Jon's Digital Dreams

It was another Apple Moment for me.  Another moment when a vendor is so impressed with itself that it convinces throngs of people that what it's doing is revolutionary, magical or <insert-an-astonishing-adjective-here>. 

This time, it wasn't Apple.  This time, it was Google's announcement of Google TV.  

I admit, I'd heard a lot of rumblings about Google's TV initiative over the prior months, and as a stalwart Windows Media Center user (and critic), I was hesitantly optimistic that there might be an even better solution than what I used for connected entertainment in the future.  After all, it's Google, right?  Google knows how to keep things simple, and they love using "the cloud" as their center of innovation.  I've long complained that Microsoft is late to the cloud party (especially with regards to integrating web content into Media Center).  I had also heard that Google was partnering with Sony and other TV manufacturers to build the functionality right into the TV.  That would seem easier to setup and use than a Windows Media Center solution. 

Yet, when I started reading reports on the announcement and demonstration of Google TV, I was both underwhelmed and annoyed.   Let me start with why I was underwhelmed:   From what I gather from the dripping of information currently available, Google TV is essentially a glorified video content portal.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's frankly a lightweight solution that more or less looks right past digital cable content streams.   Just like Apple TV does.   Both Google TV and Apple TV are more optimally designed for 2025, when digital cable transmissions will be in the pile of technologies past.   But for 2010, digital cable is the elephant in the room, and to ignore it is to ignore reality.  

Ninety-five percent of the content I watch is still transmitted via digital cable.  Sure, I can go to Hulu or other content portal to watch a re-run or pick something up as an archive.  But the quality really isn't there yet, and frankly, the business models aren't set yet either.  Which means that all these wonderful digital distribution platforms are still in the "dotcom bubble" stage where everything is free for now in an attempt to gain a tremendous loyal audience that they can eventually monetize.  It reminds me of the roaring 90s, where I could get stuff only for 50% less than retail because every shopping site was trying to drive traffic - not revenues. Then the shake-out happened, and now online shopping is rational and usually within 10% of retail shopping prices.

Being underwhelmed is not hard when it comes to connected home entertainment, but you might be wondering why I was annoyed.  

I was annoyed on several fronts, which I think can be summed up with the following statement: Google is ignoring a reality that already exists, and Microsoft created a reality that nobody knows exists.

Let's start with Google's audacity to copy Steve Jobs' approach of blatantly bending reality in order to become a technology savior.  Exhibit A:  In their online introduction video, they have the nerve to assert that in the age of DVRs, people still need to "adjust their schedules to fit their TV schedules."  By saying this, Google is essentially bypassing a decade of massive digital video recorder expansion in the marketplace, and claiming to introduce a solution that will finally allow you to watch what you want to watch, when you want to watch it.  Really Google?  Ever hear of a DVR? 

Of course they have.  And this is where mojo comes into play.  Like Apple, Google is focusing like a laser on the fact that most people are not super-smart technologists like the ones surrounding themselves at the GooglePlex.  And, Google is looking right past the 30% DVR users out there (not to mention the 75% mindshare), and saying that for most of the users out there, DVR technology does not yet exist in their lives.  So, they're not building upon existing innovation, they're taking a long, hard look at reality beyond the savvy and introducing something "new" and essentially ignoring all of the middling solutions (TiVo, Cable DVRs, Apple TV, etc.) that occurred along the way.  They're playing the ignorant card, and it's a smart card to play for a mass-consumer solution.  But it still annoys me.

When Apple did this with the iPhone announcement, it annoyed me as well, because Steve Jobs was announcing "amazing" things his new phone could do that I had been doing with my Windows Mobile phone for years already.  It didn't matter, though.  I represent a small fraction of tech-savvy and tech-aware consumers.  He could skip right by my reality and focus on the reality beyond the savvy - which he did to great effect and subsequent success. 

The Google TV announcement also made me annoyed at Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft, the company that is so smart that it actually bridges the gap between real technology (digital cable) and emerging technologies (Internet TV) and embeds this elegant solution for free into the bulk of operating systems that get installed throughout the world.  The team that does all this great work just to assume that everyone is as tech-savvy as they are, and will instantly understand the value of Windows Media Center, and be able to figure out what the heck to do with it.   The team that is so surrounded by high IQs that they think that everyone is so smart and savvy that they'll just figure out that their Xbox 360 can "extend" the Media Center experience right to their TVs throughout the home, magically.  Oh, and if you can find a discontinued digital cable tuner from ATI on eBay, you can DVR and stream digital cable anywhere in your home!  C'mon - it's all drop-dead obvious, right?  Right?  Hello? 

Microsoft's Media Center team, I've said this before, and I'll say it again:  You appear to suffer from a savvy echo chamber where you presume too much of your users.  You assume that good technology will do the marketing for you.  You assume it's still 1991 where your user base needed to be tech-savvy to even engage in your brand.  Of course, many in Microsoft know better than this.  But they're in charge of successful consumer franchises like Xbox 360 and perhaps the forthcoming Windows Phone 7 OS.  

And yes, Microsoft, I know it's more complex than that.  I know you're trying to transform TV distribution with the whole Mediaroom IPTV strategy, which integrates seamlessly with existing clients.  You're going deep and wide in an effort to be instrumental to the entire ecosystem.  Meanwhile, you continue to lose mind space in the minds of the digital consumer and tech press, and you continue to let a now-five-year lead in superior connected home entertainment on the table.  

Most of my friends and family who have seen my Windows Media Center setup in action actually put the effort into getting one setup for their homes, too.  Their incomes range from middle-class to upper-middle-class.  They tend to be savvy enough to dive into buying a system, finding CableCard tuners on eBay, and dealing with the pain of dealing with Comcast installers balking at a PC consuming a CableCard.  Of course, this is all because I offer my free support services whenever there's a question or problem (and there's always a question or problem - which, of course, is the biggest hurdle for mass-marketing home media solutions).

Now back to yet another reason for me being annoyed with Microsoft with respect to this Google TV preview:  It's been like pulling teeth to get Microsoft to give us easy access to web content via our otherwise-superior Media Center user experience.  "Internet TV" on Media Center reminds me more of AOL (walled garden of safe, pre-approved content) than of even MSN or the Internet.  Thank goodness for the excellent Macrotube application, which brings YouTube, DailyMotion, and other content sources to Media Center fairly elegantly.  And thank goodness for oldie-but-goody apps like Big Screen Headlines 2, which allow me to stream audio podcasts via the big-screen interface.  And even though the experience isn't ideal, I still get a lot of utility out of having Miro download video podcasts as they arrive and store them on my Media Center video library for on-demand playback. 

But all of these apps and work-arounds don't fit the bill for a next generation Media Center for the home.  This is where Google's got Microsoft beat - and beat bad.  Google starts with the cloud and tries to weave in other stuff.   Microsoft starts with the integration and tries to weave in the cloud in a careful way as not to veer too far from how much engineering effort and investment was made in getting digital cable through the PC in the first place.  Yeah, I get that getting digital cable working through the PC was the heavy lifting.  And Microsoft does deserve credit for that work.  But they're never going to get the credit they desire.  That integration is the invisible magic that will never make consumers or the media swoon.  Unfortunately for smart engineers, most of their amazing integration, reliability and testing work will go under-appreciated, while a simple and slick app that pulls down YouTube content will get people crying "magic!"  

Which brings us back to mojo.  Microsoft has a major mojo problem.  When it has a conference or a keynote address, they are almost always uninspired, uncomfortably-scripted and lacking the punch of an Apple - and now Google - keynote.  At the 2010 CES keynote, Ballmer talked about his MediaRoom 2.0 IPTV strategy as if that was going to jazz people (other than AT&T and Microsoft's Finance department).  Microsoft probably still has the best vision of technology for consumers in the long-run, but they are lacking the communications and marketing savvy to put their best foot forward when it comes to media relations, reputation management, and product announcement design.  And from a product development perspective, there seems to be a bias toward the long-term that seriously affects investment in technologies (think developer network) that focuses on the now.  Microsoft needs to think more about now and how without a relevant and compelling now, the later really might not even matter.  Don't get me wrong -- I believe that Microsoft's future-focus is critical and strategic.  But it doesn't buy you mojo.  Mojo is about the relevance of now.

Google TV is an interesting yet underdeveloped idea that will get crazy amounts of press and industry interest due to mojo.  Meanwhile, Windows Media Center -- a still awe-inspiring connected entertainment solution for the home -- tragically remains just a strange green icon on the Start menu in millions of consumers' PCs. 

Microsoft, if you let Google beat you to this space, you deserve every bit of egg that will be on your face.  You've had over a ½ decade to blaze a trail here, and while your product is elegant and still has remarkable potential, your marketing and communications strategies are literally suffocating your hard work and innovation. 

Because I don't want to end on a negative note (I'm an optimist at heart with an odd soft spot for Microsoft), let me pivot from rant to recommendation -- a recommendation for Microsoft that might not only make sense, but provide an alternative interaction model that would differentiate Microsoft's strategy from that of the rest of the competition (small plug - recommendations like these are what I provide my clients through my firm Capital D Design):

Buck the trend of full on-screen integration that forces people to type in keywords on their TV.  Instead, further extend the "send to" functionality that you've just launched in the Windows 7 ecosystem.  Imagine, if you will, an omnipresent "send to..." button on Internet Explorer (and plug-ins for other browsers, please) where I as a web content consumer can decide to send a bit of content online to my Media Center for immediate -- or future -- viewing.

Here's a use case example: I'm surfing the web and I find a YouTube video, Vimeo video, MP3 file, or most any kind of rich media that I want to play back on one of my home TVs.  When I land on the page that contains the content I want to experience on my TV, I click on the "Send to my TV" button on my browser toolbar, which adds this media to an "ready to play" queue in the Media Center interface.  From there, I can instantly play back this on one of my home TVs, or play it back later when my family sits down for some evening entertainment. I can also store these in a personal library of favorites for future playback when my friends come to visit next weekend.

This surfing + media center connection would leverage the existing (and disparate) usage patterns of the respective PC and TV experiences, and as a result, reduce complexities in each device's interface design.  Imagine a future where Microsoft was the firm that linked the web and home entertainment together in the simplest way possible.  And then think about all the even more clever ways to extend and expand upon the "Send to" metaphor for the Microsoft ecosystem (the cloud, Windows Phones, Xbox's, etc.). 

In contrast, Google TV's approach to the next generation of TV requires a lot of typing (in the form of searching) on the TV interface itself.  Sorry, Google, I don't think the future of TV is search. 

----

Postscript: I know I don't blog as much as I should here (and I apologize for that), but it usually takes something substantive to get my juices flowing.  And Google's announcement did just that.  If you want me to blog about anything specific, please feel free to reach out to me with a request: jon [at] jondeutsch.com

Back when Microsoft announced support for CableCARDs, there was widespread excitement around the commitment Microsoft had made to the future of Media Center and high-definition television (at least stateside; a bit less hi-def love has been doled out to our friends abroad).  Yet, when the news came out about the serious restrictions around CableCARD, there was a mixed reaction at best.  Yes, the restrictions were a big set back for the enthusiast market and for those who had already invested in hardware for existing Media Center installations. However, there were reasons for some optimism: 

1) Many (including myself) believed that in good time a hack/work-around would be available in short order so that anyone could easily attach a CableCARD tuner to any PC.  

2) Microsoft telegraphed that it was hard-as-nails to even get what they got past CableLabs, and to hold tight because they were going to keep plugging away to open things up.

The first reason eventually came true, but at the time I never would have guessed it would had taken over two years!   The second reason seemed like an empty promise until Microsoft unleashed a bombshell of openness on us this week when they announced the lifting of several serious restrictions on CableCARDs and Media Center, including: removing the OEM cable-ready requirement, removing DRM encryption for most digital content, and adding support for switched digital video (SDV). 

Now, finally, we have something to work with.  The removing of the OEM cable-ready requirement opens up potential for the platform like no new feature could.  For starters, starting with Windows 7 -- reportedly the most robust, fulfilling Media Center version yet -- anyone who has a PC today can turn their XBox 360 into a cable box killer tomorrow.

This opens up a few markets.  First, the simple win: there's a new market for all the current enthusiasts' friends and families, who previously wouldn't invest in a whole new PC and accessories to enjoy Media Center.  Starting with Win 7, many of these hold outs might now invest the extra $200-$400 and plug in a USB CableCARD or two to get rid of their $15/month Cable box.  True, the math isn't great (with a 12-month recoup timeframe for each CableCARD), but the additional benefits of switching to Media Center help bias the equation, not to mention the existing disdain out there for monthly cable bills.  Prior to Win 7, you really needed to be passionate to go digital cable with Media Center, but with the restrictions lifted, it'll be much easier to get the intrigued audience to jump aboard.  An intrigued market is larger than a passionate market, but it's by no means a huge market (I can hear Chris Lanier in my head right now saying that the enthusiasts' friends-and-family market would still be a drop in the proverbial bucket for a company the size of Microsoft -- which I completely agree with). 

The next market is a bit more interesting.  We'll have to see how Microsoft decides to play it, but in a few months, there will be millions of people with a Win7 PC in their homes.  Some of them will already have Xbox 360s, and some won't.  For customers who have both, Microsoft has a unique opportunity to connect their Win7 boxes with their Xbox's, which creates an interesting narrative for Microsoft to share with content providers:  "We've put in place a Microsoft-managed aggregation, delivery and home distribution platform for broadcast, cable TV, and internet content.  Would you like to learn more about aggregate viewing behaviors across mediums?  Or maybe you want to sponsor something in the stream we are enabling?  Let's have lunch."  For those who don't have Xbox 360s but do have Win7, Microsoft has an equally interesting opportunity to sell Xbox 360s to a new, non-gaming market through a Give Back Your Cable Box campaign where Microsoft can not only save customers money in monthly bills (compelling in this economy), but arm them with the ultimate home invasion technology that will not only replace their cable box, but give them a great entertainment device as well.  In this scenario, the "X" in the Xbox 360 finally starts to resonate -- it's clearly more than just games.  It can now be marketed as a set top box that reduces clutter, boxes and monthly fees (oh, and it's a kick-ass game machine that will Natal your pants off soon, too). 

[This is all presuming, by the way, that there will be no other competing extenders in the market.  I'm not entirely convinced of this, but for simplicity's sake, let's just assume that the Xbox 360 will be the only viable extender.  And keeping with this simplicity, let's also assume any issues we as enthusiasts have with Xbox 360s as extenders are not a serious problem for most consumers.]

However, attempting to grow the Media Center / Xbox 360 market into the CableDVR market will require Microsoft marketing Windows 7 Media Center as a consumer product.  This means a multi-faceted campaign that includes (tasteful) "within Win 7" promotions, television ads, and preparing slick promotional materials around Win 7 PC showrooms across the nation.  Imagine again this Give Back Your Cable Box campaign theme where if you buy a new Win 7 machine and a digital cable tuner, you get an Xbox 360 at 1/2 price.  Included in this package deal would be a big, fold-out instruction manual that would be no more complex than that of a TiVo. 

Can Microsoft pull off such a feat?  Well, this is where I have my doubts.  Microsoft is a software company first, not a consumer-experience company.  Yes, they are trying.  And, yes, they are making progress.  And I do think they will eventually come around with some good consumer experience competencies as an organization.  But they're just not there yet, and I'm not all that convinced that they're keen to invest in market research business models like consumer behavior tracking, even if they decide to push the compelling linkage of Win 7 and Xbox 360.   It would take a lot of vision to bring all this together (which I think is within Microsoft's grasp), but it would take a whole lot of non-engineering skills to implement a consumer-friendly roll-out, promotion, and support system along the lines of TiVo.  Unfortunately, I don't think Microsoft has enough TiVo DNA in it yet to really pull it off.  I hope I'm wrong.

But, hey, even if the grand-takeover-of-consumer-eyeballs might be out of reach, at least now I will be able to evangelize and sell-through new media center installations to a new set of friends and family.  Everyone who experiences my Media Center-powered home theater loves it.  Soon, I'll be able to honestly tell more people: "I have some good news; it's now easier and cheaper than ever to add this to your home, too."  

With these new digital cable restrictions lifted for consumers, Media Center is finally free to enable digital dreams for more people. 

It seems to me that Windows Media Center is a "1.0" solution in an increasingly "2.0" world.  Meaning, the world of digital and social media is rapidly evolving, and it looks like Microsoft has been riding out the stored media trend, and has been quite slow and ineffective in capitalizing on the surge of online digital media and the increasing interactivity now possible between and amongst users and vendors.

So, how did we get here?   When I say "we," I mean those of us who have invested and believe in the Windows Media Center platform for home entertainment, and when I say "here" I mean the state of Windows Media Center in relation to its features, focus and appeal.

In 2002, Microsoft had a really nice head-start with Media Center and launched one of the coolest, full-featured DVRs on the market.  It not only recorded TV, but it managed all of your CDs, MP3s, DVDs (remember the DVD changers?) as well.  And, as an added bonus, it even had an Online Spotlight menu item, enabling users to seamlessly pivot between traditional content sources and new media sources.

Seven years ago, Microsoft had an appropriate mix of traditional and new media sources, brought together through an elegant, seamless interface.  When Vista was launched five years later, CableCard support emerged, making Media Center a top-tier, relevant DVR once again, and Online Spotlight transformed into Online Media -- seemingly primed to take the idea even further, as new content partners emerged, and most of the original ones stayed on.  Upon launch, Vista Media Center seemed ready to take the home media world on by storm on all fronts.

However, while we saw some progress, cracks in the online pavement began to emerge.   All of the old Online Spotlight providers kept their old, clunky, hosted HTML interfaces intact.  None moved to the new, fresh, integrated MCML look and feel.  Some of the new providers had slick interfaces, though, which led to a larger yet sloppier overall Online Media experience.   On top of that, far too often, entering and exiting apps just was not a pleasant experience: slow load times and harsh exits led to a feeling of "bolt-on."  Last, but certainly not least, there was not an easy process for new content providers to jump into the Online Media ecosystem.  Or, if there was, it certainly wasn't obvious to me.

Since Vista's launch, there have been a few advances as well as setbacks.  There is Internet TV (perpetual beta) and the more recent MSNBC news app.   These certainly feel like new media apps, but they are actually just repackaging of gated corporate content within the MSN and MSNBC content repositories.  It's fine, but it's gated and therefore limited in its potential.  With regards to setbacks, we've been steadily losing Online Media content providers to the point where the section looks downright depressing.  Personally, the recent loss of NPR in the Online Media area was a serious blow for me.  But systemically, it does not bode well for Media Center in general -- NPR clearly wasn't getting the hits from us to support maintaining a single custom page of streaming content for us.  Wow.

Over the past few years, however, the independent development community stepped up and starting building apps that integrated with new media sources:  Netflix, Last.FM, Youtube, and similar sources had dedicated apps designed to expand the Online Media experience for users. Great news, right?  Actually, it's kind of a mixed blessing.  Most of these apps are fantastic, but because Microsoft doesn't enable usability standards in its SDK, each app has its own way of navigating and presenting content.  This is cool and creative, but it actually works against the entire concept of Media Center -- a unified experience that your mom could use.

Worse, due to a lack of an "app store" for Media Center, very few developers even think of making any kind of living off of building fantastic apps.  The result is a cottage industry of erstwhile developers trying their mightiest to develop new features, but rarely having the resources for a design firm or to commission a usability study.  So, even if a Media Center user even could find a new app (and most never will), they'd have to also deal with the variations of user experience across the Media Center experience.  And don't even get me started on the installation process required for us 10-footers.

But the most tragic thing happened to me a few months ago: I lost the ability to stream Last.FM music via the MCEfm app for Media Center.  Last.FM finally changed their APIs, and the awesome developer of MCEfm has apparently lost interest and/or ability to keep his app up-to-date.  For the past year, MCEfm (by elegantly integrating the great library of music in Last.FM) became more desirable to me than my own ripped library of music.   Through MCEfm and Last.FM, I learned about new artists, and was able to easily stream playlists of similarly-styled music for any occasion.   MCEfm was by far the most-used app on my Media Center, and I miss it very, very much.

This background and personal experience leaves me feeling that there is a gaping hole in the Media Center strategy.  How can it be that, in 2009, Media Center is still an island, and still primarily geared toward stored media, when the world is so rapidly moving to online distribution of content?   How can it be that the only cable-card-ready DVR that is based on the vast resources and flexibility of a personal computer cannot inter-operate with the likes of Hulu, Last.FM, Pandora, Youtube, and the plethora of branded and unbranded online content providers?  How could it be that such an amazing home media application could be so far behind my Windows Mobile phone?  With the fantastic mobile application called Kinoma Play, my phone can stream Last.FM, YouTube, NPR and a host of other content on-demand.  They even get the model right: they provide a "guide" full of great content that just works, but also allow the user to add his/her own content feeds.  Yes, in the context of streaming media, my phone can do more than my home media PC can do right now.

So, where does that leave us?  Well, I'm not entirely sure, and here's why:  I don't run Win7 Media Center yet, so I don't know what the Online Media and the Internet TV channel integration looks and feels like.   Also, I obviously don't know what Microsoft has planned for us vis-à-vis online media in the future (heaven forbid Microsoft give us a road map -- I mean, Media Center and national security kind of go hand-in-hand, right?).  

What I do know is that Media Center still has the underpinnings of a break-through home media entertainment system.   And it still has the huge competitive advantage of being digital-cable compatible (most people watch digital cable, not online content).  The question that remains is: what is Microsoft's digital dream for Media Center?   Do they dream of it being a next-generation portal for all online content, no matter the source?   Do they see themselves building services that would enable end-users to simply connect online media sources to the Online Media area?  Are they embarrassed that they still don't have built-in RSS feed support for podcasts and video podcasts?  

And, are Microsoft employees shaking their heads in frustration -- or do they get excited? -- when they see an idea like giving customers a "Send this to my Media Center" tool from within Internet Explorer (on any PC they use), enabling a queue and archive of content waiting for them in Media Center as a result of what they've found throughout their surfing sessions?   It would not be difficult to implement (heck - it already exists!  Amazon.com does something very similar with their own digital content), and I'd argue incredibly useful, fun and viral.

I dream in digital, so I have no shortage of ideas for Media Center.  I wonder who's dreaming in digital at Microsoft?  I see a bunch of architects and developers from Microsoft in the community, but I'd love to meet some of the dreamers as well.  And, national security notwithstanding, I'd love to see some of the Microsoft dreamers blogging about how they envision the future of this tremendously capable and compelling home entertainment platform.

However, I'm not going to hold my breath, so I'll ask the community to contribute some of your dreams.  How would you like to see Media Center evolve and implant itself into the "2.0 world" of media and entertainment?  Feel free to include the ZuneHD and Xbox360 in your dreams if you are so inclined.  I promise not to get upset if you see a threesome in your dreams.

 [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!

Hi there. 

Thanks to Chris Lanier and Ian Dixon, I now have a blog, which gives me the opportunity to share my views, perspectives and advocacy with the Windows Media Center community.  So, thanks to both of them! 

As a long-time contributor to the online forums (TheGreenButton, primarily), many in the community probably know a bit about me.  But for those who don't, I'll take a few lines to provide some brief background on me.   Then, I'll move right into what people care about: Media Center!

I'm Jon Deutsch (yes, that's the "Jon" in "Jon's Digital Dreams"), and I have a passion for elegant, functional and useful innovations.   My background is actually quite varied, and includes technology & computer science, music & electronic music composition, communications & writing/blogging, user experience, branding & marketing, political messaging, and leadership & management.  In addition, I love traveling and seeing the world.  Oh, and I really enjoy learning, debating and inspiring.

This background converges into my passion for Windows Media Center, amongst other fantastic technologies and innovations that help give me a kick out of life.  This same background, however, also helps me see "missing pieces" in strategies, opinions and decisions that can be difficult to sit back and idly observe.   As a result, I am drawn to jumping in to the conversation to help complete the picture, dream up solutions, or at least analyze the situation so that others might gain some new perspectives.

And jump in is what I plan to do in this blog.  Whenever something inspires or irks me enough to step up and share, you'll see them right here in Jon's Digital Dreams.  And I'll be using other blog posts and feedback here as fodder for future posts, as a way to make this more of a conversation instigator than a traditional blog.

Future posts will (hopefully!) be automatically cross-posted from my blog at The Digital Lifestyle.