Microsoft is back on its interactive TV kick. Why they keep trying is the first question that springs to mind.
The latest word is that the next version of the Windows 2000 operating system, code-named Whistler, will incorporate "revolutionary" new Microsoft TV software.
Its developers envision a media-tuned PC, using a standard television as a monitor, at the heart of the Microsoft-driven home entertainment center of the future.
These Windows-driven devices will ultimately provide all kinds of value-adds to the consumer, from TiVo-like capabilities on up to fully interactive TV.
Microsoft's hard sell should come as no surprise — unless, that is, you're unfamiliar with Redmond's less-than-stellar history in the TV arena to date.
What they're now calling their "Microsoft TV platform" is really an outgrowth of the company's 1997 acquisition of WebTV. But no matter what they call it, so far they've had a hard enough time even giving it away.
Microsoft's earlier attempts to penetrate the market involved set-top boxes built around WinCE, the stripped-down version of Windows also found in handhelds. AT&T signed on to ship the devices to anywhere from 5 to 10 million cable customers in 1999, but they were hardly enthusiastic.
Even after Microsoft agreed to pick up $5 million of AT&T securities, they still only got a non-exclusive contract, allowing AT&T to use competitors' hardware as well.
That clause turned out to be a good thing for AT&T, as release of that first-generation Microsoft TV hardware quickly became mired in delays. A viable WinCE-based set-top strategy has yet to emerge, and AT&T is now considering set-top boxes from Liberate Technologies instead.
Beaten but unbowed, now Microsoft returns with a new strategy. And this one, they say, will be a winner.
For one thing, they're sticking to familiar turf. Windows 2000 is more of a known commodity than a retooled WinCE for set-top units. Thus, the Microsoft TV software bundled with Whistler is bound to hit the market more mature than the earlier versions of the platform.
And while devices like set-top boxes tend to be closed, proprietary platforms, using lots of specialized parts, the pieces that go into standard PCs are mass-produced, commodity-priced and easy to integrate.
Overall, using a PC as the centerpiece of an interactive TV system ought to drive down the price of the whole system, Redmond tells us. And so, the logic goes, the result will be more attractive to consumers.
But just because an idea didn't first come from Redmond doesn't mean nobody's thought of it before. TV tuner boards for PCs (with accompanying software) have been around for a long time. And it was Philips, not Microsoft, that first tried to bring a TV-centric "entertainment PC" to market in the United States.
That device, the Philips DVX-8000, hit the market three years ago this month, to less-than-spectacular market response. It incorporated a 233 MHz Pentium-MMX processor, 32 MB of RAM, a 3.5GB hard drive, DVD drive, modem, floppy, a wireless keyboard and a top-of-the-line Marantz universal remote control.
It ran Windows 95, and could be hooked up either to a monitor, or directly to your TV. All this, for the low price of around $4,500 (plus TV).
The DVX-8000 was marketed to high-end TV consumers, not computer consumers. Philips went to great lengths to make it look like a piece of A/V equipment, rather than a PC. It was black, with the big volume knobs and LEDs you'd expect from an audio amplifier. You could switch it on by remote control.
But as a DVD player, it lacked the features of the high-end standalone equipment available at the time, such as component video output or DTS sound. And for most users, the novelty of navigating DVDs with a wireless keyboard soon wore off. So did waiting for Windows 95 to boot before the machine could be used, and listening to its noisy fans as it sat next to the TV.
And as a PC, the DVX-8000 shipped behind the curve, and would be obsolete not long after it found a home. It was difficult to expand, with most upgrades requiring manufacturer-authorized service. But with minimal RAM, no network card, and no means to back up the hard drives, most users would soon find themselves needing an upgrade or two.
Far be it from Microsoft to learn a lesson from some company in the Netherlands, though. They'll press on with the latest iteration of their Microsoft TV strategy. Like an addict, it seems like they just don't know when to quit.
In a recent interview with Wired magazine, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen explained how Microsoft's fixation on interactive TV — and the fact that Sun, SGI, Oracle and all the other big players would doggedly follow suit — allowed a little company named Netscape to sneak in under Redmond's radar.
"(The Internet) was thought of as a ploy — a low-bandwidth ploy," said Andreessen. It wasn't until the release of Netscape's browser and the company's subsequent skyrocket to success that Microsoft would take notice, turn its attention away from interactive TV, and make the Web its focus.
Now the giant seems to have returned to its old fixations. Again they're promising us a television revolution — but does anyone really want the one they're offering?
Back in the early 1990s, Viacom Cable announced they were ready to deliver the future of interactive television. The major test-bed for their new technologies was right here in the Bay Area, in Castro Valley.
They tore up miles of asphalt in the sleepy Hayward suburb, and replaced its cable wires with bi-directional fiber-optic lines. They issued subscribers new, state-of-the-art StarSight digital cable boxes. And everybody waited.
Then in 1996, Viacom was purchased by TCI, and before long it was announced that the ambitious plans for the Castro Valley test site would be "put on hiatus." (That's TV talk for "canceled.")
Maybe TCI had heard about the poor success rate of similar pilot programs elsewhere. Bell Atlantic had gotten movies-on-demand working, for instance. But the technology was so clunky that just pausing a movie took dialing a phone number, punching in a code, and then waiting several minutes for the action to stop.
Eventually the same TCI that bought Viacom and scrapped its interactive TV efforts was itself acquired by AT&T. And now AT&T is again shipping interactive TV set-top boxes to its customers. Meanwhile, Microsoft presses forward with its new PC-based strategy. Why?
We're not much better off today than the last time around. Waiting for technology to catch up has driven video-on-demand visionaries like Reel.com deep into the red.
Tally your own success rate with streaming full-motion video, or even Internet radio or phone calls, and gauge for yourself. Does it really seem like we're ready for on-demand Internet movies?
Look no further than Microsoft's own press releases to give away the real goals. The Microsoft TV platform, they say, allows network operators to deliver "services including interactive TV programs, electronic programming guides, and e-commerce."
You can bet it's that last one that's the biggie. Right now, television advertising commands vast amounts of revenue, all controlled by the major media networks. Who controls the broadcast towers, controls the money.
But if advertisers can be encouraged to adopt a more interactive, software-driven model, with content delivered by traditional computer network protocols, then they can be steered away from the traditional media outlets and right into Microsoft's ball game.
Microsoft's vision of interactive TV isn't about consumer choice. It's about giving advertisers a choice — to spend their money on a medium designed by Microsoft, instead of the one now controlled by the major television networks.
Some revolution.
