Doc Searls has a post entitled Resistance isn't futile where he writes
Russell Beattie says "it's game over for a lot of Microsoft competitors." I don't buy it, and explained why in a comment that's still pending moderation. (When the link's up, I'll put it here.) Meanwhile, I agree with what Phillip Swann (who is to TVs what Russell is to mobile devices) says about efforts by Microsoft and others to turn the TV into a breed of PC: ...it's not going to happen, no matter how much money is spent in the effort. Americans believe the TV is for entertainment and the PC is for work. New TV features that enhance the viewing experience, such as Digital Video Recorders, High-Definition TV, Video on Demand, Internet TV (the kind that streams Net-based video to the television, expanding programming choices) and some Interactive TV features (and, yes, just some), will succeed. Companies that focus on those features will also succeed. But the effort to force viewers to perform PC tasks on the TV will crash faster than a new edition of a buggy PC software. I realize that doesn't speak to all of Russell's points, or to more than a fraction of Microsoft's agenda in the consumer electronics world; but it makes a critical distinction (which I boldfaced, above) that's extremely important, and hard to see when you're coming from the PC world.
Russell Beattie says "it's game over for a lot of Microsoft competitors." I don't buy it, and explained why in a comment that's still pending moderation. (When the link's up, I'll put it here.)
Meanwhile, I agree with what Phillip Swann (who is to TVs what Russell is to mobile devices) says about efforts by Microsoft and others to turn the TV into a breed of PC:
...it's not going to happen, no matter how much money is spent in the effort. Americans believe the TV is for entertainment and the PC is for work. New TV features that enhance the viewing experience, such as Digital Video Recorders, High-Definition TV, Video on Demand, Internet TV (the kind that streams Net-based video to the television, expanding programming choices) and some Interactive TV features (and, yes, just some), will succeed. Companies that focus on those features will also succeed.
But the effort to force viewers to perform PC tasks on the TV will crash faster than a new edition of a buggy PC software. I realize that doesn't speak to all of Russell's points, or to more than a fraction of Microsoft's agenda in the consumer electronics world; but it makes a critical distinction (which I boldfaced, above) that's extremely important, and hard to see when you're coming from the PC world.
It seems Doc Searls is ignoring the truth around him. Millions of people [including myself] watch TV by interacting with a PC via TiVo and other PVRs. I haven't met anyone who after using a PVR who wants to go back to regular TV. As is common with most Microsoft detractors Doc Searls is confusing the problems with v1/v2 of a product with the long term vision for the product. People used to say the same things about Windows CE & PalmOS but now Microsoft has taken the lead in the handheld market.
The current crop of Windows Media Centers have their issues, many of which have even been pointed out by Microsoft employees. However it is a big leap to translate that to people don't want more sophistication out of their television watching experience. TiVo has already taught us that people do. The question is who will be providing the best experience possible when the market matures?