The show-and-tell took place at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (aka WinHEC) in New Orleans. WinHEC is where Microsoft tries to woo, cajole, and/or arm-twist vendors into building hardware to its liking. For the most part, I think this is a good thing--everyone benefits from the standardisation that results. (Unless, of course, you have a standard Microsoft doesn't care for.)
The idea behind the TV client is that, while one person is using it to watch a TV program or play music stored on a Media Center PC, someone else can be simultaneously running a PC app. (This will depend on the concurrent session technology also disclosed at WinHEC.)
Microsoft hopes hardware companies, especially those on the consumer electronics side of the aisle, will adopt its TV client and begin building hardware for it by the end of next year; it's possible the first units could be out as early as next spring.
This streaming video demonstration is the beginning of a home-entertainment revolution we've been talking about here at ZDNet for some time. (And about which Steve Jobs, more than anyone else, has actually been doing something; more on that in a moment).
With Microsoft now publicly courting the consumer electronics and PC hardware industries to make equipment for streaming video over home networks, it proves that while the revolution may not be televised, it will be about television. And music. And maybe even digital photography. But it will be mostly about television, because that's what people are willing to pay for.
But as I said up top, this video streaming technology raises many more questions than Microsoft has answers for.
For starters, will the Media Center PC you already own or will purchase later this year (perhaps for back-to-school or Christmas) be upgradeable so it can stream video around your home? The answer depends largely on when Windows-based video streaming actually arrives.
Adding such capabilities to Media Center PCs would essentially turn them into video servers. It isn't clear how much hardware oomph this will require.
A video-streaming feature could be released as part of Microsoft's next-generation operating system, code-named Longhorn, which isn't due until 2005. If that's the case, and if Longhorn includes the features I think it will, that OS will require more processing power than anyone has right now. Throw in the security features previously known as Palladium, and no hardware that exists today will support it all.
But folks I've talked to at Microsoft say video streaming won't wait until Longhorn, that it will come out in some other form first. But when schedules drag at Microsoft, features start getting combined. So if Media Center upgrades fall behind, they could become Longhorn upgrades. But if Longhorn itself creeps far enough into the future...well, 'nuff said.
Which is all to say that, if the past is the key to the future, I think we should expect that, when streaming video for home networks becomes available, it will only be available on newly purchased PCs.
Then there's the broader question of whether and how Microsoft will ensure compatibility between all the devices that could be part of such a complete home network--PCs, TV sets, monitors, VCRs, PVRs, stereo systems, and so on.
The Media Center people aren't stupid (despite their early misstep, since fixed, over digital rights management). I think they'll do their best to maintain compatibility. They just aren't really focused on a fully networked home right now, just on adding a television client to Media Center.
How a Media Center PC will connect to a TV client is still up in the air. There will probably be a hardwired option of some sort, and the first implementation of concurrent computing and TV viewing will probably require a wired connection. But when the client ships, I'm convinced it will connect through the air via 802.11g.
Should you buy a Media Center PC now, expecting to upgrade later? While I wish Microsoft would lay out more of a road map for customers, I understand that it's too early for them to do so. It's unwise to raise important questions you aren't ready to answer, which is what Microsoft has done.
Ultimately, I think they'll do the right thing and be compatible. But even if they aren't, if today's Media Center meets your needs, go ahead and buy one. They are cool machines and you'll have a lot of fun with one in the meantime. Let me worry about these technical issues and if it really gets serious, I'll warn you.
Speaking of technical issues, I hope Microsoft will soon start talking about how it plans to share content over a home network. Microsoft is betting on Universal Plug & Play for the hardware side and a software scheme called Content Directory Services, about which, to be frank, I know nothing.
Apple is farther along this path than Microsoft. Thanks to a technology called Rendezvous, a built-in feature of OS X, it's now possible for Mac users to share their music files using the iTunes software. When a Mac with a music library appears on a network, its music files can automatically appear in iTunes on other networked computers. The music can then be streamed and played on any of those networked Macs.
Microsoft should be embarrassed its touted Media Player 9 doesn't do this. Redmond needs to explain--and soon--how its version of the digital hub will come together. Demonstrations like the one this week only add to the confusion and questions.
What do you think? Would you want to stream video from your PC to your TVs? Would you buy a new PC to do so? Leave your comments in our TalkBack forum below or e-mail edit@zdnet.com.au.
In your item you said, "I think this is a good thing--everyone benefits from the standardisation that results".
What standardisation? If every time microsoft releases a new product and everyone was to buy it, then we would have standardisation, however how many businesses and individuals are there still happily using Win98 & Office 97? (Quite a few in my experience).