Charlie Owen - XBox 360 Digital Media Features Determined By Consumers

XBox 360 Digital Media Features Determined By Consumers

There is a good thread over at Joystiq.com in Digital lifestyle from a dumb terminal? Not likely. (Xbox 360 annoyance #007). I took a moment to post a comment over there to hopefully clear the air about why things are the way they are -- it's all about consumer choice and market forces (of which a P&L statement is a part, but certainly not the whole). Microsoft is (an many ways) a conglomeration of smaller companies, which is sometimes why we don't approach the market with a singular product (we have Notepad, Word Pad and Word, all of which would allow me to type and print a letter to grandma). My comments start at number 37.

Categories: Media Center | XBox 360 | Comments [11] |

| Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 3:41:16 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 3:58:28 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Charlie, I could not agree with you more.

I just bought MC a month ago and stream stuff to my 1st xbox.

sure it has glitehces and may not be as slick as it could, but I think you guys will get the whole convergence right!

Mike

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 3:59:43 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Charlie, good stuff. Is there any overlap between the 2 groups? For instance, who was responsible for the interaction between XP (pictures, music) and the 360.

This is the first console my wife is getting into. She loves the arcade, and streaming music from our labtop (Although I wish I could display album covers via the 360). The 360 MCE features helped me to get the go ahead to build an MCE box over Xmas :)

christopher bermingham

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 4:22:02 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Thanks Chistopher. I think I answer your question over in the Joystiq comment, but I'll clarify here. There is collaboration between the two teams. All of the items on the XBox 360 Media blade with the exception of Media Center Extender are managed by the XBox 360 team.

Charlie Owen

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 4:51:18 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Charlie --

Thanks a bunch for your post. I understand the central dilemma and you do a good job of laying out the "good-better-best" rationale. Still, the Xbox 360 would be stronger if the middle scenario were simply replaced by best. This would come at perhaps an unacceptably high cost to the Media Center business and therefore may be completely irrational. Those are the toughest business decisions to be made.

Or do I mischaracterize the core issue?

vladimir cole

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:55:41 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Hi Charlie, good post. I feel Microsoft is getting an unfair amount of abuse on this. If anything, the problem is too many possibilities with not enough time to make sure it can all be done and done well. I like the approach of only including features which you know have a high level of quality and user experience... but man, the rest is all awfully tantalizing :)

Personally, I'd like to see the big studios, networks and other content providers take more of a beating over what seems to be paranoia and Luddite leanings when it comes to making content more easily accessible to consumers.

But I have to say you seemed to avoid one of the main questions from the original post: why can't you stream video from a Windows XP machine? I understand the three-tiered approach, but it doesn't preclude streaming video from an XP machine.

Maybe there are copyright worries, but if that's the case, why not highlight them?

Also, can you address why the Xbox 360 does not support playback of WMV-HD disks? Can you speak to whether such a feature will - or even could - be added as a firmware update in the future?

With the lack of HD DVD drive in the Xbox 360 it does make me a little nervous about future proofing myself when I buy one.

Nitpicking aside; bottom line is it all looks pretty awesome :)

Ross

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:05:13 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Vlad asks 'do I mischaracterize the core issue?'

Perhaps. Having only two choices is bad from a market perspective. If you think about it, that approach would make the XBox 360 either standalone or only work if you happen to have the newewst operating system from Microsoft. All of the millions and millions of folks with Windows XP Home Edition would be left pretty much high and dry. I imagine your comments would take us to task for having not thought of those folks had we gone this route. :-) Think if Toyota only made the Corolla and Avalon models -- they would have effectively eliminated the 'sweet spot' middle ground where the Camry has been so successful.

Ross asks 'Why can't you stream video from a Windows XP machine?'

I've asked the folks 'in the know' for specifics I can share but haven't heard back yet with an official response. 95% of the time it comes down to time and resources on whether or not [insert feature here] makes it into the product, and I suspect on the XBox side this one is no different. The good news (at least I look at this way) is if streaming video from a Windows XP machine is a core scenario for you as the consumer you have an option available to you to do so through an upgrade to or purchase of a new PC with Media Center included.

I covered WMVHD discs playing on XBox 360 as much as I can in http://blog.retrosight.com/PermaLink,guid,6233c85b-3be7-42d1-88b7-095c4810f66a.aspx.

As far as HD DVD drives in XBox 360 are concerned (and I can only guess here since I don't have any first hand knowlege): The HD DVD standard was approved in late September 2004 well after XBox 360 development had started and I imagine the hardware cost is still pretty high as is usual with any new technology. As far as I know, there are no HD DVD players available in retail, nor is there broad content available on HD DVD discs. Toshiba (one of the players in the HD DVD format) recently demonstrated a prototype (http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_10/pr0301.htm) so it's clearly still in the early stages for HD DVD.

Charlie Owen

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 8:57:17 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

I'm not sure I really asked my question in the right way. Ross asked it more directly. Here's another shot. If streaming MP3 music is a capability of Windows XP Pro, and if streaming video is a capability of Windows Media Center, what are the costs to adding video streaming to Windows XP Pro?

From the technical side, I can't imagine the costs to be that extensive as audio streaming is already present and workin well in XP Pro.

Therefore, the cost side of the equation must be calculated on some expected cannibalization rate in answer to the question, "How many unit sales of WMC will we lose if we allow Win XP Pro (WXP) to replicate this functionality?"

I don't think that the proposed solution is as elegant as it could be. To purchase this functionality "through an upgrade to or purchase of a new PC with Media Center" doesn't address certain (large) segments of the market.

First, I don't know that Windows Media Center is an upgrade of any kind from WXP. I'm typing this on an IBM T43P with fingerprint reader and various other business-y hardware and software components (Verizon EVDO modem, Outlook 2003 over HTTP, VPN software, SFTP, etc). To move to a more consumer-oriented OS strikes me as odd and makes me wonder what functionality I'd lose.

Whether or not I would actually lose any isn't really the point. I'd say that my perception of Windows Media Center is representative of the larger market perception of it. Most people would have trouble imagining at as their work PC.

Second, more and more folks I know are looking to untether themselves from stationary desktops and make their laptops their primary computers. A desktop isn't just a $600 investment. It's a square footage investment. It's also something that would add to the complexity of my home network and increase the total amount of time that I spend simply managing computers in my household. I don't think consumers are doing TCO calculations in their heads yet, but I know that more of the tech-savvy folks that I speak to on a regular basis are beginning to feel that such considerations are important when investing in home technology.

Third, I've already purchased a full-blown, powerful Microsoft OS. Why do I need to purchase another OS in order to obtain functionality that seems to be technically feasible? That's the consumer in me asking the question.

You've set the bar too high both in terms of the up-front cost and the less-trnasparent maint costs. My willingness to pay for media streaming is not $100 or $200. It's closer to $15 - $30. Couldn't you partially or fully offset cannibalization effects by offering to upgrade the Windows Media Connect software for some fee? You'd capture revenue from people like me and from readers of Joystiq who agree with me.

vladimir cole

Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:49:13 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

I see your perspective, Vlad. Allow me to clarify...

--> If streaming MP3 music is a capability of Windows XP Pro, and if streaming video is a capability of Windows Media Center, what are the costs to adding video streaming to Windows XP Pro? From the technical side, I can't imagine the costs to be that extensive as audio streaming is already present and working well in XP Pro.

All versions of Windows XP for the desktop (Home, Pro, Tablet, Media Center) have the exact same core plumbing as far as being a 'server' to other machines and devices. In fact, if you have a Media Center PC, you can use *all* of the features on the Media Blade of XBox 360. In the context of this thread, we are talking about Windows XP as the 'server', the XBox 360 as the 'client' and Windows Media Connect (see http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/devices/wmconnect/default.aspx) as the networking infrastructure which tie the two together. I would agree with you if we were only talking about an implementation detail on Windows XP, but in fact we are talking about code in three areas. As you can see, it can become non-trivial to implement [insert feature here] with all of the variables.

So, the obvious follow up question is this: If Media Center Extender is able to accomplish video streaming, why not the combination of XBox360 / Windows XP / Windows Media Connect? It's pretty simple, really -- we had already done a bunch of prior work enabling the Media Center Extender on the first generation XBox console (see http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/xboxmediacenterextender.htm) and that work included the out of band streaming of audio and video. It's usually (but not always) to tweak code here and there for a version 2.0 than it is to start from scratch. By comparison, the native XBox 360 Media blade features usable with any Windows XP machine are brand new version 1.0 for XBox.

--> The cost side of the equation must be calculated on some expected cannibalization rate in answer to the question, "How many unit sales of WMC will we lose if we allow Win XP Pro (WXP) to replicate this functionality?"

Actually, I don't think that was ever a consideration (see above). It was more a question of being the market leader in the gaming console space and increasing satisfaction with XBox 360, hence the Media blade added native features which work with any of the millions of Windows XP machines out in the market today. Come to think about it, I’ve never heard a protectionist attitude towards feature sets here at Microsoft – ever. It’s always framed in the right features at the right time driven by what the customer wants and the market will sustain.

--> To move to a more consumer-oriented OS strikes me as odd and makes me wonder what functionality I'd lose.

Exactly. We need to understand Windows XP Media Center Edition is not designed or marketed to be an operating for the business environment. Pro and Tablet are appropriate for the business / enterprise market. Home and Media Center are appropriate for the home / consumer market. Granted, you can do *most* things work related on a Media Center PC, but it's not really designed for that purpose.

--> More and more folks I know are looking to untether themselves from stationary desktops and make their laptops their primary computers.

I would agree with you -- more and more consumers are opting for the mobile option in a form factor. That’s the biggest single reason Media Center PCs in laptop / notebook variations are available from every major manufacturer.

--> Why do I need to purchase another OS in order to obtain functionality that seems to be technically feasible? That's the consumer in me asking the question.

There are entire sections at the library / bookstore dedicated to this topic -- it would be hard for me to answer since the topic is so huge. Anywho, just a few random thoughts: Not everyone needs (or wants) the full functionality. More features = more money to produce. A supply / demand economy allows for multiple / tiered choices at a value the market determines. I’m sure there are more.

Charlie Owen

Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:07:42 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Oh, okay, having two separate teams developing the Xbox 360 blade media features and media center extender features makes way more sense as to why there are discrepancies between the two. Thanks for taking the time to explain what was probably pretty obvious :)

I couldn't see any mention of WMV-HD on the FAQ (just high def through DVR-MS and regular WMV), but maybe that was your point - that you can't talk about it? :)

Ross

Thursday, December 08, 2005 4:22:10 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

--> I couldn't see any mention of WMV-HD on the FAQ...

Whoops -- oversight on my part -- see question 23 which I added just now.

Charlie Owen

Friday, December 09, 2005 4:08:31 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

i'm confused. what is the added value of photo streaming with regards to gaming? audio streaming is supported, video isn't. this seems in line with the "added value" philosophy; playing your own audio is supported because it's a great feature with regards to gaming, video not so much, therefore it isn't supported. then why is photo streaming supported?

regarding WMV-HD: the Xbox 360 is able to play WMV-HD content via a connected Windows Media Center, but not from a DVD? how does this work? can WMV-HD DVD movies legally be ripped to a harddisk (since you can't acces the DVD drive of the WMC machine through the Xbox 360 Extender)?

also, why is the use of Windows Media Connect compulsory when you want to stream music and/or photos? the Xbox 360 seems to be a smart enough platform to be able to support uPNP, or network shares. because of this "feature" Network Attached Storage (NAS) usage is out of the question, unless you pipe it through a Windows Media Center machine.

William Beekhuis

Comments are closed.