[This segment is a cross-post from my blog on The Digital Lifestyle. The near-term goal is to sync them up.]
Chris Lanier has made quite a buzz around Microsoft's positioning of
Windows Media Center (WMC) of late. The "TV on your PC" positioning
does seem like an arrow through the heart for many of us "10 footers"
(those of us who watch WMC -- exclusively in full screen mode -- on a
traditional TV using a remote control) who really see the value of WMC
as a home media hub for our entire homes, including our TV/family rooms
-- via the "10 foot interface." For 10-footers, the very notion of
watching TV on a PC seems antithetical to the 10-foot interface. What
the "10 footers" really want is to replicate the set-top box (STB)
experience, but with all the power and awesomeness of the Windows Media
Center platform.
Which brings us to "PC on your TV." From Microsoft's perspective,
that's what many of us "10 footers" are doing today... plugging in a PC
into an HDTV and displaying a software application on our TVs. Of
course, this really isn't at all what we're meaning to do (what we're
meaning to do is to simulate and improve upon a traditional TiVo/STB
experience), but literally, that is what we're doing.
Then there are the "client/server" folks, who have an "office PC"
that acts as the WMC server, and deploy extenders (clients) throughout
their home as WMC STBs. This, I surmise, was the primary use case
that Microsoft had in mind when originally architecting the WMC
experience. When looking at extender sales, it's probably easy for
Microsoft to conclude that this approach was not setting the world on
fire. (Of course, the strategy might have worked, but there were a lot
of mistakes made in the execution that I'm sure will come up in future
posts)
So, if you rudimentarily look at these three approaches, and you're Microsoft management looking for a relevant market position today,
it's understandable that Microsoft would choose "TV on your PC,"
because it's undeniable that most people do not really want a PC in
their family rooms (i.e., "PC on your TV"), and we already know that
extenders (i.e., client/server) were serving a niche audience. As it
stands right now, the only mass-market appeal for WMC is "TV on your
PC" because everyone uses their PC as a PC, and only we, the
10-footer's, use our PCs on our TVs.
So, why does this matter? Because this could either be a directional position (something that Chris has been publicly fretting about),
or a tactical positioning that satisfies the more immediate needs of an
organization to define a market and serve that market now, with what is available now.
So, could all the hubbub around "TV on your PC" simply be the
marketing equivalent of Windows Mobile 6.5 -- an interim fix to keep
something relevant and interesting while they invest in a more hopeful
future? I suspect it is. And this is where the speculation game
becomes either fun or frantic.
Media Center is at a
cross-roads. It's the most robust, mature, and elegant media
management system on the market that has native support for Digital
Cable. The forthcoming Win7 version is garnering good reviews online (here, here, and here
for starters). Yet, it's not all that ready for the
digitally-connected age of streaming video, including seamless access
to YouTube, Hulu and other huge online media broadcast firms. It
doesn't have built-in PodCast or VlogCast management or playback
tools. It's not delivered in a form-factor that is family-friendly, it
has no "app store" where 3rd parties can monetize their innovations,
the extender strategy is in flux, and, ultimately, it appears to be
lacking a mission. Oh, I could go on, but I gotta leave some reason
for future posts!
The $10,000 question is: What is Microsoft's Digital Dream for managing and delivering media to the home?
I suspect their dream includes WMC, but not exclusively WMC. It's
just too good to put down, but it's also not good enough to be
everything to everyone. It will likely evolve into new forms and
enter markets that we're not entirely comfortable with. Yet, a rapid
evolution into a defined market is crucial for the sustainability of
WMC as a (pseudo)product.
And while we can expect WMC to evolve to keep it relevant, it's
doubtful that Microsoft will be able to maximize WMC's potential. I
say this because I see huge potential for this platform. I see its
potential being no less than the iPhone of home entertainment.
But there are several crucial pieces missing that are required for home
domination, and I'm not yet convinced Microsoft as an organization has
the skills, philosophy and culture to fill in these gaps.
Future installments of Jon's Digital Dreams will outline some of the
pieces that are missing that get in the way of realizing "the dream,"
in addition to providing commentary and analysis on important
developments in the world of WMC.
To re-iterate my goals from the initial post on The Green Button, my intent is to engage the WMC community in great
discussions and debates around this fantastic -- and fantastically
frustrating -- product. I look forward to it!