Text 16471, 331 rader
Skriven 2007-02-24 10:10:56 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 16470 av mike (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Windows XP Media Center Edition vs Apple TV
=======================================================
From: "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com>

The Apple TV limited number of codecs really sucks ( no DivX). On the other
hand my Buffalo LinkTheater ( Geo pointed out the product ) plays DVDs and also
plays DivX files directly from  my Buffalo Terastation NAS without the need for
a Microsoft product perusing my data.



"mike" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
news:rsj0u2d806dtsrosn6bpdggfak5krmms2b@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/841EDBB5-1245-42AD-A733-B9B29
957347B.html
>
>
> [Lots of good pics and links in the original article]
>
>
>
> ===
> Apple critics tried hard to pretend that this year's Macworld was a huge
> disappointment because no new Macs or iPods were trotted out on stage.
> Of course, these same critics have also long lambasted Apple for not
> offering a "true video" iPod, nor a handheld mobile, nor a Media Center
> Mac, nor other copies of Microsoft strategies.
>
> What they failed to catch at Macworld was that Apple has leapfrogged
> Microsoft's consumer electronics efforts with just three simple product
> introductions:
>
> .the iPhone makes an absolute joke out of both Windows Mobile phones and
> Windows Media players
> .the new AirPort Extreme offers an obliterating alternative to Windows
> Home Server at a fraction of the cost
> .the new Apple TV slingshots a rock right into the forehead of
> Microsoft's Media Center PC
>
> Apple recently commented that it would not be immediately releasing any
> more new product categories, so it's time to sit back and watch the
> fireworks.
>
> Yesterday's Windows Home Server vs AirPort Extreme pitted Microsoft's
> announced plans for a home server--due in the second half of
> year--against Apple's currently shipping AirPort Extreme.
>
> In contrast to Microsoft's home server plans first officially unveiled
> in January, Microsoft's Media Center PC was first introduced back in
> 2002, and its origins date back even further.
>
> Introducing Windows XP Media Center Edition
> At CES 2002, the project was known under the code name Freestyle; it was
> later delivered as Windows XP Media Center Edition. Like the new Windows
> Home Server, it is only available bundled with a new PC from select
> OEMs.
>
> While sold as an "edition" of Windows, it is essentially just a standard
> Windows XP that includes Media Center, an application designed
> specifically for use on TV screens, using large fonts and simpler
> navigation that can be controlled via a remote control rather than a
> mouse and keyboard. The Media Center app handles:
>
> .presentation of user photos, music, and video stored locally on the
> Media Center PC or on a network drive
> .viewing TV from antenna, cable, or satellite, using one or more
> hardware TV tuners
> .acting as a Tivo-like DVR to record TV to a hard drive, burn to DVD, or
> copy to a portable player
> .streaming TV or recorded video to an Xbox 360 or other Media Center
> Extender to watch on a different TV
>
> A Swing and a Miss
> Despite valiant efforts to improve upon the product with annual updates,
> Windows Media Center PCs aren't flying off the shelves. It's easy to
> guess why: they offer little more than other DVRs, but cost a lot more.
>
> The basic problem is that when Microsoft visualizes a solution to a
> problem, it's always a PC running Windows.
>
> That's often a bad assumption, because PCs running Windows are not all
> that great at being general purpose computers. Pitting them against
> custom designed solutions is like throwing a stray mutt in a cage match
> against a Presa Canario and a pit bull: hello, gruesome third place!
>
> What is really interesting about Microsoft's Media Center lead balloon
> is not its failure over the last five years, but rather the five years
> of development that proceeded it: a product called WebTV.
>
> The Fall of WebTV: Nothing Learned
> One might think Microsoft would have learned something after buying up
> WebTV Networks in 1997 and destroying the company and its product. One
> would be wrong.
>
> The WebTV startup was founded just two years earlier in 1995, and was
> made up largely of employees from Apple and its General Magic spin off.
> The concept was to deliver a sophisticated set top box with Internet web
> browsing in the form of a low cost Network Computer that could download
> software directly from WebTV servers.
>
> The device itself was originally a diskless box with 2 MB of RAM, a
> 64-bit RISC processor, a TV tuner, a modem to download programming
> schedules, video support for adapting computer graphics for display on a
> standard TV, and simplified navigation to allow users to browse the web
> without needing a mouse.
>
> Just months after assuring WebTV employees the company would never to
> sell out to Microsoft, founder Steve Perlman announced to employees that
> he had, along with investors, sold out to Microsoft.
>
> Many of its 250 employees protested, and Microsoft-hater Sun challenged
> the deal but it went though anyway; Microsoft took over the project with
> the proviso that at least 80% of the company's engineers stay on board.
>
> Under Microsoft, WebTV continued as a subsidized box sold under a
> subscription plan. Signing up long term users ended up being nearly
> impossible, and the churn of short term subscribers meant the company
> was losing money handing out free hardware and never recouping enough
> subscription fees to keep it going.
>
> In its typical crisis management style, Microsoft first rebranded WebTV
> as MSN TV--change the name, forget the failure!--then converted the box
> into a Celeron-based PC running WinCE, called MSN TV2--if nothing else
> works, start from the beginning: a PC running Windows!
>
> That left Microsoft still selling an expensive box at a loss, dependent
> upon subscription revenues. Even worse, now that it was just another PC,
> crackers found out how to install free software on the box, turning the
> MSN TV2 into a Microsoft hardware subsidy for Linux users. Doh!
>
> In parallel with converting the WebTV into a money pit PC as a set top
> box, Microsoft put its WebTV engineers to work on the Xbox, and created
> another stripped down PC to sell at a loss. Doh!
>
> As both projects burned up billions of dollars, the company decided to
> instead apply the same technology to work on a full size PC, and salvage
> WebTV as a component of Windows.
>
> Hey PC Lackeys, Make Us Rich
> Rather than going out of business selling subsidized PCs with expensive
> HDTV tuners and fast enough hardware to process and record video,
> Microsoft announced Freestyle as a specialized version of Windows that
> OEMs could bundle on their own hardware and sell themselves.
>
> This attempted to shift all the risk to PC makers, a strategy that had
> worked for Windows in the 90s, when PC makers fought each other to the
> death. Regardless of the outcome, both the victors and the vanquished
> paid Microsoft for Windows software licenses.
>
> By converting MSN TV into Windows Media Center, Microsoft realized that
> the PC making stooges could lose all the money competing over sales of
> new TV-centric PCs, allowing Microsoft to safely return to its easy
> profiteering as a software slumlord.
>
> Competition Gets in the Way
> Without any competition, Windows Media Center might have had a chance.
> However, cable and satellite companies didn't see any need to sell their
> subscribers on Windows Media Center PCs when they could more profitably
> sell DVR boxes of their own.
>
> Home users have to go out of their way to buy the relatively expensive
> Windows Media Center PC.
>
>
> Existing Windows users can't upgrade to new hardware and buy the
> software off the shelf, they have to buy a whole new PC. It would
> actually be quite difficult for Microsoft to support any random TV tuner
> hardware users might dig up, so selling Windows Media Center as a
> package deal makes sense.
>
> However, it results in a product pitted against direct competition:
> embedded set top boxes like the Tivo and cable companies' own house
> branded gear, as well as open source projects such as Myth TV, which
> allow skilled users to build their own DVR-based PC from parts.
>
> Microsoft hates competition, and for good reason. It's a poor
> competitor.
>
> ¨Por qué no?
> Why buy a whole new PC just to play video, photos, and music from a
> computer on a living room TV? Why not just buy a simple media extender
> relay device?
>
> As long as you're buying a media extender, why not throw in wireless?
> And why not Wireless N, the new high speed standard for 802.11 WiFi
> networks? And why not throw in a hard drive, so users can spool their
> content to the TV and watch it without any streaming interruptions?
>
> Introducing Apple TV
> Apple TV fits the same needs as a Windows Media Center PC, but at a much
> lower price point: under $300 rather than around $1000.
>
> In addition to getting video, photos, and music from a PC library, it's
> also integrated with iTunes, so users can download what they want to
> watch rather than fishing from a stream of paid subscription content.
>
> With cable plans commonly $50-100 per month, Apple TV offers an
> alternative of downloading movies and TV programs … la carte for less,
> with no monthly commitment and no charge when nothing is watched.
>
> Compared to cable and satellite subscription packages, Apple TV lets
> users buy the few shows they actually watch, and throw in movies they
> chose to buy, rent overnight, or get from services like Netflix.
>
> Given the choice, users commonly prefer to pay for what they want, not
> pay a rental fee for the potential of an all you can eat service:
>
> .Netflix offers a variety of plans where users can pay for only as many
> movies as they watch in a month
> .Rental stores charge per rental, not per monthly membership
> .Most people avoid subscribing to a committed number of purchases per
> month
> .Rental subscription services for music and movies have been huge
> failures, from DIVX to PlaysForSure
>
> Where's the DVR and DVD?
> The initial announcement of Apple TV, back when it was tentatively
> called iTV, left Windows Media Center analysts confused. "Where's the
> missing DVR? It'll be added on somehow! It's a big mistake to not have
> one!"
>
> As it turns out, users who need a DVR can buy one. There are several
> models for Macs, from little USB dongles that catch and record TV over
> the air to fancy Firewire boxes that can capture in HD.
>
> All of them can stick captured video into iTunes, where the Apple TV can
> play it. It therefore does not appear to be a problem that the Apple TV
> lacks a TV tuner. In fact, it positions it as complementary to cable
> boxes, rather than competing.
>
>
>
>
> After all, the Apple TV is about watching computer content. Users who
> can't give up their cable--predictably--already have cable and know how
> to use it. Similarly, the Apple TV doesn't need a DVD player, since
> users who watch DVDs... presumably already have a DVD player hooked up
> to their TV.
>
> Sync or Stream
> The Apple TV has a 40 GB hard drive, which enables it to not only stream
> content directly from other computers, but also sync content with iTunes
> in advance. That helps it playback movies without interruption and
> without needing a massive amount of installed RAM; it "only" has 256 MB
> of system RAM. Users can configure how much and which content they want
> iTunes to automatically send to the device in advance.
>
> In addition to syncing with a single computer, it can also stream live
> content from up to five different machines. Like the AirPort Extreme,
> the Apple TV only has a 10/100 Ethernet port, so plugging it into a
> network won't offer a big difference over wireless streaming unless it's
> in an area with a lot of radio interference.
>
> One other benefit of the Apple TV over competing products like HP's is
> that Apple only makes the box, not the TV. While lots of analysts have
> expected Apple to release a line of HDTVs, it really makes no sense for
> the company.
>
> Where would it fit huge displays into its retail stores? How would it
> make money in the highly competitive market for relatively low price,
> large displays?
>
> By selling the Apple TV box and leaving HDTVs to other makers to sell,
> Apple can provide a box that works on every display using a standard
> HDMI connector or similarly ubiquitous component video jacks; HP's set
> top box has a plug that only works with its own displays.
>
> How many people want to buy their TV from a computer maker?  How many
> people in the market for an Apple TV already have an HDTV?
>
> What's Not to Love?
> What's wrong with the Apple TV? Well for starters its not shipping yet.
> How well it actually works still remains to be seen. One expectation I
> listed wasn't delivered: there's currently no plans for downloadable
> software, so no games and no VNC screen sharing from a connected
> computer.
>
> Given that the Apple TV appears to have at least as much hardware
> capacity as the iPhone, this is an initial disappointment, and is likely
> to change, particularly if it turns out to be the success predicted by
> Deutsche Bank analyst Chris Whitemore.
>
> Another complaint: it only supports a limited number of codecs and
> formats, specifically:
>
> .H.264 640x480 30 fps LC Baseline Profile
> .H.264 320x240 30 fps Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3
> .H.264 1280x720 24 fps Progressive Main Profile
> .MPEG-4 640x480 30 fps Simple Profile
>
> .For audio it supports: AAC, MP3 VBR, Apple Lossless, AIFF (raw CD) and
> WAV
>
> That means that--big surprise--Apple TV is designed for content from
> iTunes. However, because those formats are common and open, it is
> trivial to convert most existing video to play it back. That includes
> DVDs, which can be ripped under fair use, but excludes protected WMV;
> PlaysForSure video doesn't play at all on Macs.
>
> Some have complained that it only offers HD in the flavor of 720p. What
> they probably don't know is that the other HDTV, 1080p, is a huge leap
> in technology and cost without a commensurate huge jump in quality.
>
> Had the US standardized on 720p way back when, we'd already have HDTV
> everywhere. Instead, the HDTV Grand Alliance deliberated about the
> merits of a litany of HDTV standards, which ensured that none of them
> got established within fifteen years of talk.
>
> Even standard definition digital TV or DVD is pretty good. Jumping to
> 720p offers a great leap in quality at an attainable price point.
> Holding up all progress to insist that 1080p got equal airtime simply
> ensured that the market didn't quickly adopt HDTV; sometimes, too much
> choice is a bad thing.
>
> Japan actually ran with analog HDTV and saw widespread adoption. When
> users are given something that works, rather than a promise of future
> technology that doesn't quite work yet, the state of the art is pushed
> far faster than when nothing is ever offered apart from vaporware dreams
> from companies that can't deliver on promises.
>
> How Good is iTunes Content?
> While iTunes isn't the only source for content for the Apple TV, it's
> obviously a main driver for the device. How well does iTunes audio and
> video content stack up against DVDs, HDTV cable and broadcast, and next
> generation HD discs in audio and video quality? The next article takes a
> look.
> ===
>
>  /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)