFAIK) and we end up with a mess of incompatible files unless you install 500 different CODECs.
Screw AVI, screw Quicktime. Use MPEG-4/H.264 and AAC. Depending on the video size, bitrate and all, they can play on OS X, Windows, Linux, PSP, GBA (with Play-Yan micro), PDAs, etc.
Thanks in advance.
Re:CODECs (Score:2)
This used to be true, though I think it's becoming slightly less of a problem. Most content I get/make anymore uses MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX or XviD in an AVI container--no fault in that). Personally my problem is with
Re:CODECs (Score:2)
That's the whole point of the media PC; to play whatever format. Otherwise they'd all be in the DVD format and your DVD player could play it.
Re:CODECs (Score:2)
Until Corporates "get" oss it will never happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Until Corporates "get" oss it will never happen (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I think it's even more simple then that... _DRM_
The problem with OSs like Windows Media Center is that it's just too damn locked down out of the box it can only play propriatary formats if you want to play anything else people have to hunt down codecs and it still complains/wants to convert everything. I would imagine that if apple ever came out with anything they'd want everything converted to their own propriatary formats.
Already doing it with a normal PC? (Score:2, Funny)
I'd rather have a laptop (Score:5, Insightful)
For my entertainment-center, give me a DVR or something similar.
Sure, they are both computers on the inside, but for most "computing" tasks like email, office work, etc. I'd rather use a laptop or desktop, not stare at a screen several meters away.
I can think of one major exception: anything that involves two people sharing a single physical display, such as videoconferencing or playing a multi-player game.
Apple didn't announce it at this particular WWDC.. (Score:2)
Wait a year (Score:2)
Apple is poised to make the Mini an on demand movie replacement for your TV.
Re:Wait a year (Score:2)
Nothing like trumpeting the mini's superiority based on its size only to have to add two or more external boxes to enable media pc functionality.
How's OS X gonna play WM10 drm'ed files? It's not, but MCE can play the QT ones. Sorry, but the mini just ain't it for a media pc. Until the mac can play all available content AND offer a machine with suitable capacity / capability that is quiet and appropriate for the living room, A
Old Idea (Score:2)
Re:Old Idea (Score:2)
It's quite simple... (Score:2)
Media companies are scared that you can edit out commercials, make copies, etc. Tech companies are scared to death of being sued by the media companies, and also trying their hardest to get the kind of propritary lock-in with media files that Microsoft has with Windows.
The open source projects are actually doing alright, but it's a lot of work to set-up. Get a good source for XMLTV, and start distr
utorrent (Score:2)
One word why media PCs don't work well (Score:2)
not needed any more (Score:2)
Thusly, a component formfactor PC for your entertainment rack, to rip movies onto, download music onto, etc. For one reason or another, protocols and speeds hadn't standardized to allow this to be done over a network. (Windows MCE 2004 era)
Very shortly thereafter, Windows MCE 2005 was released, and the need for a Living Room PC
2 things : (Score:2)
Secondly, current implementations suck. Apart from the initial install and extremely basic functionality, getting MCE running properly with multiple file types and codecs is almost as hard as installing and grooming MythTV - even on blessed hardware!
And why feck around with either, when I can go and buy a twin-tuner SD digital PVR for under AU$800,
Quite simply... (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, some apps STILL have issues with A/V sync and somew store the video in a retarded format like raw avi or some weird "nothing else can play this because we are twats" custom format. Don't even get me started on the joy that is setting up HD.
DVRs are much, much more attractive and people will cough up the extra few bucks to get one.
I use a hauppague card with their shitty software (and it is shitty, clumsy to use unless you have a keyboard and monitor, sucks cpu cycles when it captures to mpeg (the other formats except for raw avi never worked properly, hitting control alt delete will kill your recording, but it does record when I tell it, which is a lot more than I can say for the many other apps I've tried)
The "software" bundled with nero 7 was the last thing I tried, didn't even make it past channel detection before dying.
If you know of a good program, please post it. Showshifter was decent for a while and had promise until some company bought it and fucked it up.
Gotta consider (Score:2)
Secondly, everybody is being stalled by the media companies as they try to avoid the situation the music industry is in right now. Those deals are still being worked out as we speak. The technology is ready, it's just the legal stuff holding it back.
Re:Gotta consider (Score:2)
Software issues (Score:3, Informative)
Controls. I still had a mouse and keyboard attached to it, and while I could have gotten a wireless set, it still would have been clunky. Someone needs to make a remote with a trackpoint and a treo- or sidekick-sized keyboard, and the regular remote features. Everthing should be controllable through a remote, without a separate KB/mouse.
Interface. Sure, I had a bunch of videos on the compuer, but it was a PITA going through explorer to find and organize things. Something like iTunes for video would have helped. This was on Windows, and I have heard good things about MythTV, though. Oh, and the resolution difference between TV and PC monitors meant everything looked unreadable or ugly on the TV.
Recording Quality. The video recording from either my Hauppage card or my ATI card were really not that impressive. I could have cranked up the resolution to DVD levels, but the motion compression still kinda sucked.
Aeshetics. Okay, this is my fault, but I had a really big beige box that was really loud next to my TV. That's wat happens when you use an old P4 tower to be your 'Media PC'. If I were to do it today, I would use the lowest-power proc I could find and one of those mini ATX cases. Most of the PC market just isn't designed to be in your living room.
On a brighter note, this is what I wish I could afford: Sony Type X Living [sonystyle.com] - 1.5TB HDD, wireless and wired file server, 2 video tuners, DVD-RW, TV web browsing, scheduling software, HDTV compatible... If only Sony would just dump their 'media' division and have the hardware guys take over again, we could see a really good competitor to Apple in digital integration
I have a Media PC. (Score:3, Interesting)
Realize, they're called MEDIA PC's, not TV PC's. Of course, for the average TV watcher, the cable company's set top box will work quite well, but, for those that understand the potential and have a use for it, the MPC is a big step above.
This is more of a niche than people thought it was going to be, it's not turned out so much to be for the average user. In regards to price, setup, maintenance, etc, it's just not worth it for most people.
We are indeed building them ourselves, with MythTV (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, we are indeed building them ourselves. However, we are doing so primarily because we can't find what we want on sale anywhere for any price. The below is an adapted version of a recent Usenet post of mine describing what I have come to daily take for granted with my high-definition MythTV setup:
------------
. . . MythTV works, and works well, for those who are interested in a "HD TiVo" without any of TiVo's limitations. I must admit to chuckling whenever I see a question in alt.tv.tech.hdtv or elsewhere asking how to record from a HD video source with a computer in terms that make it clear the poster and the respondents view the task as something akin to cavemen discovering fire.
I work long, long hours and, when I get home, often don't have any more energy left to do more than want to just relax in front of the tube. When I do so, I want to have as much choice in what to watch as possible. Let me tell one and all of what I with 100% reliability do with my MythTV setup every day:
If any of this intrigues you, I recommend visiting:
[1] Home Theater Master MX-500 [remotecentral.com] universal remote. I programmed it using a $30 infrared keyboard/mouse combo [gossamer-threads.com].
[2] MythTV does an *excellent* job of deinterlacing 1080i recordings into 1080p for those displays that can handle it. Any Nvidia video card from the FX5200 to the present will work.
[3] Westinghouse LVM-47W1 [westinghousedigital.com]. Under $2500 from Crutchfield [crutchfield.com] for 1080p LCD goodness.
[4] MythTV tells me that I have "242 programs, using 1.7 TB (427 hrs 33 mins) out of 1.8 TB (54 GB fr
"Couch-Surfing Remote"? (Score:2)
I'm interested (Score:2)
I figure a display like that is great for both a computer and a tv, especially in a small place like mine. And doing
Wirelessly connect a laptop to the TV? (Score:2)
That's exactly what I do. I'd love to be able to bring some of my computer media over to the TV, but I don't want to keep a noisy PC running all the time, I don't want to string a keyboard and mouse over to my coffee table, and I don't want
Depends on What You Consider a PC (Score:2)
It died because (Score:2)
Media PCs died before they didn't come bundled with MythTV
Maybe in the US... (Score:2)
Expecting consumer announcements at WWDC (Score:2)
Thwarted by Greed and DMCA. (Score:3, Insightful)
If people actually wanted Viiv-like products, there'd be a lot more do-it-yourself versions while we're waiting for Intel. If the problem were a lack of software, there'd be plenty of open-source projects by impatient hackersthat's how we got Napster and BitTorrent. But the geeks seem uninterested. Where are the obsessive bloggers? The forum feuds? The amateur meetups? Show me any truly hot technology, and I'll show you 100,000 guys who can't wait to tell you about it. Has anyone bored you to death talking about their Media Center PC lately?
This is a joke, right?
People are talking, but you can't do it with free software. Just telling people how will get you tossed in jail, thanks to the DMCA and greedy big media. Rather than buy a big screen TV, I'd love to have a projector and stereo hooked up to computer. I've already got my music collection digitized. The access and convenience of Amarok are awesome. It would be great to do the same thing with movies. The cost of a projector is about the same as a big TV, but it's much more portable and gives better quality. The problem is CSS. I can't watch or archive DVD movies with my software. It's against the law to distribute software that would let me in the US or even tell people what sites in countries with sane laws have it.
Did they name the article "Myth" [mythtv.org] for kicks or what? So many people talk about Mythtv, it's hard to believe a Slate Editor has not heard of it. It even made it into the EFF's "Corruptables" video.
You can do it with non free software, sort of. The author mentions the miserable death of ViiV. Paul Boutin did not receive his promissed test model and wonders why. He must have missed this Washington Post review [washingtonpost.com] where the damn thing did not work at all because of all the DRM nonsense. You might be able to watch current DVDs if you fall all the way back to Windoze 98SE and have a stash of the now illegal Xcopy and other software required. The network and file system restrictions of such a computer would make most people cry, but it's the easiest route for honest people. People unafraid of the law have been swapping movies almost forever, but the effort and risks are way to great for "normal" people who will just rent a video. Yes, you can even find software that works with your free software, it's just a huge pain all around and you will again be stuck with a static system because upgrades will break it. Contraband is not free, it's not convenient and it's hard to trust.
Big Media is the root cause. They do not want their media on computers they don't have complete control over. They want it to act like a cable box, to shove adds down your throat, tell you what you can watch and when and how much you will pay for it all. Given that most media buffs already have a cable box and all the gear, the computer version that does not work looks really lame and big media is happy. There will be no video Napster, they think.The customer is not happy, too bad.
This represents a tremendous opportunity for independent media and it's why Net Neutrality is such a big deal. Already, artists can get great viewings on youtube, google video and other sites. These are just the beginning because they rely on flash and other crappy software. The quality sucks and you can't save them without a lot of effort that's liable to lace your computer with malware. The potential of the media are better seen with stuff like Star Wreck [starwreck.com], a free, full length movie. It's a big file and independent productions are going to stay that way due to patents on video streaming and more advanced compression routines. "So what", you might ask, "I've got broadband." That's where Net Neutrality comes in and independent media gets the shaft. Warner Brothers, which so badly mangled AOL and squandered their c
Re:What a load of bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, saying that your opinion is "common knowledge" doesn't make it so. WMP has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and at any rate even if WMP is shit it has very little to do with DRM.
Just a thought by the way...media PCs exist. We have had Windows MCE for ages now, preinstalled on numerous computers available from a wide range
Media Xbox? (Score:2)
Microsoft STILL cannot figure out why it's great. They crippled xbox 360 media streaming effectively making it a non-feature.
Interchangeable electric motors? (Score:2, Insightful)
When electric moters were new, the idea was that you'd buy an electric motor and plug it intoi your labour saving devices. Mass production made electric motors cheap enough that this was no longer necessary.
The "Media PC" is similar. The killer app is recording TV shows. Downloading still isn't really mainstream. A PVR will do this for you, and a cheap mp3 player will play music. This leaves the general purpose PC free to do ot
Preaching to the Choir (Score:3, Interesting)
If I could easily (like three buttons easy) download missed episodes of favourite shows I'd have more of a requirement for a Living Room P.C.
The reason this technology has not set off is because of legal restrictions placed on early adopters. I may be being overly paranoid here, but this is how big-media wants it. You watch what they tell you when they tell you. Anything that gets in the way of that will not be allowed to propagate into the mass market.
Irritation Tolerance (Score:5, Insightful)
Computers tend not to deliver on these sorts of things, and will most likely only make the TV experience MORE complicated.
Take the "MOXI" DVR for example. I've had some experience with this atrocity. Some particular things about it that bother me, that really aren't an issue with simpler set-top boxes (or with a lack of a set-top box entirely), and that seem to be the way things are going what with the pretty interfaces...
- Very long channel-changing lag
- Necessity to hit TWO buttons (with a pause of up to 3 seconds between) to choose a program from the listings
- Pretty pictures of the channel names, but no actual station name text (making it anyone's guess which local channel is assigned to which)
- V-Chip lockouts that take non-rated documentaries, independents, and foreign films as collateral damage
- Sound effects (thankfully they can be disabled)
- The interface is so pretty, why put a program grid in? Instead, you can only see at a glance what is showing at this exact moment, needing to hover and wait for a load to see what's next on each channel.
- Cooling fan that runs 24/7
- 3-5 minute reboot time, should you need to reboot (what, reboot a system that's been on for months straight?)
- Lack of a "close on-screen displays" button or mechanism... gotta just wait for it to go away.
- Very deep menu-digging necessary for some features
My point is that as TV stuff makes its way toward greater computerization, it is very easy to lose the easy-access TV mindset and make a totally user-hostile experience in the name of gradients, pretty buttons, lots of options, and "oh cool!" features. I get upset with the channel-change delay of digital cable compared to analog cable... adding a computer to the mix will almost always compound the problem. It's irritating enough using different TVs with remote control buttons in slightly different locations.
Open your eyes. It's already here. Think about it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Like most things, it only works when you want something. A marketting company idea of what makes a media PC is never going to work, because they tend to string together a bunch of daft ideas all centered around controlling the viewer and making money while never giving the user what they want.
I have a PC set up in the living room. It's for my wife. She hates PCs. So I got her a 37inch LCD with 1366x768 resolution. Resolution doesn't mean much to her. I told her it means a nicer picture.
Then I built a PC into the stand it sits on. Installed XP and DVB Webscheduler. A TV Antenna, Wireless Keyboard and Mouse.
That's all you need. Seriously.
And I never ever turn it off (except for maintenance or rebooting). It's on 24x7 (Webscheduler is a robust platform. Even on XP. Never fails. Never crashes.).
My wife plays online games on it, because it's on her TV now. She records her TV shows through a web interface, and fast forwards ads using a mouse (She has a remote, but quickly worked out the mouse was fine). She watches normal TV on it. Just by switching to TV mode. Or if it's something she wants to watch and pause, she fires up the recorder and starts recording and watching in real time.
The kids stream recorded shows to their laptops, because it's *her* TV and Computer, and no one else is allowed to use it if she wants to watch something... (She's very possessive of it). They've worked out they can set the recorder and watch shows over the home network anyway.
She sends emails. She reads emails. She could watch a video while she does, but she never does, because no one wants to watch a video and send an email.
And she has a VHS recorder plugged into it. She watches old tapes. She has two DVD drives to watch videos on DVD. She doesn't need two, but if one breaks, she needs one for backup. Don't beleive me? You deal with a crazy woman who can't watch her favourite DVD one night!
And now she watches movies in higher resolution and hates cable TV because the quality is so poor compared to free-to-air and DVD. And she records all the shows she wants to, because there are no tapes to get old or switch over. She has an electronic program guide to help her select her shows. She even knows how to delete stuff she has watched.
And she has her own space to use a web-browser to see what the weather is going to be like, check on the latest movies or generally look things up on google. because it's all on her TV.
When she forgets to set the video, she calls me to do it over my phone (or from work).
Basically, she's the classic example of a completely wired up (and supported) non-geek. She doesn't care how or why it works, and her IT department (ie, ME!) is always close to find out why she can't get to some website or watch her latest show.
All in the living room.
The truth of the matter, was it was only a matter of time until two technologies became common.
1. A half-decent web-based video recorder. (DVB Webscheduler seems OK for this).
2. A TV Screen with a VGA/DVI interface and high resolution.
That's it. Convergence over. Simple and effective.
I'm not the only one where I work who has done this, as it is becomming a common enough item over here in Australia. A lot of engineers buy a large LCD and do this (and use the same apps). It seems all our wives are using them, which is an acid-test of sorts.
She also plays music on it. There's a radio tuner as well, but she doesn't use that because she doesn't listen to the radio in that room for some reason.
The media PC is therefore a pretty simple device, regardless of what MPC and MPCII were supposed to be. The day my wife started using it, I knew it was here. Regardless of what the marketting companies thought of it.
She has a normal TV also... She refuses to use it, unless there's no other option and seeing her sitting on a small cushion in front of the TV with the keyboard and mouse perched on the lip of the stand is now a common sight in the house.
Oh, and when she takes a shower or cooks dinner, a 37" screen makes a great Battlefield 2 console too !
The media PC? Mine arrived for Christmas, 2005.
GrpA.
Two primary problems (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Price.
That's simple, really. The price one is the most obvious, media PCs just aren't cheap enough for most people, even those with higher end setups. A good DVD player, like really good, is $200. An audio/videophile quality one is like $500. You think a media centre PC has a chance against that?
However even more than that is the complexity. Media gear is all real simple. My DVD player has a simple interface, so simple that it only has 3 buttons on the unit. There's more on the remote, of course, but the 3 are all you really need. Put in disc, press play, movie goes. Done. I suppose, with sufficient messing around, one could make a MCPC that simple, but I've not seen it and remember, the DVD player came that way out of the box.
Heck my roomate decided to try and mess around with a MCPC. My DVD player plays MPEG-4 videos (Yamaha S657 if you were wondering) but there are limits on it, most notably it doesn't do HD (there are ones that do) and he wanted to mess with that. So he thought to use a PC to replace it. Ya well that didn't last long. Waaaaay too complicated. The PC has gone away and the DVD player continues to be used.
They must bring down the price, but more importantly things must be simlified if MCPCs are ever going to see more than a token showing.
Joe Sixpack doesn't like DRM! (Score:5, Interesting)
If JS (Joe Sixpack) can't record what he wants, while he could do that with a normal VCR, he's not going to buy it.
JS also wants to share his recordings or the media he bought with his friends (again, this could be done with a VCR).
Offcourse, there are DRM-less solutions (like MythTV 'n stuff) but that's just too complex for JS.
Tried a Mac Mini? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, at the end of the day, the only advantage it has over a standalone dedicated box is upgradability. Cost and ease of use are both major downsides.
Jobs on PC-TVs in 2004 (again) (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article: "How come none of my Apple-loving geek buddies have Macs in their living rooms?
The article makes very easy predictions as if they are revelations. If the author had been paying attention to the computer industry he would not have harboured such wasted expectations for so long.
A year and a half ago Jobs was very clear about his intentions [macworld.com].
Jobs in 2004: "Well, we've always been very clear on that. We don't think that televisions and personal computers are going to merge. We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.
Well, they want to link sometimes. Like, when you make a movie, you burn a DVD and you take it to your DVD player. Someday that could happen over AirPort, so you don't have to burn a DVD -- you can just watch it right off your computer on your television set. But most of these products that have said, "Let's combine the television and the computer!" have failed. All of them have failed.
The problem is, when you're using your computer you're a foot away from it, you know? When you're using your television you want to be ten feet away from it. So they're really different animals."
I used the same reference in a recent post predicting the unifying element between tv and computer will be a video Airport Express [slashdot.org], not an Apple livingroom computer, in response to a previous slashdot article [slashdot.org] suggesting forthcoming iTunes movie rentals.
Industry killing them (Score:5, Interesting)
I built [mobydisk.com] a media PC that IMHO does the job:
The industry needs to change in two fundamental ways:
1) Accessibility - software needs to work in a greater variety of environments. That means high-DPI and low-DPI displays, and low-resolution displays, multiple aspect-ratios.
2) TVs and Video Cards: non-interlaced, DVI/HDMI, no overscanning, >60hz, standard aspect-ratios.
P.S. Also, I have yet to see a media PC with surround sound. That's because sound cards use 3 stereo cables, while receivers use Dolby encoding over one pair of cables. This is just one of those cases where computers do it differently than all other consumer devices (although they do it better).
Maybe Steve Jobs was right? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was shocked when the video Ipod followed, and software DVD players, Tivo, FrontRow, MythTV, etc. No I wasn't.
But there still are important differences between PC's and TV. (PC's are usually a solitary experience, TV is often a communal experience) - but I think it's been amply demonstrated that PC's can do everything a TV can do - except constant mass-download of content from a hundred channels simultaneously.
But the main thing killing PC/TV convergence is the MPAA. Same dynamic that's killing gaming-PC's. Content producers are terrified that on a full-function PC, content will be copied and distributed, and they won't get their cut. So they want to provide their content to crippled systems only. So consumers will always have to buy one crippled device for each media type (family-room audio system, TV, game box (ps2/xbox/nintendo)) and a computer if they want one.
This dynamic will ensure that computers, for most homes, will remain secondary luxury items, financed after the crippled "entertainment" systems are already purchased.
The only place where this convergence makes sense is for network providers. To them, the cable monopolies, the telecom monopolies, it's all data. They'll happily provide broadband service alongside their existing networks (cable/telephone) - and shut down ISP players, until their inherent market (monopoly) powers allow them to basically shut down or marginalize the internet connection (ie. provide crappy service that a truly competitive market would otherwise improve upon).
You plug your computer into the same connection you plug your tv into.
But the content providers, and network providers don't want you to use your computer like a TV. Because they're afraid you'll realize it's just data too.
Re:Living Room PCs Don't Do HDTV (Score:2)
Re:Living Room PCs Don't Do HDTV (Score:3, Interesting)
The HDTV market share is
Re:Living Room PCs Don't Do HDTV (Score:2)
Pretty much everything on the computer end ships with dvi nowadays (heck, i got a motherboard with onboard dvi).
Nice and easy now...
Re:I've got one (Score:2)
Re:$100 computer for your television (Score:2)