CES 2007 - Part II: IPTV on Xbox 360, iPhone and DTX
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Manveer Wasson on January 16, 2007 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Trade Shows
The Issue with All Approaches
Apple, Microsoft and Sony aren’t the only companies trying to do convergence right; at CES we saw companies from HP to Netgear and D-Link all with their own attempts at connecting your PC to your TV. Unfortunately there’s no one device or set of devices that appears to do it all.
Part of the problem is that there is no clearly superior way to actually get content legally onto your PC. With the exception of the iTunes Music Store, which has been immensely successful in the music market, buying content legally is basically offered through a fragmented set of movie and TV download services. And with no clearly superior way of handling electronic distribution of content and DRM, much of the content stored on computers these days isn’t exactly legal. Most manufacturers shy away from making it easy to play content in commonly pirated video formats, e.g. DivX, which ends up making many of these digital media extender devices useless.
For years the PC industry was fighting for convergence, trying to get its side of the technology powerful and polished enough to actually support and drive consumer electronics devices in the home. That part has happened, now it’s more an issue of who is going to do convergence right, and this question is far less dependent on simply getting more powerful hardware on your network.
The issues surrounding approaches to DRM have made consistently headlines for the past couple of years in the technology world, but now the stakes are even higher. All of the major players want to be the one to figure out the model that works the best so that they may capitalize on convergence. Until one of them figures it out however, we’re bound to see many failed attempts at connecting the digital home, and many attempts that only bridge half the gap.
15 Comments
View All Comments
Furen - Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - link
AMD's DTX is not supposed to be as stringent as BTX. BTX required manufacturers to put the DRAM, northbridge and CPU aligned with one another in order to optimize cooling. DTX is more like a smaller ATX (with only two expansion slots and less width) than anything else. Manufacturers should be able to make very different layouts as long as they follow some basic guidelines. One thing that might be an advantage to AMD is that it can work with single-chip chipsets, though I have yet to see a single-chip IGP.Aluvus - Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - link
I am surprised Anand even had to ask why AMD didn't go with nanoBTX, given the known issue of using a processor with integrated memory controller on BTX boards. nanoBTX positions the memory and processor (relative to each other) in the same way that BTX does. This should be obvious.The general failure of BTX as a whole was also a factor, I'm sure.
floffe - Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - link
Plus the royalties to Intel. It's no good business sense pushing a platform that means you and everyone who uses it have to pay money to your worst competitor.Nehemoth - Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - link
Yes the royalties, until i know BTX is not royalties free as the DTX "standard".So DTX is royalties free, is backward compatible so why don't use it?
Missing Ghost - Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - link
The standard is not yet defined.