Microsoft Sees Future in IPTV

linumax writes "It took 12 years and more than $10 billion, but one of Microsoft's biggest dreams may finally be coming true: The company is close to becoming a major player in the television business. This is not about PCs that play video -- the company has done that for years -- but rather a whole new platform for delivering television over the Internet, through software that's mostly invisible to consumers." From the article: "Consumers will see cool new features -- imagine four live pictures on a screen at once -- instant channel changes and more options for on-demand video rentals, including high-definition content. Microsoft TV also merges phone services, so incoming messages, e-mail and caller ID can be displayed on users' television screens. Microsoft hopes its Internet protocol television system (IPTV) will also be used in India, China and other developing countries, where it could provide education and government services as well as entertainment via the television."

Blurring the line...

[fragmentate]

I remember when Amiga [amiga.com] was talking about such an environment. Where the lines between appliances were blurred. They dubbed it Digital Convergence [com.com] but never went very far with it.

The idea was that all of your devices serve a single purpose (they did in 1998, when this was published). But, Amiga had this vision that they'd develop a platform that could live on a TV, a computer, a mobile phone, even a PDA. You could watch TV on your phone. Or you could use your phone over the TV (huh?). Even better, your phone and your TV could be your computer.

The next ten years are definitely going to be interesting. Will Microsoft ever get this thing off the ground? Or will all of the litigation stifle it?

I realize what Microsoft is talking about is a bit different, at least on the surface. But if they have this portable "media OS" they can certainly take it to the next level -- the level of "Digital Convergence".

Re:The MSterious Future

[Wesley Felter]

But will government, cable distributors and Hollywood allow it?

Verizon and SBC have been having some problems licensing TV channels, but they'll probably just spend their way through the problem. There are also local franchise problems that are being slowly solved in various legislatures.

I am very interested in seeing what MS can do to overcome bandwidth concerns at the backbone, ISP and user level

You can't fix this problem in software. SBC is using VDSL over the last mile and the video will all be flowing over their own network (aka "walled garden"). IP multicast cuts down on the backbone traffic a lot.

IPTV could destroy Tivo, Comcast and Fox if the content is broadcast quality or better.

It is broadcast quality, but for the forseeable future you'll only be able to get IPTV from your last-mile broadband provider. Obviously cable companies have no need for IPTV, so that leaves the telcos. Telcos are just starting to roll out broadband networks that have enough capacity for IPTV (VDSL/FTTH). TiVo is an equipment/software provider, so they can survive in an IPTV world by making IPTV boxes instead of cable boxes. Fox is a content company, so IPTV will just be another distribution channel for their content.

Re:Sure

[interiot]

They already failed with WMA thanks to iPod.

Well, there's another iPod announcement tommorow [engadget.com]... Apple could have video wrapped up by then too.

Re:Sure

[Overly Critical Guy]

'scuse me, how did the iPod do anything to harm a VIDEO-format?

Beats me. I never said it did. I said an iPod video would kill WMV like the normal iPod has killed WMA. Reading comprehension...it's a good thing.

All the iPod did was to inflate the price fo the standard mp3-player. And get alot of people robbed off the iPod becuase their unique design.

Yeah, that's "all" it did. And all the Apple II did was legitimize the home personal computer.

Apple legitimize?

Yes, just like they did with the iTunes Music Store, which now has greater than 80% of the market.

You're talking about the company that tried to force all their customers into using a single button mouse.

Force? I was using multiple-buttoned mice in 1998.

Next.

Re:The MSterious Future

[r_cerq]

Maybe, but true IPTV would be on-demand rather than scheduled, IMO. Of course, if the back-end is closed and licensed, its doomed to fail. iTunes picks RSS feeds for podcasting from anyone, but IPTV will likely give us "what we don't want, when we don't want it."
You're limiting IPTV to VoD or time-shifted TV, and that's not what it's about. Think "cable operator with real-time interactive features". IPTV is not _just_ a consumer-oriented tech, it's a way for telcos to compete with cable operators and pay for the high-bandwidth last-mile links customers want nowadays. (the ARPU in TV services is MUCH higher than Internet or voice)

You'll get the god-knows-how-many broadcast channels as before, and those, being real-time, can and will use multicast, so each individual channel will only go once through the backbone. For timeshifted TV (think TiVO's "pause"), you can just have an HDD on the STB. Video-on-Demand, however, _Will_ take it's toll on the operator's network, as each customer's video-feed will be unique to that customer.

And now, to go back to the original article, I've seen MS's platform in exhibits throughout the year. It's gorgeous, but it's expensive as hell (the STBs require a massive amount of capacity to do their nifty little features. While most middleware vendors make do with small PPC CPU's in the 200-400 Mhz range, MS's solution needs at least a 700MHz Celeron. The investment per customer goes through the roof) they're hardly a big contender in that area (although they're growing). They (still?) have a sizeable and healthy number of competitors.

IPTV vs. Satellite Direct.. no contest

[xtal]

The wild success of DirectTV, Bell ExpressVu and it's ilk basically slammed TV over wires - even classic big fat wires like Cable badly. I was involved with one such failed venture, and at one point, there were a half dozen companies in the space. It's technically possible but makes almost no sense.

I'm not sure where microsoft sees themselves positioned, but the problem is you need to have a service provider for your IPTV -and- a broadband link, and if you believe your video streams aren't going to interfere with your bandwidth.. especially over a few boxes.. heh

It doesn't make sense, and consumers aren't stupid, educated by decades of passionate hatred for Cable companies.

You want to know where IPTV has a chance? It's in interactive pr0n services direct to your TV. That, and maybe gambling. The satellite companies must make a fortune off pr0n, but they can't do the interactive thing. The webchat adult entertainment companies make a mint, but don't have a plug-it-in-and-play (ha) solution for the bedroom and living room. Anyone want a consultant? :-)

Best place for info on IPTV

[Anonymous Coward]

 
I have found the best place for information on IPTV is at

        http://www.iptv.org/ [iptv.org]

It is a most useful site when trying to find something to see on TV
and has been around for years.

Hmmm, wonder if "MS" has checked into the trademark ownership of IPTV?

Microsoft Innovated Nothing!

[dream_team34]

Before you guys go congratulating Microsoft for innovating the concept of IPTV or allowing telephone companies to deliver telivision services... other companies have been doing this for years before Microsoft got into the game. Check out the following companies: http://www.minervanetworks.com/ [minervanetworks.com] http://www.myrio.com/ [myrio.com] http://www.orca.tv/ [www.orca.tv] http://www.tutsys.com/ [tutsys.com] http://www.skystream.com/ [skystream.com] Hundreds of phone companies in the US TODAY, and more in other countries, already offer IPTV to their customers... and no, not using Microsoft's software. There are already companies that are offering these "advanced" services, which alot of people on here thinks Microsoft innovated.

Ahem wrong again

[shareme]

Ths is from soemone that contributes to IPTV proejcts in the FOSS community: 1. IPTV is not MS 'owned'! IPTV is an independent standard 2. Its not technical implementations that is slowing or speedign up deployment its the content rpoviders refusing to adopt 'internet' style free-wheeling acceptance of content form all producers. Cable companeis tend to want to monopolize their content so as to prevent outsiders from competing.. Wittness the death tol of DeviceTop.com owned by Espial. Cable companei sin the USA did not want to hear from outside content providers/developrs and thus the plan by Espial to get 3rd party content into USA via IPTV failed due to cable wanting to monopolize and lock out developers to avoid facing competition.