Really? Just, really? M$ copying Apple (and others) with every damn thing has just become so blatant and pathetic it's beyond imagination. And they're so bad at it. Without a monopoly, they've got nothing.
And this set-top box idea is really stupid. If they were smart, they would evolve the Playsta... err, Xbox into a single gaming/set-top box device. Leverage the product they already have. It would actually differentiate them from the competition, and give them a leg up.
Imagine a single box that plays HD (Blu-ray) discs, the latest games, and can stream HD content from connected PCs and the Internet. Nobody has that right now. I would be tempted to buy one; actually, I would buy one if it could play industry standard formats (aac, h.264) besides proprietary wma crap.
Oh, wait, sorry, Microsoft, please go ahead and build a separate set-top box, yes please go ahead, that's a good plan...
God some people must get laughed at in the real world. Apple TV was originally released January 2007 and Media Center was original released in July 2002.
That took 30 seconds of my time and Wikipedia, which I know for a fact 6 year old kids can use these days to verify information.
Get a clue or be a joke. Those are the options.
Back on track... I wish I could go into an exec meeting at Microsoft and systematically crack the heads together of everyone present.
First they back Media Center, then they essentially stop updating it for a couple of years and focus on Xbox... which happens to have a Media Center Extender... which requires a full PC running the somewhat supported Win 7 Media Center to work... but then to Xbox they add the Marketplace for movies and cable TV over the internet (AFAIK Australia only ATM) outside of the Media Center Extender functionality...
...just as it looks like they are going to focus on the Xbox as their living room device (games/marketplace/IPTV and Silverlight support for an extended "App Store") this news leaks which puts the focus back on Media Center.
There is nothing wrong with two devices for two different markets, but relevant functionality needs to be supported on both platforms. If they are going with Media Center on Windows 7 Embedded it needs to support everything the Xbox does. A better idea would be to move the existing Media Center functionality into the Xbox.
In any case Microsoft have flip-flopped on this for almost a decade now. It's time to pick a strategy.
Yea, but if you want to play this game, you need to realize a few things -
The AppleTV is not the same thing as M$ Windows Media Center, which requires a full PC.
Apple's answer to WMC would be Front Row, not AppleTV. Front Row is just an app included with MacOS X, so no special OS or PC needed, runs on every Mac. It was released in 2005.
But this was not Apple's first foray into the living room. Prior to AppleTV was Front Row, prior to Front Row was Pippin (a failure) in 1995, and prior to that was MacintoshTV (also a failure) in 1993.
Apple has been at this for a long time, and it seems that AppleTV might be the 1st successful foot in the door for media control in the living room.
it's gonna be a modified XBOX anyway. And whether you take it or not, M$ have better experience in that field than Apple.
I agree, that?s how I?d do it if I were them?NOT use a ?stripped-down version of Windows" as the article suggests, but make it a locked-down, reliable console/appliance, like AppleTV and XBox, that doesn?t try to be Windows (or any other desktop-derived OS).
However, saying Microsoft has better experience in Xbox set-top boxes than Apple doesn?t mean much. For instance, they could base a car GPS on a ?modified Xbox? and it still wouldn?t give them more experience with successful GPS products than Garmin or Nuvi!
It does give them more experience with traditional game consoles. If this set-top box is a traditional game console (which it may be: an XBox Jr.?) then THAT feature is the area where Microsoft has a head start.
(Although I hear Apple?s iOS has achieved some gaming success too. That?s a head start for future TV gaming if Apple sees fit.)
The main benefit of Apple?s device is, of course, that it actually exists... It seems that Apple?s competitor?s are always pitting next year?s imaginary product against last year?s Apple product. Time travel competition!
That said, I think this info is hoax or badly-distorted half-truth. Especially the idea of selling a $200 box.
I already have Widows CE based boxes that could stream video from a Windows Media PC if they let it. It's called AT&T U-verse. I have to say I it's OK, but not great. Still better than the Comcast software/boxes we had before. AT7T allows music streaming but not Video streaming, likely to prevent it from being more useful and make you use their on-demend over your own video downloads. Also, the Win CE DRM is ridiculous. You can't even play your DVR recordings without the stream to get decrypt keys.
Still, when I read this I thought "Yeah, now you can have the Blue Screen of Death on your TV!".
Oh yeah, You can use an XBOX 360 as an AT&T U-verse set top box and have streaming features if you want to pay them to let you use it, plus the software and installation fee of $99+.
Microsloth couldn't "take on" Apple if their life depended on it, which is does actually. Only a certified moron would take seriously these outlandish claims from the star screwup of the computer industry.
Even the act of publishing these ridiculous stories without a derisive footnote is kissing Microsloth's ass. It looks to me like ass-kissing and delusional thinking has completely taken over the field of high-tech journalism. Whatever Microsloth says, everybody prints. Without question or comment. Pitiful.
This report sounds pretty suspect. Microsoft already has a $200 Windows TV product - it's called the Xbox 360. Why would someone buy a Windows TV box for $200 when all Microsoft could just continue to work out licensing deals and release software upgrades for the 360 to get the same functionality as Windows TV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave
Imagine a single box that plays HD (Blu-ray) discs, the latest games, and can stream HD content from connected PCs and the Internet. Nobody has that right now. I would be tempted to buy one; actually, I would buy one if it could play industry standard formats (aac, h.264) besides proprietary wma crap.
Really? Just, really? M$ copying Apple (and others) with every damn thing has just become so blatant and pathetic it's beyond imagination. And they're so bad at it. Without a monopoly, they've got nothing.
And this set-top box idea is really stupid. If they were smart, they would evolve the Playsta... err, Xbox into a single gaming/set-top box device. Leverage the product they already have. It would actually differentiate them from the competition, and give them a leg up.
Imagine a single box that plays HD (Blu-ray) discs, the latest games, and can stream HD content from connected PCs and the Internet. Nobody has that right now. I would be tempted to buy one; actually, I would buy one if it could play industry standard formats (aac, h.264) besides proprietary wma crap.
Oh, wait, sorry, Microsoft, please go ahead and build a separate set-top box, yes please go ahead, that's a good plan...
Ignorance is bliss.
Minus the BR support the 360 and a Windows Media Center PC already do what you ask. I have over 200 movies in h.264 format, and thousands of songs, mostly in aac format on a NAS box and I can play them on any Windows 7 computer and my 360 with no 3rd party apps. I would imagine this new box can do the same.
The interface is so busy and the menus are driven like Samsung cellphone menus from 5 years ago. Where you have to drive down 3 menus to check your messages.
Horrible.
Advertisements are put at equal level to key features. I'm ready to throw our X-box in the trash.
You have to "log-in" to "xbox live" to watch Netflix... and then have to drive down menus to get to that point.... insane.
Once Apple reached the million unit mark, it triggered an alarm in Redmond which turns on the photocopy machine. At least Balmer now has his photocopying machine focused on Apple and is prepared to at least try to compete. Balmer and the MS board are kind of late again and I don't see the infrastructure to connect to but...
i'm not at all suggesting that Apple is THE progenitor of all great ideas however why is it that when Apple is involved in a certain category of product somehow legitimizes it for bigger companies such as Microsoft, now Google, to enter even if that category of product had already existed before Apple's entry?
Ummm.... Bigger companies??? That leaves Exxon-Mobile.
Apple is the second largest US company by market cap -- $60 Billion bigger than MSFT.
For fer *#$%& sake, Google and Microsoft should just rename themselves second and third fiddle and be done with it.
Do either of them do anything nowadays beyond following in Apple's footsteps? That's been Microsoft's M.O. for ages, but Google...? I kind of miss the old days when Google used to pull out these crazy ideas from left field and did them better than anyone else and changed the way people worked. I can remember standing around talking with people about how awesome Google Maps was and Gmail and other things. Nowadays, nobody is talking about anything Google does in that oh-my-god-how-did-they-come-up-with-that-idea way. Everything they do is a copy of Apple which is boring.
i'm not at all suggesting that Apple is THE progenitor of all great ideas however why is it that when Apple is involved in a certain category of product somehow legitimizes it for bigger companies such as Microsoft, now Google, to enter even if that category of product had already existed before Apple's entry?
Because Apple tends not to enter a market using the same failed methods used in the past. Just look at the iPad with an entirely new UI made with CocoaTouch over iOS, instead of trying to shoehorn Mac OS X into a tablet form factor and saying it?s god enough. Since they focus on UX and work with both the HW and SW they have the unique position of doing things differently. The downside is that their copycats can come in and easily take OS marketshare since they tend to use multiple vendors, though taking profit from Apple has proven to be less successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Ummm.... Bigger companies??? That leaves Exxon-Mobile.
Apple is the second largest US company by market cap -- $60 Billion bigger than MSFT.
That depends on tania?s focus. Big could refer to revenue, to profit, to number of employees, to presence in certain product areas, etc.
A Mac could not do what Windows Media Center PC could do with out 3rd party software. I think this new device will be a third option. You will have....
Windows Media Center PC
Xbox 360
New Device
All three will pretty much do the same thing when it comes to TV viewing, stream internet content from Microsofts store like the 360 has done for 5 years now, stream media from a Windows PC, (Like Apple TV does with iTunes on a computer), have plugins like "Netflix" like the 360/Media Center have had for a while now.
I think each device may have some unique capabilities like a TV tuner card in a Windows Media Center PC. The 360 can play your Zune Pass content, I would imagine that this could be put in the new device as well.
The new device will target people that dont want a 360 and dont want full blown Windows Media Center PC, and at a cheaper price.
Hey Betty, nice post. For once I'm agreeing with your points. There's hope for 2011, eh?
Minus the BR support the 360 and a Windows Media Center PC already do what you ask. I have over 200 movies in h.264 format, and thousands of songs, mostly in aac format on a NAS box and I can play them on any Windows 7 computer and my 360 with no 3rd party apps. I would imagine this new box can do the same.
Sounds interesting, some features must be new... And can you get to, say, Hulu or Netflix without logging into "Xbox Live"? Can streaming from PCs work without a WMC PC? What about their online "Marketplace"? Is there anything there? What is the deal with the stupidity of buying "Microsoft Points"?
If M$ is sooo close to having a box that will really do everything, why don't they drop the crappy parts, improve the streaming, fix the complexity, and market the heck out of their cool toy, instead of saying they'll make a separate set-top box?
The Xbox now might have some features that are pushing it in the right direction... Still, the box I'm looking for needs to do BD, have unfettered Internet access, streaming from PCs in standard formats (particularly non-Windows PCs), gaming, run some "apps", and all with a simple nice UI controllable from the couch with an iPod/iPhone (and Android).
Some posters are saying PS3 can do it... I'll look into it. The last time I checked though, *nobody* has that kind of box, like I said before.
Which is why this product [Windows-based set top box] doesn't make any sense. Microsoft needs to accept the fact that Windows as a brand just doesn't carry positive expectations. (This is problematic for Windows Phone 7 as well.) People aren't going to buy something because they call it Windows TV. If anything, the name will be off-putting: Windows, in the public consciousness, equals complicated, hard to manage, something will always go wrong. Nor is the Windows interface useful in this type of product, so, very likely, this will have as much to do with Windows as WP7 does.
What would make sense, especially now that they've moved into the family oriented living room with Kinect (Xbox alone was always a bit of a geek/gamer toy) is to release something like this under the Xbox brand, make it work as an Xbox accessory or standalone, call it Xbox Theater or something like that, forget Windows entirely but throw in the best, easiest to use Media Center features (rebranded, simplified, ...) and they could have a winner.
They really need to give up on the Windows Everywhere strategy. It's been a failure to the point where now all they use is the name, and it's time to realize that the name isn't helping them either.
I have no experience with XBox or Kinect. I did play around some with Windows Media Center -- not really impressed.
In reading your post, I agree that a name "Windows" anything; might have a negative connotation and send the wrong messages to the potential buyer -- difficult to setup, difficultly to use, open to bugs and viruses, difficult to maintain.
From what I read, a name "XBox" anything; has a similar, negative, connotation.
Rather, MS' most recent big success is "Kinect".
Far be it for me to help MS do anything -- but wouldn't they be better off calling it "KinecTV™", "KinectTV™" or even "KinecTVity™".
Any one of these has a nice ring to it, implies "being connected" (iHub), and parlays the recent success of Kinect.
Even if a very cool media center were available from multiple vendors, with very similar features, my guess is Apple would be the only one that paid any attention to design and GUI.
It's my understanding that Xbox has a noisy fan? If not, I stand corrected.
I want something small, sleek, black and silent next to my TV. Minimal cords. Easy to use. Full featured.
If Apple TV had the content of the satellite and cable operators at a serious discount to their crazy pricing, I'd be all over it.
Also, because of good deals on Blu-rays this holiday season I stocked up on some quality titles for a lot less than it would have cost me to buy a sort-of-HD version from Apple. The pressure is on for Blu-Ray p[ricing to drop to reasonable levels and as that happens, Apple will not be able to continue to charge $20 CDN for a download that is HD of the most minimal quality.
I'm curious and not trying to be snarky (has hell frozen over?). Just what are the advantages that BR brings to the home theater? I've been to Best Buy and Fry's in the past year and have spent time viewing BR movies on various TVs, and I honestly can't see a difference in quality between Br and conventional DVDs. Granted I'm an old fart and need glasses for reading but my farsightedness is still as good as any youngster's (according to a recent exam by my ophthalmologist), and I just can't see any marked difference.
What am I missing here that gets everyone in one corner or the other in an arena (especially when discussing BR vis-a-vis Apple/Steve Jobs)?
Comments
Really? Just, really? M$ copying Apple (and others) with every damn thing has just become so blatant and pathetic it's beyond imagination. And they're so bad at it. Without a monopoly, they've got nothing.
And this set-top box idea is really stupid. If they were smart, they would evolve the Playsta... err, Xbox into a single gaming/set-top box device. Leverage the product they already have. It would actually differentiate them from the competition, and give them a leg up.
Imagine a single box that plays HD (Blu-ray) discs, the latest games, and can stream HD content from connected PCs and the Internet. Nobody has that right now. I would be tempted to buy one; actually, I would buy one if it could play industry standard formats (aac, h.264) besides proprietary wma crap.
Oh, wait, sorry, Microsoft, please go ahead and build a separate set-top box, yes please go ahead, that's a good plan...
it's called the Playstation 3
God some people must get laughed at in the real world. Apple TV was originally released January 2007 and Media Center was original released in July 2002.
That took 30 seconds of my time and Wikipedia, which I know for a fact 6 year old kids can use these days to verify information.
Get a clue or be a joke. Those are the options.
Back on track... I wish I could go into an exec meeting at Microsoft and systematically crack the heads together of everyone present.
First they back Media Center, then they essentially stop updating it for a couple of years and focus on Xbox... which happens to have a Media Center Extender... which requires a full PC running the somewhat supported Win 7 Media Center to work... but then to Xbox they add the Marketplace for movies and cable TV over the internet (AFAIK Australia only ATM) outside of the Media Center Extender functionality...
...just as it looks like they are going to focus on the Xbox as their living room device (games/marketplace/IPTV and Silverlight support for an extended "App Store") this news leaks which puts the focus back on Media Center.
There is nothing wrong with two devices for two different markets, but relevant functionality needs to be supported on both platforms. If they are going with Media Center on Windows 7 Embedded it needs to support everything the Xbox does. A better idea would be to move the existing Media Center functionality into the Xbox.
In any case Microsoft have flip-flopped on this for almost a decade now. It's time to pick a strategy.
Yea, but if you want to play this game, you need to realize a few things -
The AppleTV is not the same thing as M$ Windows Media Center, which requires a full PC.
Apple's answer to WMC would be Front Row, not AppleTV. Front Row is just an app included with MacOS X, so no special OS or PC needed, runs on every Mac. It was released in 2005.
But this was not Apple's first foray into the living room. Prior to AppleTV was Front Row, prior to Front Row was Pippin (a failure) in 1995, and prior to that was MacintoshTV (also a failure) in 1993.
Apple has been at this for a long time, and it seems that AppleTV might be the 1st successful foot in the door for media control in the living room.
You are late with that joke at least 8 years.
it's gonna be a modified XBOX anyway. And whether you take it or not, M$ have better experience in that field than Apple.
I agree, that?s how I?d do it if I were them?NOT use a ?stripped-down version of Windows" as the article suggests, but make it a locked-down, reliable console/appliance, like AppleTV and XBox, that doesn?t try to be Windows (or any other desktop-derived OS).
However, saying Microsoft has better experience in Xbox set-top boxes than Apple doesn?t mean much. For instance, they could base a car GPS on a ?modified Xbox? and it still wouldn?t give them more experience with successful GPS products than Garmin or Nuvi!
It does give them more experience with traditional game consoles. If this set-top box is a traditional game console (which it may be: an XBox Jr.?) then THAT feature is the area where Microsoft has a head start.
(Although I hear Apple?s iOS has achieved some gaming success too. That?s a head start for future TV gaming if Apple sees fit.)
The main benefit of Apple?s device is, of course, that it actually exists... It seems that Apple?s competitor?s are always pitting next year?s imaginary product against last year?s Apple product. Time travel competition!
That said, I think this info is hoax or badly-distorted half-truth. Especially the idea of selling a $200 box.
Still, when I read this I thought "Yeah, now you can have the Blue Screen of Death on your TV!".
Oh yeah, You can use an XBOX 360 as an AT&T U-verse set top box and have streaming features if you want to pay them to let you use it, plus the software and installation fee of $99+.
Even the act of publishing these ridiculous stories without a derisive footnote is kissing Microsloth's ass. It looks to me like ass-kissing and delusional thinking has completely taken over the field of high-tech journalism. Whatever Microsloth says, everybody prints. Without question or comment. Pitiful.
Imagine a single box that plays HD (Blu-ray) discs, the latest games, and can stream HD content from connected PCs and the Internet. Nobody has that right now. I would be tempted to buy one; actually, I would buy one if it could play industry standard formats (aac, h.264) besides proprietary wma crap.
My PS3 does all of that.
Really? Just, really? M$ copying Apple (and others) with every damn thing has just become so blatant and pathetic it's beyond imagination. And they're so bad at it. Without a monopoly, they've got nothing.
And this set-top box idea is really stupid. If they were smart, they would evolve the Playsta... err, Xbox into a single gaming/set-top box device. Leverage the product they already have. It would actually differentiate them from the competition, and give them a leg up.
Imagine a single box that plays HD (Blu-ray) discs, the latest games, and can stream HD content from connected PCs and the Internet. Nobody has that right now. I would be tempted to buy one; actually, I would buy one if it could play industry standard formats (aac, h.264) besides proprietary wma crap.
Oh, wait, sorry, Microsoft, please go ahead and build a separate set-top box, yes please go ahead, that's a good plan...
Ignorance is bliss.
Minus the BR support the 360 and a Windows Media Center PC already do what you ask. I have over 200 movies in h.264 format, and thousands of songs, mostly in aac format on a NAS box and I can play them on any Windows 7 computer and my 360 with no 3rd party apps. I would imagine this new box can do the same.
Period
....
The interface is so busy and the menus are driven like Samsung cellphone menus from 5 years ago. Where you have to drive down 3 menus to check your messages.
Horrible.
Advertisements are put at equal level to key features. I'm ready to throw our X-box in the trash.
You have to "log-in" to "xbox live" to watch Netflix... and then have to drive down menus to get to that point.... insane.
IQ78
Once Apple reached the million unit mark, it triggered an alarm in Redmond which turns on the photocopy machine. At least Balmer now has his photocopying machine focused on Apple and is prepared to at least try to compete. Balmer and the MS board are kind of late again and I don't see the infrastructure to connect to but...
LOL...it's an old photocopy machine, circa 1983.
i'm not at all suggesting that Apple is THE progenitor of all great ideas however why is it that when Apple is involved in a certain category of product somehow legitimizes it for bigger companies such as Microsoft, now Google, to enter even if that category of product had already existed before Apple's entry?
Ummm.... Bigger companies??? That leaves Exxon-Mobile.
Apple is the second largest US company by market cap -- $60 Billion bigger than MSFT.
Do either of them do anything nowadays beyond following in Apple's footsteps? That's been Microsoft's M.O. for ages, but Google...? I kind of miss the old days when Google used to pull out these crazy ideas from left field and did them better than anyone else and changed the way people worked. I can remember standing around talking with people about how awesome Google Maps was and Gmail and other things. Nowadays, nobody is talking about anything Google does in that oh-my-god-how-did-they-come-up-with-that-idea way. Everything they do is a copy of Apple which is boring.
i'm not at all suggesting that Apple is THE progenitor of all great ideas however why is it that when Apple is involved in a certain category of product somehow legitimizes it for bigger companies such as Microsoft, now Google, to enter even if that category of product had already existed before Apple's entry?
Because Apple tends not to enter a market using the same failed methods used in the past. Just look at the iPad with an entirely new UI made with CocoaTouch over iOS, instead of trying to shoehorn Mac OS X into a tablet form factor and saying it?s god enough. Since they focus on UX and work with both the HW and SW they have the unique position of doing things differently. The downside is that their copycats can come in and easily take OS marketshare since they tend to use multiple vendors, though taking profit from Apple has proven to be less successful.
Ummm.... Bigger companies??? That leaves Exxon-Mobile.
Apple is the second largest US company by market cap -- $60 Billion bigger than MSFT.
That depends on tania?s focus. Big could refer to revenue, to profit, to number of employees, to presence in certain product areas, etc.
Or could just have a Kinnect sensor and not buttons.
Ha! Given that I'm a Dirty Old Man...
My first thought was that there might be a lot of action occurring on the couch (or the bed) in front of the TV.
Which gestures will Kinnect recognize -- and what action will Kinnect take?
Initiating a video call to Mom could be embarrassing...
Edit: Of course if it were a GoogleTV, it would just record and upload the video to YouTube.
Ha! Given that I'm a Dirty Old Man...
My first thought was that there might be a lot of action occurring on the couch (or the bed) in front of the TV.
Which gestures will Kinnect recognize -- and what action will Kinnect take?
Initiating a video call to Mom could be embarrassing...
Edit: Of course if it were a GoogleTV, it would just record and upload the video to YouTube.
Although there is a chance you might be saved by a RRoD or BSoD. ^_^
A Mac could not do what Windows Media Center PC could do with out 3rd party software. I think this new device will be a third option. You will have....
Windows Media Center PC
Xbox 360
New Device
All three will pretty much do the same thing when it comes to TV viewing, stream internet content from Microsofts store like the 360 has done for 5 years now, stream media from a Windows PC, (Like Apple TV does with iTunes on a computer), have plugins like "Netflix" like the 360/Media Center have had for a while now.
I think each device may have some unique capabilities like a TV tuner card in a Windows Media Center PC. The 360 can play your Zune Pass content, I would imagine that this could be put in the new device as well.
The new device will target people that dont want a 360 and dont want full blown Windows Media Center PC, and at a cheaper price.
Hey Betty, nice post. For once I'm agreeing with your points. There's hope for 2011, eh?
Ignorance is bliss.
Minus the BR support the 360 and a Windows Media Center PC already do what you ask. I have over 200 movies in h.264 format, and thousands of songs, mostly in aac format on a NAS box and I can play them on any Windows 7 computer and my 360 with no 3rd party apps. I would imagine this new box can do the same.
Sounds interesting, some features must be new... And can you get to, say, Hulu or Netflix without logging into "Xbox Live"? Can streaming from PCs work without a WMC PC? What about their online "Marketplace"? Is there anything there? What is the deal with the stupidity of buying "Microsoft Points"?
If M$ is sooo close to having a box that will really do everything, why don't they drop the crappy parts, improve the streaming, fix the complexity, and market the heck out of their cool toy, instead of saying they'll make a separate set-top box?
The Xbox now might have some features that are pushing it in the right direction... Still, the box I'm looking for needs to do BD, have unfettered Internet access, streaming from PCs in standard formats (particularly non-Windows PCs), gaming, run some "apps", and all with a simple nice UI controllable from the couch with an iPod/iPhone (and Android).
Some posters are saying PS3 can do it... I'll look into it. The last time I checked though, *nobody* has that kind of box, like I said before.
Which is why this product [Windows-based set top box] doesn't make any sense. Microsoft needs to accept the fact that Windows as a brand just doesn't carry positive expectations. (This is problematic for Windows Phone 7 as well.) People aren't going to buy something because they call it Windows TV. If anything, the name will be off-putting: Windows, in the public consciousness, equals complicated, hard to manage, something will always go wrong. Nor is the Windows interface useful in this type of product, so, very likely, this will have as much to do with Windows as WP7 does.
What would make sense, especially now that they've moved into the family oriented living room with Kinect (Xbox alone was always a bit of a geek/gamer toy) is to release something like this under the Xbox brand, make it work as an Xbox accessory or standalone, call it Xbox Theater or something like that, forget Windows entirely but throw in the best, easiest to use Media Center features (rebranded, simplified, ...) and they could have a winner.
They really need to give up on the Windows Everywhere strategy. It's been a failure to the point where now all they use is the name, and it's time to realize that the name isn't helping them either.
I have no experience with XBox or Kinect. I did play around some with Windows Media Center -- not really impressed.
In reading your post, I agree that a name "Windows" anything; might have a negative connotation and send the wrong messages to the potential buyer -- difficult to setup, difficultly to use, open to bugs and viruses, difficult to maintain.
From what I read, a name "XBox" anything; has a similar, negative, connotation.
Rather, MS' most recent big success is "Kinect".
Far be it for me to help MS do anything -- but wouldn't they be better off calling it "KinecTV™", "KinectTV™" or even "KinecTVity™".
Any one of these has a nice ring to it, implies "being connected" (iHub), and parlays the recent success of Kinect.
Whoops, there go my shares of AAPL.
.
It's my understanding that Xbox has a noisy fan? If not, I stand corrected.
I want something small, sleek, black and silent next to my TV. Minimal cords. Easy to use. Full featured.
If Apple TV had the content of the satellite and cable operators at a serious discount to their crazy pricing, I'd be all over it.
Also, because of good deals on Blu-rays this holiday season I stocked up on some quality titles for a lot less than it would have cost me to buy a sort-of-HD version from Apple. The pressure is on for Blu-Ray p[ricing to drop to reasonable levels and as that happens, Apple will not be able to continue to charge $20 CDN for a download that is HD of the most minimal quality.
I'm curious and not trying to be snarky (has hell frozen over?). Just what are the advantages that BR brings to the home theater? I've been to Best Buy and Fry's in the past year and have spent time viewing BR movies on various TVs, and I honestly can't see a difference in quality between Br and conventional DVDs. Granted I'm an old fart and need glasses for reading but my farsightedness is still as good as any youngster's (according to a recent exam by my ophthalmologist), and I just can't see any marked difference.
What am I missing here that gets everyone in one corner or the other in an arena (especially when discussing BR vis-a-vis Apple/Steve Jobs)?
Far be it for me to help MS do anything -- but wouldn't they be better off calling it "Kinect TV" or even "KinnecTVity".
Either has a nice ring to it, implies "being connected" (iHub), and parlays the recent success of Kinnect.
Whoops, there go my shares of AAPL.
.
I think M$ should try to bring back and modernize Microsoft Bob.