Yeah, the moxi server is sexy. Predictably though I don't like it. This is a big move in the push towards getting rid of the general purpose computer.
I imagine the big content companies asking themselves "How can we deliver all this digital content, but insure that consumers are only able to do with it what we want?"
The answer, of course, is to take away the general purpose computer (where "general purpose" means "configurable" - you can get at the OS level and change things around, adding software of your choice, deleting previously installed software, writing your own, etc....) The home media server is an attempt to create such a closed box solution. Microsoft XP is an attempt to do this in software. They're all going to offer to take you for a ride on the infotainment highway, but they're not going to mention that you'll be locked in the trunk once you agree to go along.
Why not just leave a regular PC at the center of things? Well, maybe because they are "too hard to use," but I think it's really because they don't want you to be able to download Kaaza or Morpheus and share files. Or they don't want you to be able to install software to rip CDs to MP3s. Or they don't want you to be able to install Jabber if your home media server comes with Microsoft Instant Messenger and some sort of monthly service contract with MSN. They probably don't even want you to be posting to digitalmediatree.com, because you really should be using some $x/byte web hosting service owned by a company they made a deal with. (Note, I'm not against the cost here, but the lack of choice - like the deal will be made by the set-top box maker with, say, AOL, or MSN, and then the box will come loaded to only work with those services, and you won't have the choice to decide who to pay.)
Yeah, I know, nothing new here. Of course I think this. But these devices are coming, regardless of what I think, and I guess they will be good for some people. The problem is, I fear that this is just the first wave. And when it doesn't work out so well for them (and it won't I think) they might try to go further. I think they might try to actually outlaw the general purpose computer. For any use.
Crazy? I hope so.
Very curious what you think...
I WISH it were possible for big media companies to pull of these huge conspiracies...
but i think it's more like, cable operators want to spend as little as possible and give consumers something as easy to use as possible that, yes, only accepts content which they control (so they can charge fees as gatekeepers).
so they're interested in "dumbed down" boxes because
a) they're cheap (the nice price is about $250, which means Moxi's got a long way to go). remember, the cable company has to order the boxes even if they're going to resell them to end users -- that's a multi-billion dollar hardware bet which they HATE having to make
b) they're easy to use (I don't know the median reading level of US cable subscribers, but I'm betting it ain't high school). most tv viewers want to, like, watch more tv, not learn linux.
c) you can charge money for the content that goes through 'em...yes, it's true, that actually is how they make money...
having said all of which, operators are not averse to giving people access to the open net -- they're selling broadband internet access like crazy. But you bring your own PC. Selling $1000+ machines is Circuit City's job, not Comcast's.
Oh, by the way, guess who has higher profit margins, hardware makers, electronics retailers, cable operators, or cable programmers? ; )
Thanks for the long reply. Very interesting. I largely agree with what you say. Probably our positions are not that far apart. But we certainly use different language at a few points. Again, thanks for the chance to look into this.
I can see I need to watch the conspiracy angle. I don't really mean to suggest there is any conspiracy. I mean apart from the usual business practice of trying to maximize profit for shareholders. So it's more like events are conspiring as opposed to a group of guys sitting in a room plotting the downfall of open access. But either way (whether consciously planned by some cabal, or merely happening because of the confluence of many different rational business decisions from many different business camps) the ground work is being layed to restrict our access to general purpose computers. Or at least that's my contention.
"...cable operators want to spend as little as possible and give consumers something as easy to use as possible that, yes, only accepts content which they control..."
Certainly I agree that cable operators want to spend as little as possible. But wouldn't that mean using standard PC components and open source software? I can build you a linux (or BSD) based x86 headless computer today at your price point ($250.) And if you'll use open source software for the whole thing then even that development cost will be low. But of course that's a little disingenuous because it would be hard to make money on that - because there would be no barier to entry for other manufacturers - and there would be no way to protect the content. So I know that's not going to happen, but I just wanted to point it out. I think it's important to make it clear that the "only accepts content which they control" part of your equation is what keeps the price high. Without that need we'd already be there. That's the source of some frustration among consumers.
So I think the cable operators specifically don't want a "dumbed down" box. Although I think I see what you mean. They want the most dumbed down box that will still protect their position. But to me this doesn't qualify as a dumbed down box - it has several layers of complexity (and cost) built into it to protect content and market position. But in business circles this is probably taken for granted (obviously they're not trying to give the store away,) and so in that context I can see how this (the moxi, or whatever) would be considered a "dumbed down" machine.
"...most tv viewers want to, like, watch more tv, not learn linux..."
Yes, exactly. Linux (and other open source software - probably Ogg Vorbis to name one) would be used to keep cost down, and more importantly, to drive third party independent development. And this, I think, is what drives ease of use. We want linux (or other open technologies) because transparency and openness at the developer level breeds easy to use systems. The web (with the very open - view source - HTML) is the classic example of this. Everybody can use the web, and most people can even author for that environment. With ease. Because it's all open. We could make the same easy environment for audio/video. It wouldn't be fancy, but it would work and it would be easy not just to use, but to develop for. Linux isn't great because it will turn everyone into a hacker; it's great because it enables the small percentage of people who are hackers to actually help out their friends.
But I don't pretend we're going to get this sort of world. I'm just stating my disappointment. Instead of a very straight forward media object language we're going to get an absolute thicket of complex code all in the name of digital rights management. We're going to need layers of identity management, and region coding, and secured payment channels, etc... And all of these layers add complexity which means not only adding cost, but also locking out smaller developers because the APIs will be too unweildy to attack without a huge shop of programmers.
As for your point c) I think yes, this is the real reason. All the other stuff is a smokescreen. But again, this isn't wrong or a conspiracy, or anything. This is the rational business move. Unfortunately it won't yield the world I'm after.
But I don't think the cable operators are going to get exactly their world either. And the problem is that all the complex layers of DRM are going to be broken in short order. And then they will be left with a more complex (so, intrinsically less stable and higher cost) system that still doesn't protect their position. I'm guessing no engineer who speaks the truth gets anywhere near anyone making decisions. But eventually the word will get through. "If I can play it I can copy it." End of story.
Or it would be the end of the story except there is one more card they can play. They can get rid of general purpose computers. That's the one hidden assumption in the law of copy-ability. If I can't get at a general purpose computer (if I can't play the CD or DVD in my PC, or if my PC is outlawed) then it might be the case that I could play something without being able to copy it. And this legislative work around is already pretty far along. Here are some examples:
Studios sue PVR manufactuers "Nobody's suing people who actually infringe copyrights anymore. Everyone is suing people who make devices," Lemley said. "The [studios] are going after the creation of new technology."
Well, except they are going after individuals: including students doing cyptographic research
professors doing cryptograhic research
and kids who just want to watch DVDs they have legally purchased on their computers!
And that's just off the top of my head. I fear that the more frustrated the big companies become, the more they will lash out with legislative remedies. The best example to date has been over CPRM. See here for some details. Basically, it (at least seems) like the industry tried to get legislation requiring DRM to be installed on all ATA devices (that means on all hard drives!) This would be pretty close to my fear of outlawing general purpose computers. And this was last year! Luckily it (again, seems like) this was killed before it got off the ground. Good thing people are watching.
As for your question about profit margins, I have no idea. I'd be very interested to find out though. My guess would be that hardware makers (excepting the basically irrelevant niche player Apple) have very low margins. Electronics retailers I would think have very low margins as well, but higher than computer hardware makers. I'll guess that both cable operators and cable programmers have higher margins, but I can't guess which one is on top. I'll say programmers, just for fun. Probably I'm completely wrong though.
I'll consider it very generous if you even read through this whole thing. But if you do, thanks for playing. Now the real question: how can we make something cool? How can we clear away enough of these bad feelings between content holders and content consumers? Where's the middle ground where the big guys can still make money, but the little guys (a la the web explosion) can add in some real excitement? Can't we all just get along? ;-)
What people need to realze is that "digital" can also mean programmable. In this rush for everything to go digital, people need to consider the consequences down the road.
What was once the only in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theorists is now possible with only a few keystrokes! With a few lines of code, large companies can have a vast army of machines doing their bidding; machines that you thought you owned and controlled. Pressure is now on to include componants in the hardware to make this even more possible (note Micro$oft's "Palladium"). Is it "BIg Bronthr"? No. It is all in the name of "protecting content" and finding new ways to charge fees.
Maybe no one has noticed, but it has already started. When is the last you heard "The best things in life are free"? This concept has been made almost obsolete. Thie "digital age" may insure that it becomes obsolete. Think about how many monthly bills you pay now, and how many you paid 15 or 20 years ago. How many of those bills are for things that used to be free. An example for "TiVo" or "Replay TV" owners. The company requires a monthly subscription fee for what is basically an improved VCR. WHY? They say that it is to pay for the program guide. In reality, it is a "use fee" for being able to record copyrighted content; something that has always been legal and free with a VCR.
On the other hand, I used to pay for music...
|
I imagine the big content companies asking themselves "How can we deliver all this digital content, but insure that consumers are only able to do with it what we want?"
The answer, of course, is to take away the general purpose computer (where "general purpose" means "configurable" - you can get at the OS level and change things around, adding software of your choice, deleting previously installed software, writing your own, etc....) The home media server is an attempt to create such a closed box solution. Microsoft XP is an attempt to do this in software. They're all going to offer to take you for a ride on the infotainment highway, but they're not going to mention that you'll be locked in the trunk once you agree to go along.
Why not just leave a regular PC at the center of things? Well, maybe because they are "too hard to use," but I think it's really because they don't want you to be able to download Kaaza or Morpheus and share files. Or they don't want you to be able to install software to rip CDs to MP3s. Or they don't want you to be able to install Jabber if your home media server comes with Microsoft Instant Messenger and some sort of monthly service contract with MSN. They probably don't even want you to be posting to digitalmediatree.com, because you really should be using some $x/byte web hosting service owned by a company they made a deal with. (Note, I'm not against the cost here, but the lack of choice - like the deal will be made by the set-top box maker with, say, AOL, or MSN, and then the box will come loaded to only work with those services, and you won't have the choice to decide who to pay.)
Yeah, I know, nothing new here. Of course I think this. But these devices are coming, regardless of what I think, and I guess they will be good for some people. The problem is, I fear that this is just the first wave. And when it doesn't work out so well for them (and it won't I think) they might try to go further. I think they might try to actually outlaw the general purpose computer. For any use.
Crazy? I hope so.
Very curious what you think...
- jim 1-15-2002 2:45 pm
I WISH it were possible for big media companies to pull of these huge conspiracies...
but i think it's more like, cable operators want to spend as little as possible and give consumers something as easy to use as possible that, yes, only accepts content which they control (so they can charge fees as gatekeepers).
so they're interested in "dumbed down" boxes because
a) they're cheap (the nice price is about $250, which means Moxi's got a long way to go). remember, the cable company has to order the boxes even if they're going to resell them to end users -- that's a multi-billion dollar hardware bet which they HATE having to make
b) they're easy to use (I don't know the median reading level of US cable subscribers, but I'm betting it ain't high school). most tv viewers want to, like, watch more tv, not learn linux.
c) you can charge money for the content that goes through 'em...yes, it's true, that actually is how they make money...
having said all of which, operators are not averse to giving people access to the open net -- they're selling broadband internet access like crazy. But you bring your own PC. Selling $1000+ machines is Circuit City's job, not Comcast's.
Oh, by the way, guess who has higher profit margins, hardware makers, electronics retailers, cable operators, or cable programmers? ; )
- big jimmy 2-11-2002 4:23 am [add a comment]
Thanks for the long reply. Very interesting. I largely agree with what you say. Probably our positions are not that far apart. But we certainly use different language at a few points. Again, thanks for the chance to look into this.
I can see I need to watch the conspiracy angle. I don't really mean to suggest there is any conspiracy. I mean apart from the usual business practice of trying to maximize profit for shareholders. So it's more like events are conspiring as opposed to a group of guys sitting in a room plotting the downfall of open access. But either way (whether consciously planned by some cabal, or merely happening because of the confluence of many different rational business decisions from many different business camps) the ground work is being layed to restrict our access to general purpose computers. Or at least that's my contention.
"...cable operators want to spend as little as possible and give consumers something as easy to use as possible that, yes, only accepts content which they control..."
Certainly I agree that cable operators want to spend as little as possible. But wouldn't that mean using standard PC components and open source software? I can build you a linux (or BSD) based x86 headless computer today at your price point ($250.) And if you'll use open source software for the whole thing then even that development cost will be low. But of course that's a little disingenuous because it would be hard to make money on that - because there would be no barier to entry for other manufacturers - and there would be no way to protect the content. So I know that's not going to happen, but I just wanted to point it out. I think it's important to make it clear that the "only accepts content which they control" part of your equation is what keeps the price high. Without that need we'd already be there. That's the source of some frustration among consumers.
So I think the cable operators specifically don't want a "dumbed down" box. Although I think I see what you mean. They want the most dumbed down box that will still protect their position. But to me this doesn't qualify as a dumbed down box - it has several layers of complexity (and cost) built into it to protect content and market position. But in business circles this is probably taken for granted (obviously they're not trying to give the store away,) and so in that context I can see how this (the moxi, or whatever) would be considered a "dumbed down" machine.
"...most tv viewers want to, like, watch more tv, not learn linux..."
Yes, exactly. Linux (and other open source software - probably Ogg Vorbis to name one) would be used to keep cost down, and more importantly, to drive third party independent development. And this, I think, is what drives ease of use. We want linux (or other open technologies) because transparency and openness at the developer level breeds easy to use systems. The web (with the very open - view source - HTML) is the classic example of this. Everybody can use the web, and most people can even author for that environment. With ease. Because it's all open. We could make the same easy environment for audio/video. It wouldn't be fancy, but it would work and it would be easy not just to use, but to develop for. Linux isn't great because it will turn everyone into a hacker; it's great because it enables the small percentage of people who are hackers to actually help out their friends.
But I don't pretend we're going to get this sort of world. I'm just stating my disappointment. Instead of a very straight forward media object language we're going to get an absolute thicket of complex code all in the name of digital rights management. We're going to need layers of identity management, and region coding, and secured payment channels, etc... And all of these layers add complexity which means not only adding cost, but also locking out smaller developers because the APIs will be too unweildy to attack without a huge shop of programmers.
As for your point c) I think yes, this is the real reason. All the other stuff is a smokescreen. But again, this isn't wrong or a conspiracy, or anything. This is the rational business move. Unfortunately it won't yield the world I'm after.
But I don't think the cable operators are going to get exactly their world either. And the problem is that all the complex layers of DRM are going to be broken in short order. And then they will be left with a more complex (so, intrinsically less stable and higher cost) system that still doesn't protect their position. I'm guessing no engineer who speaks the truth gets anywhere near anyone making decisions. But eventually the word will get through. "If I can play it I can copy it." End of story.
Or it would be the end of the story except there is one more card they can play. They can get rid of general purpose computers. That's the one hidden assumption in the law of copy-ability. If I can't get at a general purpose computer (if I can't play the CD or DVD in my PC, or if my PC is outlawed) then it might be the case that I could play something without being able to copy it. And this legislative work around is already pretty far along. Here are some examples:
Studios sue PVR manufactuers
Well, except they are going after individuals: including students doing cyptographic research
professors doing cryptograhic research
and kids who just want to watch DVDs they have legally purchased on their computers!
And that's just off the top of my head. I fear that the more frustrated the big companies become, the more they will lash out with legislative remedies. The best example to date has been over CPRM. See here for some details. Basically, it (at least seems) like the industry tried to get legislation requiring DRM to be installed on all ATA devices (that means on all hard drives!) This would be pretty close to my fear of outlawing general purpose computers. And this was last year! Luckily it (again, seems like) this was killed before it got off the ground. Good thing people are watching.
As for your question about profit margins, I have no idea. I'd be very interested to find out though. My guess would be that hardware makers (excepting the basically irrelevant niche player Apple) have very low margins. Electronics retailers I would think have very low margins as well, but higher than computer hardware makers. I'll guess that both cable operators and cable programmers have higher margins, but I can't guess which one is on top. I'll say programmers, just for fun. Probably I'm completely wrong though.
I'll consider it very generous if you even read through this whole thing. But if you do, thanks for playing. Now the real question: how can we make something cool? How can we clear away enough of these bad feelings between content holders and content consumers? Where's the middle ground where the big guys can still make money, but the little guys (a la the web explosion) can add in some real excitement? Can't we all just get along? ;-)
- jim 2-13-2002 7:37 pm [add a comment]
What people need to realze is that "digital" can also mean programmable. In this rush for everything to go digital, people need to consider the consequences down the road. What was once the only in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theorists is now possible with only a few keystrokes! With a few lines of code, large companies can have a vast army of machines doing their bidding; machines that you thought you owned and controlled. Pressure is now on to include componants in the hardware to make this even more possible (note Micro$oft's "Palladium"). Is it "BIg Bronthr"? No. It is all in the name of "protecting content" and finding new ways to charge fees. Maybe no one has noticed, but it has already started. When is the last you heard "The best things in life are free"? This concept has been made almost obsolete. Thie "digital age" may insure that it becomes obsolete. Think about how many monthly bills you pay now, and how many you paid 15 or 20 years ago. How many of those bills are for things that used to be free. An example for "TiVo" or "Replay TV" owners. The company requires a monthly subscription fee for what is basically an improved VCR. WHY? They say that it is to pay for the program guide. In reality, it is a "use fee" for being able to record copyrighted content; something that has always been legal and free with a VCR.
- Dustin (guest) 2-10-2003 12:22 am [add a comment]
On the other hand, I used to pay for music...
- jim 2-12-2003 5:26 pm [add a comment]
- anonymous (guest) 3-21-2003 6:51 pm [add a comment]