So you worked for MSFT on WMC and now stop by a WMC forum to talk down to it? What's most unfortunate is that MSFT ever hired someone like you in the first place.ianken wrote:I'm chuckling at all the grief over echo. Why would ceton continue investing in media center at all? It's dead. The people who built it have moved on. ROFL.
"ianken - test lead" ... that says it all. He was the guy who pushed the buttons he was told to push, in order to test it... all those years ago. Glory days for him?dabretty wrote:So you worked for MSFT on WMC and now stop by a WMC forum to talk down to it? What's most unfortunate is that MSFT ever hired someone like you in the first place.ianken wrote:I'm chuckling at all the grief over echo. Why would ceton continue investing in media center at all? It's dead. The people who built it have moved on. ROFL.
Ceton started investing in Media Center when it was still being somewhat actively developed in the earlier time of 7MC... and then every WMC enthusiast and his mother started saying "Dude! Ceton should build a MCX too!" Ceton saw an opportunity to make money and better our WMC experience, and thus they took it. Unfortunately, they discovered the limitations of the platform and/or hardware, took a gamble on Android instead, discovered it wouldn't work well enough either, so gave up and started pursuing other media ventures.ianken wrote:I'm chuckling at all the grief over echo. Why would ceton continue investing in media center at all? It's dead. The people who built it have moved on. ROFL
While WMC has been abandoned by its creators, it is far from dead. There is still an active community that uses WMC, and although that community is small, giving that community the new products and features it wants is still a profitable business. Perhaps if Microsoft adopted that mentality, the community would give Microsoft some money.ianken wrote:Why would ceton continue investing in media center at all? It's dead. The people who built it have moved on.
^This...richard1980 wrote:While WMC has been abandoned by its creators, it is far from dead. There is still an active community that uses WMC, and although that community is small, giving that community the new products and features it wants is still a profitable business. Perhaps if Microsoft adopted that mentality, the community would give Microsoft some money.ianken wrote:Why would ceton continue investing in media center at all? It's dead. The people who built it have moved on.
It might be profitable for a small company (Ceton) but wouldn't be worth it for a Microsoft sized company. This has already been covered (4.5 years ago!) by former WMC Program Manager Charlie Owen:richard1980 wrote:While WMC has been abandoned by its creators, it is far from dead. There is still an active community that uses WMC, and although that community is small, giving that community the new products and features it wants is still a profitable business. Perhaps if Microsoft adopted that mentality, the community would give Microsoft some money.ianken wrote:Why would ceton continue investing in media center at all? It's dead. The people who built it have moved on.
http://blog.retrosight.com/CommentView, ... mmentstartChris: Do you believe Microsoft will attempt to develop for the enthusiast market?
No. That's because they have never done so. The enthusiast market is always a subset of the overall market any product targets. Put another way: Where the goal is making a profit you wouldn't sacrifice a broad market opportunity of 100 for the narrow enthusiast market of 10. Making a Microsoft-sized profit is different than making a profit if you were a much smaller company.
Perhaps the direction is wrong? How about a push to find a loop hole into somehow forcing providers not to copy protect content because of this failure in technology to view it? Probably have better luck ridding the world of the bits opposed to working around it? Has anyone every tried to fight the content control? Is that not a valid idea?kingwr wrote:My understanding is that any solution would have to 1) apply for and obtain CableLabs certification/licensing by proving that the content was adequately protected from source to display, or 2) license an existing technology, e.g. PlayReady, that was sufficiently CableLabs approved. These hurdles must be fairly substantial since companies like Sage were unwilling or unable to take them on. I am sure Richard could shed more light on this subject.
A software solution should only have to apply for and receive a playready license correct? The hardware part is already done by Ceton and Silicon Dust.kingwr wrote:My understanding is that any solution would have to 1) apply for and obtain CableLabs certification/licensing by proving that the content was adequately protected from source to display, or 2) license an existing technology, e.g. PlayReady, that was sufficiently CableLabs approved. These hurdles must be fairly substantial since companies like Sage were unwilling or unable to take them on. I am sure Richard could shed more light on this subject.
The other hurdle is that for most beyond the truly hardcore, any solution would have to provide at least the same functionality as today's cable and satellite whole-home systems with at least the same stability. Neither my WMC nor my SageTV ever really came close.
Call it being ahead of the time. When WMC launched in 2003, there was a handful of people who would even consider connecting TV to a PC. Fast forward 10 years, and the number of people connecting PC's to TVs or having the desire to view what was traditionally PC content (youtube, streams, netflix) on larger screens balooned.kingwr wrote:If the market is so vital and a small company could be profitable in it, then why have non succeeded? Moxy, Sage, Ceton, and that other one... what was it?...Snapstream? All promised a PC ecosystem for watching TV and none survived in it.
Except there's a problem with Charlie's way of thinking. Microsoft does develop for the enthusiast market...and WMC is the proof. Unless of course anyone wants to say that HTPCs are a broad market.mark1234 wrote: It might be profitable for a small company (Ceton) but wouldn't be worth it for a Microsoft sized company. This has already been covered (4.5 years ago!) by former WMC Program Manager Charlie Owen:
Chris: Do you believe Microsoft will attempt to develop for the enthusiast market?
No. That's because they have never done so. The enthusiast market is always a subset of the overall market any product targets. Put another way: Where the goal is making a profit you wouldn't sacrifice a broad market opportunity of 100 for the narrow enthusiast market of 10. Making a Microsoft-sized profit is different than making a profit if you were a much smaller company.
Nobody (except an HTPC enthusiast) wants a PC-based TV system. Which is why any company that attempts to build a PC-based ecosystem will fail in the mainstream market. In order to succeed in the mainstream market, a company must release a cost-effective STB that allows consumers to replace their cable box (and actually market it). And none of the companies you listed have done that. Instead, Sage, Ceton, and Snapstream all targeted the HTPC market. And all succeeded in that market. As for Moxi, it's hard to sell your STBs on the retail market when nobody knows you even exist.kingwr wrote:If the market is so vital and a small company could be profitable in it, then why have non succeeded? Moxy, Sage, Ceton, and that other one... what was it?...Snapstream? All promised a PC ecosystem for watching TV and none survived in it.
But Microsoft needs to keep Comcast happy, hence you will not see extenders/media servers from them ever again. So as a doorknob right?richard1980 wrote:Comcast's cloud-based system is unlikely to draw very many users away from WMC, nor is it likely to attract users to WMC. In short, it has nothing to do with WMC being dead or alive.
