I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the Kaleidescape system- how it will handle this new hdcp requirement with bluray and hd-dvd. I really want to get a system, but I would hate to invest and find out it will not work with the new generation stuff. I spoke with the predsident of the company at CES and he said that the system will be able to handle bluray and hd dvd, but this new hdcp thing I just read about might throw a wrench in to their plans. Any thoughts?

I don't see how it would throw a wrench into their plans. Their players have been HDCP compliant since they were released (the KPLAYER2500 with HDMI). HDCP isn't really a new thing anyway.

If you scale the output on DVD beyong 480p via HDMI, there will be HDCP applied as is required per the DVD CCA licensing.

I own a multi-server cluster with 4 players and have personally verified this. I also have had HD content on my server for over a year - both 720p and 1080i at rates as high as 40mbit which is well beyond the top bit rate of either disc format.

BlueRay and HD-DVD both have managed copy in their specs now, so it will not be a problem to support either or even both in the Kaleidescape server. All one would need is a loader. Since neither of them are shipping yet, we don't have a loader but I figure that will be coming soon after - probably shortly after the PC drives start shipping. I don't mind waiting a few months since we won't have but maybe 50 titles in total out the chute anyway.

Multi server cluster? 4 players? You don't have the expertise to respond on this topic... joking of course. :) OK, that makes me feel better. I have had it explained to me that the kaleidescape takes a digital image of the disc and stores it complete on the server. Could you explain a little bit about how this works? Am I correct in saying that if that is the case, no matter what the optical disc format, kaleidescape will always be able to handle it with new readers and it's not going anywhere- as in- it will handle bluray and hddvd with no hitches, so it is a safe investment?

Am I correct in saying that if that is the case, no matter what the optical disc format, kaleidescape will always be able to handle it with new readersWell, no, it's not correct to say that no matter what the format, Kaleidescape can do it. In theory, a format could come along whose licensing restrictions preclude what Kaleidescape is doing with DVD. In fact, the folks at CSS have their knickers all bunched over what Kaleidescape is doing now with standard DVD, and have sued them over it. The lawsuit's not likely to go anywhere, because Kaleidscape took great pains to comply with their CSS license. But what is important is that Kaleidescape will put forward the same effort in the future to remain legal with future formats as well; it would be suicidal for them to do otherwise.

So, onto Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Poindexter is right, both of the new HD disc formats support mandatory managed copy (MMC), which is good news. But as always, the devil is in the details, and there are two relevant ones here. First of all, the studios are free to set the cost for managed copies. If they decide to be insane, they could charge more than the MSRP of the disc itself---i.e., they could price it out of reach for any reasonable consumer.

Secondly, the managed copy has to be transferred to a system whose security measures have been approved by the AACS consortium. I imagine that a sufficiently product-neutral storage format will be approved by AACS in short order, and Kaleidescape will be able to take advantage of that. In case that does not happen, Kaleidescape will have to float its own security model by AACS. Maybe they're already doing that, I don't know. Certainly, they have a very secure system, and except for possible anticompetitive reasons I can't see AACS turning them down.

In summary, I think we all have good reason to be optimistic that Kaleidescape will be able to support these new formats, eventually. But it is by no means a surety; and even if it comes, it may not be cheap. If you decide that you must have assurances that Kaleidescape will support these new formats, you're going to have to wait for the company to provide those assurances themselves. We can speculate all we want but only they can give a definitive answer. And I doubt they will be able to do so at least for a little while, until the AACS spec settles down.

On the other hand, who's to say that Kaleidescape needs HD-DVD or Blu-Ray support? Their system is ideally designed for online distribution of content. They certainly have the security measures in place. So who knows, maybe one day the fears about these new disc formats will be irrelevant, because the studios will have cut deals with the studios to do things their own way.

Personally, I would not delay a Kaleidescape purchase based on fears of BD or HD-DVD compatibility. The only wrinkle, frankly, is that you will need to purchase a new Kaleidescape loader when the HD-DVD and BD hardware comes out. Hopefully Kaleidescape won't price this loader, or loaders at too high a price for existing customers. And hopefully, they'll make these loaders available by, say, September? - depends on when BD hardware actually ships.

While Kaleidescape has expressed interest in being a conduit for the download of movies, I haven't seen or heard anything that would make me feel that this will happen soon. I think we'll be stuck with discs for a while yet. But that is surely where they are heading.

Mr.Poindexter - what content do you have that is coded at 40 mbits?

In summary, I think we all have good reason to be optimistic that Kaleidescape will be able to support these new formats, eventually.

Yep, Kaleidescape is an Associate member of HD DVD Promotion Group. :)

Well that's definitely a good sign, lyzmy.

I agree with ptrubey in that even without HD disc support right now, a K purchase is well worth it and will be for some time. The problem with these new formats is that they still don't have all features ready to go for their respective launches. Initial runs of HD-DVD titles may not have any of the next gen audio formats and won't offer 1080P. The HDMI 1.3 spec isn't set yet and as Michael said, the availability of MMC doesn't ensure that you'll be able to transfer content from any disc and, even if so, at what price? And then there's that whole format war thing.

Personally, I'm already fatigued by all the back and forth on the new formats. Yeah, I'm getting a PS3 when it comes out, but I may wait for a while before I start building up a next gen library. I want to see all of these new features actually show up in software before I get on board and decide which one to back. It may be a while before that happens, though.

Jeff

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=16413

Jeff

Paul, the Kalahari videos are encoded at 40mbit.

I think the big impediment to downloading content is two-fold: no studio want to be first to try it out and when they do try it out, they won't do it with their premium content so the first round will quite possibly be Throw Momma From The Train, Last Action Hero and of course Terminator 2 - the one hit they have no problem selling over and over again - of course they won't offer the extended edition first so they can double dip you on it.

The hope is that Longhorn/AACS will mean that EVERYONE can do it, and compete with folks like K, who currently have someone of an unfair advantage because of their deal they have to legally rip DVDs. Once it becomes legal to do it, then all of us who have products in this space will be able to compete on the same playing field, then it will get interesting.

Ironically, they are the only ones who have a deal to legally load DVDs into their server and yet at the same time are the only ones to be sued for doing it.

I think one of the issues that would be a long term problem if it were not for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is that Kaleidescape has a patent on how to load DVDs and not circumvent the CSS agreement according to what I have heard.

The hope is that Longhorn/AACS will mean that EVERYONE can do it, and compete with folks like K, who currently have someone of an unfair advantage because of their deal they have to legally rip DVDs. Once it becomes legal to do it, then all of us who have products in this space will be able to compete on the same playing field, then it will get interesting.

Watch the price of the K come tumbling down once competing products hit at half the cost. Just like the Sony Ruby who did justice to knock DLP pricing in line these content servers will go through the same adjustment and soon something will be available the average consumer can afford. There are a lot of smart companies out there able to pull this off.

I don't know, Alan. I haven't seen the cost of the Crestron TPS control panels tumble since Control4 started shipping.

It isn't like Kaleidescape is the only one out there with high pricing for media servers. The AMX MAX system isn't cheap and neither is a Video Request system. They will add that functionality but I don't think we are going to see a serious contention for that business out of the PC crowd with one hard drive holding only 20 films. This will be in the realm of massive RAID servers with online capacity expansion.

The Kaleidescape has already reduced their price by $5K since it was launched and that was without a serious competitor but just due to demand driving their shipments to offer better economies of scale. Economies of scale are great for software, but the hardware in their servers isn't cheap and that isn't going to drop as fast in price.

The "average" consumer is not going to have an HD-DVD server outside of a DVR that will store a few programs indefinitely. Maybe some day in the future, but not this year or the next. The costs for such a system that can store a reasonable number of titles just isn't going to work at that level. Expect to see them using disc carousels instead.

I would tend to agree with alan. What makes K so slick is the software and stability of the system. It's wonderful for the high end market. There isn't really the same slick kind of system for the lower end market that's all integrated like K is. There are lots of front-ends and such that allow you to have similar functions, but not nearly as together as K. You can have a distributed server system like K with all your DVDs on it with MCE or any similar kind of front-end for very very cheap.

I think as PC use continues to converge with A/V stuff, there will inevitably be cheaper software that integrates ripping(including legally for HD stuff with managed copy protection etc) and organization and playback that will allow you to build your own computer-based system for this that's a lot more streamlined than the current crop of front-ends. I'm not sure how K will keep a long-term strategy solvent because besides their software, it's not as if they have a profoundly unique product. Drive space is getting very very cheap, if there's software out there for even a few hundred dollars that does what K does, there's no way they can keep their prices where they are that I can see. I expect that HD-DVD and BRD will have PC playback and managed storage capability, so it just seems inevitable that as distributed video gets to be more mainstream, that there will be a lot of simpler solutions for a lot less money.

Im hearing there are some things in the works. Once that first product hits at substantial discount Im sure it will have impact on the current monopoly. Even if its not 100% as slick out of the gate it will leave its mark just as the Ruby is not perfect but because of its price it rocked the projector industry.

HD DVD. I am sure you will not see compatibility right away. You will be waiting a while.
Also considering the average HD title will use an estimated 20gig or more, 3 to 4 times the space of a single DVD those wanting to archive an HD library (and who wont) will find the need for far more storage hiking the average price of the system up even higher. I went through 4 tera bites on my home brew server with HD content at 12gig per title in no time.
With the additional hard drive space thats going to be in demand HD DVD will drive the price down on these and help the competition to quickly gain momentum.

Alan-
The devices that may compete with Kaleidescape- are these going to be software solutions for installation on a pc computer server system, or are then similiar to kaleidescape in that they will be hardware based as well?

K is a member of both BluRay and HD DVD consortiums.

Yes, it's often said over and over again that Kaleidescape will face serious downward price pressure as competitors come online. But as far as I understand it, the folks at K aren't oblivious to that, and their future product strategies reflect that. Their prices have gone down over time, and they will continue to; and new products will come in at lower price points.

On the other hand, it seems to me that Poindexter's Crestron example is a good one. Sure, people don't have to pay all those big $$$ for a Crestron control system; people can buy and program a good learning/macro remote on their own. But somehow, Crestron still sells plenty, and there are two reasons for that, as far as I can tell.

For one thing, plenty of people don't want to do it themselves. They want a solution that they plug in, and it works. A full turnkey media server solution.

And for another thing, there are a lot of genuine practical hurdles in the automation process that a lot of DIY'ers don't take into account, at least not at first. That is, they're initially naive about the complexities until they truly do it themselves. When they do, they typically end up with something far less elegant and simple as they had hoped to start with. Yeah, it works, but...

...and I think the same thing is going to happen with media servers, too. I frankly think that no individual is going to be able to come close to duplicating the ease of use and completeness of the Kaleidescape approach. There will be quite a wide variety of adequate, even good, solutions; and then there will be the high end, where Kaleidescape sits today. No, they won't be able to charge what they do today, but they will still be priced considerably higher than the median.

I don't own one now, but I sure as heck have it on my short list for my new media room. I'm telling you, a Kaleidescape controlled with a Crestron touchscreen is a wonder to behold, no matter how technically savvy and DIY-capable you may be.

I do not think Crestron is the best example. The majority of their business comes from the commercial industry. Crestron is speced into every Church, conference/board rooms ect. Im willing to bet the % they get from high end HT is very small over all and if they pulled out of HT all together they would still thrive very well. Any HT that is blessed with a Crestron product is icing on the cake for them.
Kaleidescape as far as I know do not have the luxury of a huge second market to fall back on.

Just as Sam Runco now offers a 2k DLP. Who figured we would ever see that day. I think Sam is smart. He makes the transition before needing to and is always a step ahead while others wait until they have to when its sometimes to late. Im sure we will see other companies with high markup products facing that same pressure sooner or later. At least the ones who have or are about to face competition. D Box for instance to date has no worries:)

I frankly think that no individual is going to be able to come close to duplicating the ease of use and completeness of the Kaleidescape approach. There will be quite a wide variety of adequate, even good, solutions; and then there will be the high end, where Kaleidescape sits today. No, they won't be able to charge what they do today, but they will still be priced considerably higher than the median.

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, I think K type systems will remaiin at the high end, relatively speaking, but I fully expect that within the next few years there will be very capable software solutions, and perhaps bundled hardware+software solutions that are as turn-key and ready to go out of the box as K is. Right now, that does not really exist. There are a lot of people running media servers for music and video and things like that, but it's still relatively DIY as you point out. We're starting to see a lot more network-player kind of things for music and video, and I think as the computer world and the TV/music world continue to merge, it is inevitable that turn-key products will come from major vendors with pretty thorough support. I mean, Microsoft's MCE is still a fairly crude example of this, but who knows what something like Vista may have to offer, or what kinds of software will turn up. I'm actually surprised that Apple hasn't really pushed too much in this direction. They've done wonders with their ipod, and they're moving towards video for that, but think about what happens when content starts coming from the net like itunes, and there is a desire to integrate that kind of library with your TV. The jump isn't too significant to envision over the next few years. Right now it's pretty clumsy, and software solutions are still pretty clunky and DIY, but in a few years I don't think it's a stretch to see someone like Microsoft or similar to release software that can integrate with LAN/WAN players for audio and video, and integrate downloaded media, library distributed over a network, legal ripping to storage servers, etc etc that is as easy to setup and use as setting up a LAN. Right now that doesn't exist really besides relatively clunky DIY solutions or high end integrated stuff like K, but I think it's coming.

I paid 30k for a Teranex a fews ago. Still crated new in box while the customers theater faces completion. We wanted to get the latest up grade or trade her for the cheaper ( cheaper, yea right) 2 RU and Teranex offered us 8k for this 3RU on a trade to the 2RU. What a crash in value. Im willing to bet you will see the same thing happen to "some" of this stuff. Especially when new aggressive cheaper competition is right around the corner but thats the price we pay for being on the cutting edge. Sometimes its no fun playing it safe.

I do not think Crestron is the best example. The majority of their business comes from the commercial industry. Crestron is speced into every Church, conference/board rooms ect. Im willing to bet the % they get from high end HT is very small over all and if they pulled out of HT all together they would still thrive very well. Any HT that is blessed with a Crestron product is icing on the cake for them.
Kaleidescape as far as I know do not have the luxury of a huge second market to fall back on.



This is not true today, as 46% of Crestron's business is in the residential market. I'm willing to bet that as commercial IP control solutions become increasingly advanced, that we'll see their commercial market begin to slide and a rapid shift to a residential focus.

As far as Kaleidescape, let me point out that it's been downright easy to load music onto any PC for quite sometime, yet still we're selling more music servers than ever. The money to be made isn't in the hardware--it's in the software, the reliability, the ease-of-use, the simplicity of scalability.

Yes, there will be more competition for Kaleidescape, and I'm sure they're preparing for that, but the high-end will always be there to support them. Hell, the Corvette is faster than plenty of Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, etc., but last time I checked Ferrari's margins were just as high as ever and the Corvette was being discounted. The high-end and the entry-mid markets are two very different worlds that rarely overlap, save for people like us that can make such comparisons.

This is not true today, as 46% of Crestron's business is in the residential market. I'm willing to bet that as commercial IP control solutions become increasingly advanced, that we'll see their commercial market begin to slide and a rapid shift to a residential focus.

As far as Kaleidescape, let me point out that it's been downright easy to load music onto any PC for quite sometime, yet still we're selling more music servers than ever. The money to be made isn't in the hardware--it's in the software, the reliability, the ease-of-use, the simplicity of scalability.

Yes, there will be more competition for Kaleidescape, and I'm sure they're preparing for that, but the high-end will always be there to support them. Hell, the Corvette is faster than plenty of Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, etc., but last time I checked Ferrari's margins were just as high as ever and the Corvette was being discounted. The high-end and the entry-mid markets are two very different worlds that rarely overlap, save for people like us that can make such comparisons.

Good points. Except the corvette sucks. It's a GM product... ;)

SweetSpot

You bring up some valid points. Regardless where the value lies the fact remains its pricey. My point, we are about to see a new trend in products that will offer the consumer a choice we do not have up to this point. With HD DVD we will see competing products offered from several larger companies that will do a very job and priced very competitively. This trend repeats itself over and over with everything. I am in no way directing my comments toward the quality of a product or company. My comments are directed on price and marketing trend.

Again taking the Sony Ruby for an example many people never thought they would ever be able to afford a first generation 1080P projector based on current projector price trends. But many people did spend beyond their budget to buy this thing based on hype alone. Sonys aggressive pricing forced consumers to take notice. Hi priced 1 chip DLPs price dropped to half over night.
The hardware and software in these high priced projectors remained first class but pricing still cut in half over night. We will see the same thing happen with content servers. K is not the only company in the world capable of writing software. Watch out for the larger companys who can afford to launch something
at such an aggressive price even if they failed they can afford it but the damage to the competition will be done and the new price reference set.

[QUOTE=SweetSpot]This is not true today, as 46% of Crestron's business is in the residential market. I'm willing to bet that as commercial IP control solutions become increasingly advanced, that we'll see their commercial market begin to slide and a rapid shift to a residential focus.
QUOTE]


I don't believe the residential market % is that High, having worked with Crestron and our commercial customers. Of course it would depend on which products as there are HT based solutions geared toward that segment. But overall there are perhaps 1 residential for every 10 Commercial projects. And even with that being said the scope and budget of the projects are significantly different where commercial projects garner the lions share of dollars.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Requis

[QUOTE=SweetSpot]This is not true today, as 46% of Crestron's business is in the residential market. I'm willing to bet that as commercial IP control solutions become increasingly advanced, that we'll see their commercial market begin to slide and a rapid shift to a residential focus.
QUOTE]


I don't believe the residential market % is that High, having worked with Crestron and our commercial customers. Of course it would depend on which products as there are HT based solutions geared toward that segment. But overall there are perhaps 1 residential for every 10 Commercial projects. And even with that being said the scope and budget of the projects are significantly different where commercial projects garner the lions share of dollars.

Just a thought.

Cheers,



Requis

That number is straight from Crestron, and it will continue to grow through increases in brand awareness and more new products aimed exclusively at the residential market, i.e., Adagio, Cameo keypads, etc. Their push into the residential lighting control market is certainly one of the main contributing factors to resi's large and consistent gains in revenue share over the last 5 years.

-Sean

Let's keep in mind a couple of things. First, unless the DMCA is changed or outright dropped (fat chance), Kaleidescape still has an edge on the current gen format which is significant. If they win the lawsuit, other DVDCCA licensees may decide it's fair game to use theirs in the same way that K has. However, it appears that most of them are holding tight to see how things play out. So, you're talking about being able to use the Kaleidescape with millions of currently available DVD titles right now before the first official next gen disc hits the shelves. It's going to take a while for these next gen format libraries to ramp up. Beyond that, as the article I posted says, MMC isn't part of the temporary AACS spec so that will incur it's own delay. When it does come, there's a chance we could all be very disappointed in how it is implemented. Even then, given that HD titles will require several times more storage space per, a competing server solution taking advantage of HD MMC will be expensive regardless of who makes it.

Kaleidescape has a head start in putting together a top notch system that is rock solid. They already are looking into scaled down versions at cheaper cost with more limited feature sets. Additionally, they've targeted next gen support from the get go so if there is a possibility of using the product with HD-DVD and BR, they will do all they can to include it. Personally, I think K's gonna be around for a while.

Is the cost expensive? Sure. But it's better than anything else out there, DIY or otherwise. Serious competiton will eventually come, but I've already been enjoying mine for over 2 years and it may be at least a year before we see anything else really step up. That time enjoying and not waiting has been worthwhile to me.

Jeff

I'm actually surprised that Apple hasn't really pushed too much in this direction. They've done wonders with their ipod, and they're moving towards video for that, but think about what happens when content starts coming from the net like itunes, and there is a desire to integrate that kind of library with your TV.

Like all the uncompressed and/or lossless audio that is available..., where is that available now? Yeah, we will see video available and it will look like the crap they sell for the PSP.

Our first really slick low cost media server will serve up hundreds of hours of junk. They will not be running high quality solutions like the Kaleidescape. Hell, look at how many people are running DVD Shrink just to save a few GB per disc and many of them are even compressing the video even further in an effort to put more than the system should hold at its given capacity.

Kaleidescape's biggest competitors won't be competitors at all because they are targeting a different market. They won't have an effect on Kaleidescape's pricing, but demand, economies of scale and Kaleidescape's internal bean counters will determine the price of their products.

By the way, how have the prices of high end CD transports like Wadia and Meitner come down with the stiff competition from the $39 DVD players at Wal Mart?

Like all the uncompressed and/or lossless audio that is available..., where is that available now? Yeah, we will see video available and it will look like the crap they sell for the PSP.

Our first really slick low cost media server will serve up hundreds of hours of junk. They will not be running high quality solutions like the Kaleidescape. Hell, look at how many people are running DVD Shrink just to save a few GB per disc and many of them are even compressing the video even further in an effort to put more than the system should hold at its given capacity.

Kaleidescape's biggest competitors won't be competitors at all because they are targeting a different market. They won't have an effect on Kaleidescape's pricing, but demand, economies of scale and Kaleidescape's internal bean counters will determine the price of their products.

By the way, how have the prices of high end CD transports like Wadia and Meitner come down with the stiff competition from the $39 DVD players at Wal Mart?

I think these are slightly misleading. First, I think there are a lot of people using DVD shrink or similar with no compression (including myself) to have a server library rather than a zillion DVDs. Further, though we don't have it now exactly, I don't think it's unrealistic at all with more and more broadband access, that content will come in a mixture of hard forms and via download. I mean, even with standalone systems, the need to have internet access to that to manage the library data and all that, and licenses and similar, it seems inevitable that there will be some kind of future distribution for film content similar to itunes. Sure, google video and the like and video stores are filled with junky crap right now, but I see especially for television, the ability to have on-demand video. I think some portion of this for high end stuff like HD content is of course natural, and I think Joe Kane was talking about this in one of the AVS radio shows a while ago.

Second, I don't think K is really going to be able to stay that unique though. Nor do I think they're going to go away, but they're not going to be the ONLY option out there. The point is, if you're looking at a very large pricetag for a K system, and there begin to be cheaper more mainstream systems that do basically the same thing it does now, I don't see what the motivation is to go to a K system. They would have to add some new, rare kind of capability, which is certainly possible.

Lastly, about the Metiner comparison, that's a completely erroneous one, because this is really an integration/distribution system, and less with pure absolute performance. I'll bet the comparable "Meitner" guys in the video world aren't using the K at all, they're all using teranex stuff and modded SDI players and things like that. Also, no high end video guys are using esoteric kinds of DVD players. They tend to blow chunks in general. I assume you meant in terms of CD players.

Kaleidescape does indeed do very unique things. They send out commands to control systems for the purported aspect ratio as well as the exact measurd aspect ratio for all films on the server when they are playing. They also send out command cues to let you know when a film is over to raise the lights or do any other pre-programmed actions at the end of a film. None of the players I have seen will do this without a lot of work in the PC side. Kaleidescape's info is all automatic, so you don't have to set up each disc in advance. Menu skipping is great as well, although I can see that being something everybody will want to copy.

No high end video guys are using esoteric DVD players? What are they using then? I have heard glowing reports about the Ayre player. I would also certainly consider the Immersive Symmetry DVP to be esoteric and it performed flat out amazingly. Still, the Kaleidescape will outperform those competitors in integration/distribution much like the Meitner will outperform just about any CD transport/player put up against it so I don't think the comparison is that far off base unless you are saying that performance isn't an issue for integration and distribution.

None of the players I have seen will do this without a lot of work in the PC side. Kaleidescape's info is all automatic, so you don't have to set up each disc in advance. Menu skipping is great as well, although I can see that being something everybody will want to copy.

I realize this. My point was that in the future this will not be an uncommon thing.

You can do a lot of slick stuff DIY, for instance I have menu-free movie starts, trailers and intros, etc. But it's a clunky mess to set up because no all-together well-supported solutions exist because it's not a mainstream market thing. But I think it will become moreso, which is why in the FUTURE, I think K type systems will become more commonplace, or a lot more robust software will be available for these kinds of things. Right now, I certainly agree however, that K is quite unique.

As for the high end stuff, the Ayre is a good point. I guess I was saying that a lot of high end audio brands come out with absurdly expensive DVD and video products that are hardly better than your run of the mill $200 player. My point was more along the lines that when someone comes out with these rare, very expensive video sources, it's usually a safe bet they're actually pretty mediocre when it comes to video. Unless I hear otherwise about the guts of the design, and see otherwise, I'm generally tempted not to care much about what the small-time video products are doing regardless of how inflated their prices are. I don't think the same can quite be said in the audio world, though certainly the market is riddled with similarly overpriced crap, but I don't think it's quite the same as in the video world. It doesn't seem like the Ayre is in that category at all, IMO.

I think the only "very expensive video sources with mediocre video quality" units are really audio units like universal players that just happen to also have video. If the Meitner also played DVD but didn't look any better than a $200 Denon would you say it was a poorly performing DVD player? Perhaps for DVD it would be but that isn't why one buys a Meitner. Nobody buys a Lamborghini for grocery shopping, either.

Masking control data will always be a rare thing. Think of how many people have ADJUSTABLE masking on their side panels. It is a very small market because it is very expensive with most of the cost in mechanical areas that are not going to drop in price overnight. Hell, my 4 way adjustable masking system retails for way more than the Kaleidescape does now let alone when prices come down, so I don't see that as a segment of the population that a Denon or Sony DVD server would target. I doubt even Escient would target that segment. I don't think AMX's MAX system has that and that is pretty close to Kaleidescape's price point. Same thing with Axonix and Video Request. If they are at the top tier of the market in terms of price and are not chasing that now, I don't see the low end chasing it. Maybe using presets, but certainly not actual measured numbers.

THis whole discussion is humourous at best.

Comparing K to an MCE is laughable for at least a few generations. (and k will be moving over that time frame as well)

How many of you here drive something other than a Kia? (i am not talking an S class, just a step over a KIA)

In almost every case here, the people talking down K have not seen a comprehensive complete demo. If they had, they would not be so sure about the "impending demise" of K.

If you want to know about the system, talk to K, get a demo. they will be glad to show you what it REALLY is.

I agree on the adjustable masking. But in a general sense, I think it's very likely that distributed video libraries over a LAN to various displays will become more commonplace as people get used to Tivo like video on demand.

Nobody buys a Lamborghini for grocery shopping, either.

True. But a lot of idiots buy Humvees and Land Rovers to drive over the speed bumps at McDonalds. It's just one more example of evidence why social darwinism is bunk.

This thread is languishing, I take the blame! :)

Yeah- but a Hummer will knock the **** out of any speedbump...

The real question here, I think, is whether the Kaleidescape model- closed proprietary system that is SLICK at what it does- is worth investing in now as opposed to the DIY "MCE, My movies, terabyte server" equivalent.

The main question I had related to that was whether or not Kaleidescape could handle blurayand hddvd. The answer seems to be a resounding "maybe," so I have come to the conclusion that is will be best to wait until the dust settles on 1080 disc material. I would love to see both fo these formats work with Kaliedescape, because that would future proof the system enough for me to buy it when I am ready- hopefully shortly. But- I would hate to buy it, and find out that the hd discs are not going to be compatible, new readers or not- because I think that regardless of how much pushing downloaded high def content gets from apple, microsoft, or anybody else, we are going to see the consumer adoption of one or both of these next gen disc standards first.

BTW- Ihave seen the Kaleidescape system demoed at Cavalti in Newport, and I have to say- it is absolutely unbelievable. If youhave not seen it, an I get the feeling everybody here has, do your self a favor and check it out- it really is perfect at what it is designed for.

Mr.Poindexter, have you had your K system for a year yet? How have the HD's held up over that time, and how often have you had to increase the size of your array?

I ask, because probably my only concern with getting a K system, is that when we make the jump to HD-DVD or BR, how will the systems handled the large jump in the required amount of space needed per film. Because it's one thing to rip 100-200 DVD's that average 7-8GB's per disc, it's another to rip 100-200 HD-DVD's/BR's that could average 15-20GB per disc.

Hopefully the cost of HD's will continue to decline, as their capacity continues to increase.

The real question here, I think, is whether the Kaleidescape model- closed proprietary system that is SLICK at what it does- is worth investing in now as opposed to the DIY "MCE, My movies, terabyte server" equivalent.

I guess that would depend on the user. You'd have to weight things like Time to set up, ease of use, reliability, costs, etc.

I know a guy that put in a K system in his new house to serve up a film collection of maybe 50 to 100 titles. It may not have been the most cost effective solution for such a small library, but he said he loves the simplicity and ease of use of the system. Since he works long hours during the day, he wanted to be able to come home at night and didn't want to have to fuddle with anything complicated.

Mr.Poindexter, have you had your K system for a year yet? How have the HD's held up over that time, and how often have you had to increase the size of your array?

I ask, because probably my only concern with getting a K system, is that when we make the jump to HD-DVD or BR, how will the systems handled the large jump in the required amount of space needed per film. Because it's one thing to rip 100-200 DVD's that average 7-8GB's per disc, it's another to rip 100-200 HD-DVD's/BR's that could average 15-20GB per disc.

Hopefully the cost of HD's will continue to decline, as their capacity continues to increase.

Mike can certainly fill you in on his system but I can throw out my experience. I've had 2 servers full with 300GB drives (24 total drives) for over 2 years. Only one drive failure. A couple of weeks ago, I had a drive apparently go down. I tried remvong and reseating it and the system then rebuilt the drive. The K folks checked diagnostic info and it seems to be working fine. I'm not sure what caused the failure but as long as it's working it doesn't matter to me. I didn't ask them to replace it but if it goes down again, they will.

For reference, I have over 670 titles using 91% of my storage space. So, I probably will look into expanding this year. It gets used at least every other day and there was a stretch there where it was being used every day for several hours per (I have kids and they loved having Elmo on in the background while they were running around and playing).

I don't all the technical impact details of HD and BR content on a system like the K, but 2 main issues are more storage space per disc and more bandwidth per title during playback. I don't think those will be much of a problem at all. We already have some, albeit limited, HD content on various user's K systems and it is working well. The new servers have gigabit ethernet to better accommodate multiple HD streams and the drive sizes have increased from 200 or 250 originally (can't remember which was the original) to 500 now with larger drives as time goes on. So, K is ready now for the increased bandwidth load and as drives get larger, they will be able to offer similar numbers of HD titles stored per drive as they started out with on standard DVDs.

Jeff

Since he works long hours during the day, he wanted to be able to come home at night and didn't want to have to fuddle with anything complicated.

And that is a huge point that shouldn't be overlooked with any expensive solution of this type. Part of what the customer is paying for is a well designed system that just works. They don't have the time or don't want to spend the time creating their pwn solution and, even if they did, other members of teh family may not easily be able to use what they've created. You want to know one of the best selliing points of the K system for me? My wife loves the idea and found it easy enough for her to use even when I'm not at home. That's worth a whole lot in my house.

Jeff

Mr.Poindexter, have you had your K system for a year yet? How have the HD's held up over that time, and how often have you had to increase the size of your array?

I ask, because probably my only concern with getting a K system, is that when we make the jump to HD-DVD or BR, how will the systems handled the large jump in the required amount of space needed per film. Because it's one thing to rip 100-200 DVD's that average 7-8GB's per disc, it's another to rip 100-200 HD-DVD's/BR's that could average 15-20GB per disc.

Hopefully the cost of HD's will continue to decline, as their capacity continues to increase.

I have had my system for 16 months. I had a power supply problem with a player, which I was told by Kaleidescape about and that they were fedexing a new player to me. Pretty simple. I have not had any drive failures.

I have increased the size of my array 6 times now, I believe. Clustering the servers was incredibly simple.

I will have to increase the capacity of my servers again in the next couple of months. I just added a TB of storage, but I have been steadily picking up the Best Picture Oscar winners for m movie collection, as well as buying the last titles I had on LaserDisc but not on DVD yet. I am also considering picking up the Star Trek TV shows, which would take a lot of space.

I have 300, 400 and 500GB drives - server #1 has 11 x 300GB drives. Server #2 has 4 x 400GB and 2 x 500GB drives for a total of 5.1TB but I don't know off the top of my head the percentage filled I am. I am somewhere around 550 films and 520 CDs and I have room for another 100+ movies.

It gets used at least every other day and there was a stretch there where it was being used every day for several hours per (I have kids and they loved having Elmo on in the background while they were running around and playing).

The new servers have gigabit ethernet to better accommodate multiple HD streams and the drive sizes have increased from 200 or 250 originally (can't remember which was the original) to 500 now with larger drives as time goes on.

Jeff

I cannot begin to say how nice it was to have the Kaleidescape when playing my daughter's videos. Kids know what they want long before they can communicate what they want and rather than fight through all the ads and menus, we just played a video and if she didn't want it, we went to the next one. We would scroll down her videos in the "collections" page and say "This one? This one? This one?" until we got a hit. I cannot imagine having to deal with that on Disney's DVDs with 15 minutes of forced ads per disc.

The original hard drive size was 250GB, although it had moved to 300GB by the time I purchased a system and to 400GB by the time I got my second server and 500GB now. I haven't heard what the next hard drive size will be or when it will be coming out, but the computer industry does seem to be slowing down a little bit on drive capacity increases which I am not overly happy with. Still, I anticipate there should be 600GB drives or larger when I purchase my next server. At some point it will be more cost effective to just upgrade the drive capacities in a server instead of buying a new one. I found I can replace 300GB drives with 500GB drives or larger when they become available and not lose any of my data, which is WAY cool. It is a little tricky, so I don't know if it will be a recommended practice though.

It is a little tricky, so I don't know if it will be a recommended practice though.

Yeah, the K folks didn't seem to recommend it when I asked about doing a mass replacement. The rebuild drive time isn't quick so if you were doing a bunch of them it would take days since it can only rebuild one at a time. There also was concern about replacing every single drive in a short period of time while maintaining data integrity 100%.

I wonder though if they could/would do it for you. I haven't asked them but I wonder if they would legally be allowed to. If I might be willing to live without my system for a few days, or just one server at a time, perhaps I could send them the old drives and they could send me the newer larger ones back with the data already transferred. That might get into dangerous legal waters though, so perhaps not, but it is a thought.

Jeff

Well, the build time may be a while, but it isn't like you have to swap them out all at once. One drive per day and unless you have a bulk loader running at the same time you wouldn't even be able to fill them up that fast. It would take 12 days to upgrade one of your servers like that, giving you capacity for an additional 330 DVDs.

There is no point for me to do that today, as I can just add drives into open bays in my server, but when they get full I will make a decision.

Mike

Using DVDSHRINK you have several compression options including no compression. Anyone backing up to a hard drive would have no need to use compression. You can also back up just the main content of the title so you do not have to sit through the warning and menu. A nice touch.

One wrinkle that is not going away any time soon is that Kaleidescape is, to date, the one and only company that can legally rip discs onto its servers. Any other commercial venture that promises to load their server for you is running afoul of the law, and risks being put out of business by CSS.

Obviously, you can do the loading yourself without being prosecuted; but if you have a large library, that's gonna suck. Thank goodness tools like DVDShrink make that easier.

That's one good thing about the emergence of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, is that it has standardized a process for copying that will allow this kind of thing. And maybe CSS will get off their duffs and alter its licensing terms to allow it for standard DVD.

Mike

Using DVDSHRINK you have several compression options including no compression. Anyone backing up to a hard drive would have no need to use compression. You can also back up just the main content of the title so you do not have to sit through the warning and menu. A nice touch.

While that is true, I have seen people on the HTPC forum talk about compressing the video as well, citing that there isn't that much loss in picture quality. Not that much is too much in my book, but it goes to show that there are a lot of people that will cut quality of the output to cut the cost of the system. There is no "need" to run lower bit rate mp3 when using your iPod, unless you want even more songs on it.

You can back up the main content only to save space, but that requires DeCSS of some form and is a DMCA violation so we won't see any commercial units offering that. I realize it is something people here feel they should be able to do, but it is a federal crime. You might get away with it, but start advertising and selling the product and you will be stopped.

One of the drawbacks of ripping DVDs like you mention Alan is for multi-threaded DVDs like the Infinifilm titles as they jump into the supplemental material and back. Unless you know for a fact the title isn't multi-threaded, you run the risk of having the film stop working part-way into the movie, which royally sucks and completely destroys the pace of the film if you have to go dig the DVD out of storage and put it in the player 10 minutes later.

One wrinkle that is not going away any time soon is that Kaleidescape is, to date, the one and only company that can legally rip discs onto its servers. Any other commercial venture that promises to load their server for you is running afoul of the law, and risks being put out of business by CSS.

Yup, exactly what I was alluding to previously.

That's one good thing about the emergence of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, is that it has standardized a process for copying that will allow this kind of thing. And maybe CSS will get off their duffs and alter its licensing terms to allow it for standard DVD.

I've thought about this a bit and I am interested to see what happens when MMC actually arrives. Depending on how it is presented, it certainly could put heat on the DVDCCA to come up with ways for DVD content to be offloaded legally. They could sell license keys that are for specific use in consumer products for the purposes of backing up or otherwise transferring DVD content to computers, server solutions, PMP devices, etc. They could go so far as to mandate that the license is used in conjunction with software that somehow controls the copying so as not to just open the floodgates. My understanding is that the DVDCCA doesn't have a financial interest in AACS, so they won't make any money off of the new formats. Standard DVD isn't going away anytime soon, but this could be a way of extending the life of the format and making some extra dough on the large number of existig collections out there.

Jeff

I have very little experience with DVDSHRINK but wanted to mention you can choose no compression.

I bought my last dvd 1.5 years ago. I gave up backing up DVDS. My HD Library is so large I will never be able to view all the content:)

Along with everyone else Im looking forward to Hi Def DVD:)

Still, the Kaleidescape will outperform those competitors in integration/distribution much like the Meitner will outperform just about any CD transport/player put up against it so I don't think the comparison is that far off base unless you are saying that performance isn't an issue for integration and distribution.

The Kaleidescape client NEEDS to EVOLVE into an ulitmate videophile unit, or a new High Performance/Main Room client has to be added to the line.

The current client unit has not being built from the ground up to 2006 state of the art levels. I could see improvements like built in dual rialta processors for scaling separate scaling and de interlacing, hdmi 1.3 support, 100 mhz MASTER CLOCK. Etc.

The Kaleidescape client NEEDS to EVOLVE into an ulitmate videophile unit, or a new High Performance/Main Room client has to be added to the line.

The current client unit has not being built from the ground up to 2006 state of the art levels. I could see improvements like built in dual rialta processors for scaling separate scaling and de interlacing, hdmi 1.3 support, 100 mhz MASTER CLOCK. Etc.

Well, they already know that they'll probably need a new player to support HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. That will almost certainly include HDMI 1.3. As for the rest, I have no idea but for me, the quality of the output even at 480P over component is just fine.

Jeff

The Kaleidescape client NEEDS to EVOLVE into an ulitmate videophile unit, or a new High Performance/Main Room client has to be added to the line.

The current client unit has not being built from the ground up to 2006 state of the art levels. I could see improvements like built in dual rialta processors for scaling separate scaling and de interlacing, hdmi 1.3 support, 100 mhz MASTER CLOCK. Etc.

Wouldn't an outside scaler handle all of those things? Wouldn't the best optino be to output at the original dvd master of 480i and let a Runco or iscan scaler take care of all deinterlacing and scaling issues?

The K system really has two advantages right now. Being able to rip the DVDs means that they can do things like bookmarks, playing small snippets of video in sequence, and such easily. That's something that can't really be usefully done in a changer based system because of the time it takes to unload and load another disk. The other is having streaming hardware players. There are some generally available players out there now, but all of them seem to have this or that problem or quirk.

The software interface, though nice, is nothing that we can't match once we have our own media repository here soon. But without the ability to provide legal ripping of the DVDs, and the availability of good hardware based streaming players for the ripped content, we would remain at a disadvantage.

The Kaleidescape client NEEDS to EVOLVE into an ulitmate videophile unit, or a new High Performance/Main Room client has to be added to the line.

The current client unit has not being built from the ground up to 2006 state of the art levels. I could see improvements like built in dual rialta processors for scaling separate scaling and de interlacing, hdmi 1.3 support, 100 mhz MASTER CLOCK. Etc.


Oh yeah, i am sure that they are hanging on your every word.

Stop trying to compare shiny disc limtation fixes to a system that is Hard drive based.


As well, K can currently output NTSC HDMI to go towhatever scaler you like. THe best is always a moving target, so why tie to one.

Dizzman- so I'm not off in thinking that the best idea is to let the source component output just the raw digital data, and let a scaler do the job it is designed to do? That way the Kaleidescape can do what it does best and the scaler cna do what it does best as well.

The K system really has two advantages right now. Being able to rip the DVDs means that they can do things like bookmarks, playing small snippets of video in sequence, and such easily. That's something that can't really be usefully done in a changer based system because of the time it takes to unload and load another disk. The other is having streaming hardware players. There are some generally available players out there now, but all of them seem to have this or that problem or quirk.

The software interface, though nice, is nothing that we can't match once we have our own media repository here soon. But without the ability to provide legal ripping of the DVDs, and the availability of good hardware based streaming players for the ripped content, we would remain at a disadvantage.

In my mind there is also another advantage. I've said this more times than one before on these forums but it's worth saying again. The quality of the K support structure and staff is very, very good. I've worked with CS reps from all kinds of companies the last 2 decades. The level of support varies hugely and I've found K's to be one of, if not the very best I've ever worked with. They're responsive, knowledgeable, proactive, genuinely interested in your issue, have fast and easy access to the engineering staff for additional help, and always have an answer. Now, for a product that costs this much, they should, but we've all seen instances where that doesn't happen. Someone else could do the same with a competing product and their own support staff, but K has already gotten it right and set the bar high.

Jeff

While that is true, I have seen people on the HTPC forum talk about compressing the video as well, citing that there isn't that much loss in picture quality. Not that much is too much in my book, but it goes to show that there are a lot of people that will cut quality of the output to cut the cost of the system. There is no "need" to run lower bit rate mp3 when using your iPod, unless you want even more songs on it.

You can back up the main content only to save space, but that requires DeCSS of some form and is a DMCA violation so we won't see any commercial units offering that. I realize it is something people here feel they should be able to do, but it is a federal crime. You might get away with it, but start advertising and selling the product and you will be stopped.

One of the drawbacks of ripping DVDs like you mention Alan is for multi-threaded DVDs like the Infinifilm titles as they jump into the supplemental material and back. Unless you know for a fact the title isn't multi-threaded, you run the risk of having the film stop working part-way into the movie, which royally sucks and completely destroys the pace of the film if you have to go dig the DVD out of storage and put it in the player 10 minutes later.

I know that there are people out there who are further compressing their ripped content, but I was making the assumption that we weren't really including those folks in this discussion.

As for multi-threaded DVDs, you can also just backup the entire DVD including the whole menu structure and all that. It is completely transparent and appears and operates as if you had the DVD in the drive, except it's faster and without layer change problems.

Regardless, I never really intended to get into specific functions in this thread. As I said before, there is NOT any comparable product to K right now. You can get somewhat similar functionality in a basic sense (media server and distribution) DIY but it's limited and a lot clunkier and certainly not a turn-key solution.

My basic point was just that the whole concept of having distributed media like this is still not very mainstream. It's relegated to the enthusiast and DIY crowd, or the high end crowd with the means to afford something like the K system. However, I expect that this kind of capability will become more mainstream, and we may see more mainstream solutions that are turn-key like the K system, designed to the more budget-constrained folks who don't want to invest a lot of time figuring out how to setup and use a clunky DIY system.

I think distributed media and hard-drive on demand stuff like Tivo will become a lot more mainstream, and it is inevitable that products will emerge that address this desire, at lower pricepoints. Will they be as advanced an well supported at K is or will be in the future? Who knows. Right now they don't exist at ALL, but I expect they will. It really is inevitable, IMO.

I'm not sure if some were taking my statements as being negative against K, I wasn't intending that. I was just pointing out that there really isn't any solution other than K at this point, and this will inevitably change.

YOu hit the nail on the head. over time, nobody wants to deal with the little shiny discs. Over time, most households will have media servers deployed.

K just has the advantage of being the first true, complete (good) solution that provides not just the distribution, but so many other features that everyone who sees it loves it.

And being the first on the block has long term advantages.

I know that there are people out there who are further compressing their ripped content, but I was making the assumption that we weren't really including those folks in this discussion.

My basic point was just that the whole concept of having distributed media like this is still not very mainstream. It's relegated to the enthusiast and DIY crowd, or the high end crowd with the means to afford something like the K system. However, I expect that this kind of capability will become more mainstream, and we may see more mainstream solutions that are turn-key like the K system, designed to the more budget-constrained folks who don't want to invest a lot of time figuring out how to setup and use a clunky DIY system.

I think distributed media and hard-drive on demand stuff like Tivo will become a lot more mainstream, and it is inevitable that products will emerge that address this desire, at lower pricepoints. Will they be as advanced an well supported at K is or will be in the future? Who knows. Right now they don't exist at ALL, but I expect they will. It really is inevitable, IMO.

If you are talking about this technology becoming mainstream, you cannot leave the "extra compression" guys out of the discussion. You see, they are the bigger market and that will dictate to an extent what comes out. I certainly don't want to see low quality servers, but that is what we have with every mp3 player and the first ones to scale to video will be the same way.

At least that will open the market up and people will see that and demand one with full quality. I just don't think we are going to see a first generation mass market system perform as well as everybody hopes. People will read the specs and announce the second coming, but I heard that with the Dish Network PVR 921 too and if you aren't familiar with that fiasco then count your blessings.

A changer based system is not horrible by any means. It doesn't allow for some things, but very few people would consider those things worth the kind of premium they currently cost. If you are looking for a home theater system (i.e. non-distributed) a changer based system is quite acceptable and can be done for a quite reasonable price. I'm using one and it's not like I'm suffering or anything. I think that if you ask 99% of people whether they'd be willing to give up the ability to quickly play random bits of video and to wait for 10 seconds for their selected movie to start playing, if they could save $10,000, they'd say yes.

And a lot of folks just aren't interested in having a big power-sucking appliance running all the time, aren't qualified to keep up with it's health, and aren't willing to pay the kinds of money required to have it remotely monitored and preemptively fixed. So for many folks a changer based system is not a bad idea. It would be nice if some 'next generation' changers would come along (besides the PowerFile systems which require playback through the attached controller.)

The Kaleidescape client NEEDS to EVOLVE into an ulitmate videophile unit, or a new High Performance/Main Room client has to be added to the line.

The current client unit has not being built from the ground up to 2006 state of the art levels. I could see improvements like built in dual rialta processors for scaling separate scaling and de interlacing, hdmi 1.3 support, 100 mhz MASTER CLOCK. Etc.

Dual realta processors in the player and not the scaler? Why not ask for 7 Krell 750W monoblocks to be put into their new surround sound processor while we are at it?

I prefer to keep my scaler as the scaler. I see enough of this silliness when people want their surround processor to do video switching. Why let a video connection upgrade force you to change your audio processor? Are two box solutions really that much of a problem for you at the high end? And the master clock is to what, remove the jitter that is left over from reading the disc 3 months prior to playing it?

listening to his rants abut what a product should do, or how a system can be "improved" is laughable in most cases.

I will however give Peter total props for pushing forward the concept of RP in the home. a big topic that has barely been explored.

Certainly a great thing, although I prefer front projection and acoustically transparent screens.

I wonder what Peter would do if he saw a theater with a TORUS screen and chair rails. :D

The Kaleidescope definitely NEEDS to have an integrated 40-foot RP-screen. :D

If you are talking about this technology becoming mainstream, you cannot leave the "extra compression" guys out of the discussion. You see, they are the bigger market and that will dictate to an extent what comes out. I certainly don't want to see low quality servers, but that is what we have with every mp3 player and the first ones to scale to video will be the same way.

At least that will open the market up and people will see that and demand one with full quality. I just don't think we are going to see a first generation mass market system perform as well as everybody hopes. People will read the specs and announce the second coming, but I heard that with the Dish Network PVR 921 too and if you aren't familiar with that fiasco then count your blessings.


I could see that I suppose. I think the added processing power to do recompression though adds a lot of cost and complexity. I mean, yeah there are folks who just use DVD shrink to save space, but I actually think they're pretty few and far between. (this is just my totally ignorant estimate, I could very well be incorrect!). There are fewer still doing re-compression using a more advanced codec, because that takes a long a** time AFAIK. With VC1 and H264 content on teh horizon, I could definitely see integrating in further compression to recompress MPEG2 using a more efficient compression scheme.

Anyway, I do tend to agree with you that it's not as if next week someone will release a solution that is remotely as good as K. I think over a couple generations of mainstreaming of media servers and distribution, that things will begin to take off more. I personally don't think that this will hinge of the guys compressing DVD rips (which with DVD shrink looks like total crap if you've ever done that. Anyone who cares one iota about the PQ will avoid that like the plague. I compressed Rivers and Tides extra features once I think, because it was really crappy PQ to begin with, and I almost laughed once I watched how bad it got trying to compress it something like another 30% or so.), but regardless I hope this stuff comes sooner rather than later. Because things like Meedio are nice, yeah, but it's still a total PITA whenever I want to add in new kinds of content or change anything at all.

Dizzman- so I'm not off in thinking that the best idea is to let the source component output just the raw digital data, and let a scaler do the job it is designed to do? That way the Kaleidescape can do what it does best and the scaler cna do what it does best as well.

One problem: if you use HDMI output, there is currently no standard for outputting 480i via HDMI. Therefore the K player needs to de-interlace or upconvert or both for NTSC content depending on what output you choose (480p through 1080i).

BTW, the current current gen K player already, today, outputs HD content (using HDCP too). I imagine that K will make an updated K video player in the future, but I wouldn't think it is anywhere near a priority.

One problem: if you use HDMI output, there is currently no standard for outputting 480i via HDMI.This is incorrect. There is no standard for outputting 480i via DVI, but there is a standard for outputting 480i via HDMI. Indeed that, coupled with HDMI's ability to stay in the component colorspace, is HDMI's greatest advantage over DVI. And it has had this ability since the very first version of HDMI.

Just head over to the DVD Players forum if you need confirmation. There is quite a bit of traffic about players that output the raw decoded MPEG2 stream over HDMI, without any processing. This is what people used to have to get SDI mods to accomplish. No more.

P.S. This was my 7777th post---which is cool if you're the kind of person that likes to watch his odometer roll over.

does K outpout raw mpeg2 without any processing over hdmi?

Well, I knocked another one half of one percent off their lead tonight :-) I implemented that shuffle type loading of the cover art. We supported fade in and a drop down effect, but I'd not gotten around to the shuffle load. It looks pretty neat. It starts off very translucent with all of them in the center and then ramps up the opacity as it moves them towards their final positions.

I was too burned on driver work to deal with any more drivers today, but I can never afford to take a day off, so on those 'heavy days' I work on something a little more fun like this. It required kind of turning the whole structure of the cover art browser inside outwards to make it efficient since it wasn't originally designed to support that kind of thing, so it took a day's work, but now I'll be able to implement various other interesting loading effects easily.

Dual realta processors in the player and not the scaler?

Right now the K player is using a Faroudja video processor, it's image when hooked up 1080i to a Runco video projector was not stellar (very 8 bit looking and uninvolving), the display is of course partly to blame on this one. At the price point K aspires to dominate, now that we will have awesome stand alone HD players, an improvement on their player is due.

Dizzmans solution is pass on 480i via HDMI to a scaler, great in principle, but in practice there are all sorts of problems getting this to yield an extraordinary image, consistently. All I hear and see every time 480i is attempted to be
fed HDMI are exceptions, related to hdcp authorization flag inconsistencies at this scan rate.

That we will tremendously benefit from global master clocking over HDMI and Firewire is in no way conjecture. If it seems like a rant I say you are flat earthers, every studio is going to master clocking. K should have master clocking NOW, as it would benefit the interoperation of all it's digital sub components, including the hard drive.

What do you think makes Meitner a superior cd player? Master Clocking. The same effect global master clocking has on audio IT SHALL HAVE ON VIDEO, and guess what? The latest revision of HDMI 1.3 provides "just that" potential for global master clocking.

The sheer bandwith of Blue Ray and HD-DVD will no doubt tax the current K Players' frequency response parameters. A higher bandwith player topography would help assure ultimate performance in 1080p.

Once having the player passing high bandwith 1080p from the Blue Ray recordings, the player should use a dual realta core (For TRUE TERANEX PERFORMANCE) to deinterlace HD-DVD. The rest of the processing power would be used to ENHANCE the NTSC dvd's.

listening to his rants abut what a product should do, or how a system can be "improved" is laughable in most cases.


Yves Faroudja did not think so. In fact he used my first rant to bring 2/3 pulldown deinterlacing into the Home Theater arena. He used my second rant to develop the Quadrupler for 9 inch crt's, and he wrote down my third rant on the back of a napkin to develop the VP-200. In the past other companies like McIntosh Laboratories under the steersmanship of Ron Phone (a period that represents the most important expansion into the custom installation foray) called my rants "Stimulating experiences". When SONY decided to enter the custom installation field, a gentleman by the name of Brad Kibble (who created the CIS group) flew an entire minivan full of Japanese engineers to tour my work and hear my rants.

"I will however give Peter total props for pushing forward the concept of RP in the home. a big topic that has barely been explored"

Thank you on that, but please understand that I do not stand for RP alone, RP is a subset of the OPTICAL screen group. I know in my heart that there should be no screens in the world of projection but Optical screens. These white rag excuses most people use for a screen is pathetic. But thanks to the internet there is slow and steady stream of support mommentum being built behind Rearpro and Torus, later on the Supernova will be perfected as well. I see a bright future for properly engineered Optical screens. Patience and optimism to experience this I have, and also to experience the little personal victories that come when you see the results of the fruits of your "earlier-much-critized" labor, regardless of monetary compensation.

Yes Peter, we have all heard how ten to fifteen years ago you showed Yves how tihngs really work.

You know NOTHING about the K architecture so don't make conjectures that you know nothing about.

"I implemented that shuffle type loading of the cover art"

What parameters are you using for placement? Make sure you do not step on the patent.

All I know is that it uses some form of PC type architectures and shares a lot of the limitations HTPC"S have in PQ as compared to broadcast grade gear.

Yes Peter, we have all heard how ten to fifteen years ago you showed Yves how tihngs really work.



In high school my nickname was PANASONIC (Slightly Ahead of our Time). It has been my curse to have lived up my life "masochistically" to that prophetic nickname.

I have seen during the last ten years of home theater video a total derailment of what my hope and aspirations for the art of home theater arena should be. Very frustating seeing how HT Image Fidelity Industry leaders accepted good enough as the standards to be set, in the interest of staying in the standards setting business (despite the fact that not all the elements where there to succesfully complete the job). During this period the general consumer has received a substandard home cinema experience courtesy of the collusion by a group of insiders.

The high end video industry has been in one hell of a holding pattern until now. Things are turning around for the industry, and humanity is poised for a major change. This is the time to pull out all the stops, nothing wrong with that. Let's all do just that, and we shall have a grand time. I am glad I seldom served my wine before it's time.

All I know is that it uses some form of PC type architectures and shares a lot of the limitations HTPC"S have in PQ as compared to broadcast grade gear.

I think that big limitation is that they are starting with a DVD and not a 4:4:4 colorspace video stream off of a DigiBetaCam.

In high school my nickname was PANASONIC (Slightly Ahead of our Time). It has been my curse to have lived up my life "masochistically" to that prophetic nickname.


And in school my nickname was POINDEXTER. How ironic it was!


I have seen during the last ten years of home theater video a total derailment of what my hope and aspirations for the art of home theater arena should be. Very frustating seeing how HT Image Fidelity Industry leaders accepted good enough as the standards to be set, in the interest of staying in the standards setting business (despite the fact that not all the elements where there to succesfully complete the job). During this period the general consumer has received a substandard home cinema experience courtesy of the collusion by a group of insiders.

The high end video industry has been in one hell of a holding pattern until now. Things are turning around for the industry, and humanity is poised for a major change. This is the time to pull out all the stops, nothing wrong with that. Let's all do just that, and we shall have a grand time.


Yeah, like we had the inferior DVD shoved upon us when they had so many better options like uncompressed high definition video in 3D and hologram projectors. Are you next going to claim that electric cars were going to be available and cheap but it was stopped by the oil companies? By the way, where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars in the year 2000.

I am glad I seldom served my wine before it's time.

I think I know where the wine went...

I think that big limitation is that they are starting with a DVD and not a 4:4:4 colorspace video stream off of a DigiBetaCam.


Yep. Since we are so severely limited i wonder how the K client compares to something like this:

http://codexnovus.com/products.html

"Yeah, like we had the inferior DVD shoved upon us when they had so many better options like uncompressed high definition video in 3D and hologram projectors."

I will make reference to the manuevering JS of the ISF did of the published media editors to put a lid on the TORUS. It was pathetic. If it was not for this forum the TORUS would have been extinct by now. From an endorsement standpunkt:If the best screens to have would have been TORUSSES it would have limited the market of certifiable product licensees to the aforementioned.

That is one example. Personally I was extremely happy with C-Band. It is all this waiting for dvd, and then waiting for HDTV, and then waiting for the next thing, that gets tiring. Next year we will have it all.

I hope you don't try to hook that up to a Qualia. It won't even output 1080i.

1080p output is impressive, but 1080i output is very important considering how many devices cannot take a 1080p signal.

By the way, where is the Master Clock input on that thing. I didn't see dual Realta HQV chips in it, either.

What parameters are you using for placement? Make sure you do not step on the patent.


I assume you were being facetious, right?

I don't think he was. I would bet Kaleidescape will be VERY protective of their patents - especially when it comes from a direct competitor.

Peter isn't paranoid... they ARE out to get him!

"All I know is that it uses some form of PC type architectures and shares a lot of the limitations HTPC"S have in PQ as compared to broadcast grade gear."

Thank you for confirming my previous point.

I don't think he was. I would bet Kaleidescape will be VERY protective of their patents - especially when it comes from a direct competitor.


There's no way that moving a set of images from one place to another on the screen could be patentable. It's not like it's not been done a thousand times before us in commercials and movies and games and any number of other things.

There's no way that moving a set of images from one place to another on the screen could be patentable. It's not like it's not been done a thousand times before us in commercials and movies and games and any number of other things.

I don't think that's what he was referring to. He meant the logic used to rearrange. If it's completely random, then that's probably not an issue. However, if you are intelligently having the covers rearrange, then that's the concern. K's software rearranges the covers to present the viewer with similar titles to the one in the center that you have highlighted. When you scroll through and land on another title, the covers around that centrally highlighted cover will rearrange again after a second or 2 (you can disable this in the settings if you want them to stay in place). It's a way of making cover art views more useful so that you're not just scrolling through an alphabetical list in cover art form (although you can change the settings to have it that way if you want) vs a simple alphabetical text list.

So, I think Chris is referring to the rule set being used to determine the rearrangment as a possible patent concern. By the way, is there a patent on cover art views? Perhaps someone or some company on the music side of things since it certainly isn't a new idea?

Jeff

Peter isn't paranoid... they ARE out to get him!

"All I know is that it uses some form of PC type architectures and shares a lot of the limitations HTPC"S have in PQ as compared to broadcast grade gear."

Thank you for confirming my previous point.

To get me? Nawh, to get every Home Theater sucker, is who they are after.

I don't think that's what he was referring to. He meant the logic used to rearrange. If it's completely random, then that's probably not an issue. However, if you are intelligently having the covers rearrange, then that's the concern. K's software rearranges the covers to present the viewer with similar titles to the one in the center that you have highlighted.


That's just not a patentable concept. Display of content similar to or related to an item selected by the user is at the heart of every help system out there, so it's so prior art as to be common place. If I bring up the MS help system and select an item, it immediately presents me with similar items, and that has been at the heart of hypertext systems for decades. What they are doing is no different since it's just an attrbribute based associative system, and there's no way they could protect such a patent if in fact they had managed to get one on such a common thing. The type of data involved is irrelevant to the concept itself.

They can copyright their code, but they cannot stop anyone else from presenting similar on-screen functionality, separately implemented, as proven by the Apple/MS case. That case says that look and feel itself is not patentable.

Actually Dean, they might be able to. Look at Amazon.com's 1-click patent- wtf? a patent on the ability to order by clicking once? yep- it was granted. K might hold a patent on the method used to get those discs to rearrange a certain way.

BTW- that is sweet- cqc can now do this? tim to tinker again...

I guess if no one had actually done it before, then Amazon has some leg to stand on. But attribute associative hyper-linking systems are a dime a dozen, and selecting other titles based on some attribute of a selected title is nothing but that. The fact that it's media titles and not some other type of data would be irrelevant because the patent would have to be on the concept, not the particular implementation. And the underlying concept has been around for 30+ years and in actual practiced art for probably 20.

They can copyright their product. Given that no one but them knows their specific algorithms, then any other company's implementation is by definition a unique implementation of their own that cannot have used their code to do it, and therefore cannot violate their copyright.

It may not matter in the end, since we may go a different way. But I wouldn't hesitate to provide similar functionality if we felt that was the best way to go. It would be no more infinging than one spreadsheet product on another.

I certainly don't know much about patent law, but I think the concept is covered under their applied for patent here:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040070593%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20040070593&RS=DN/20040070593

Applied for and granted are 2 different things, of course, but they have applied.

Jeff

I don't have time right now to read the whole thing, but a quick scan indicates exactly what you would think, i.e. an attribute associative hyper linking system, in which the items are ordered based on the closeness of association to the selected item. Sound like umm.... oh Google perhaps?

if it is so common, then why does EVERYBODY lose their mind when they see it?

Because it looks cool!

if it is so common, then why does EVERYBODY lose their mind when they see it?


Because of the whiz-bang graphical presentation of the data, not because of any unique underyling concepts implemented. The exact same functionality could be presented purely textually, in a simple font on a white background, and provide all of the same weighted associative functionality, but that probably wouldn't get people too excited. But you can't patent the concept just because you present the data in a pretty fasion.

Ooos, he beat me to the punch.

Personally, I could care less if it's patented or not. I was just trying to clarify what I thought Chris was saying about the patent. It's cool and certainly does make for a good impression on first time viewers.

In practice, though, I rarely use it. I mostly use the simple list view and the collections tabs quite a bit. It's cool to sort through the covers but my wife's one of those people who can't read while riding in a car (something to do with the associated motion or moving horizon in the periphery), so she definitely doesn't like it. Now and then I'll play around with it but I've never really found the cover art view for music or movies as a preferred way to choose content. Just a personal preference.

Jeff

I will say that it isn't the preferred way to look up a film, but if you don't really know what you want to watch, it can be useful. Mostly I would say when you have several people over and they don't know what they want to watch but have an idea of what types of films they might enjoy.

I mostly use the list for myself and the collections page for my daughter. My wife is pretty much the same way.

if it is so common, then why does EVERYBODY lose their mind when they see it?


Any plan to take this into 3D? :)

Any plan to take this into 3D? :)

Geez, that might make my wife puke on the couch. ;)

Not a clue... but i might guess no.

For the record, i no longer work at K. My opinions are mine alone

A 3D presentation, though really cool, probably wouldn't come close to paying for itself.

Dean, it really does not good to school people here on what can and can't be patented. Either they have a patent on it, or they don't. If they do, then your claim that they can't is rather thin, eh? You can argue that the patent system is flawed; I would agree. But that academic debate isn't worth much when you're spending money on a patent infringement defense.

Bottom line: cover your ass! :)

AFAIK, they don't have one, they've just applied for one. There's a lot of such preemptive patent applications by companies for things that should not and probably will not be granted. Just make it complicated sounding enough that no one can figure out that it's really just a very common concept. If we all let that stop us, we'd never put out a product I'm sure.

I doubt that they will have difficulty getting at least the key claims of the patent accepted.

And frankly your characterization of it as "a simple concept" simply doesn't hold up. Every attempt you've made on this thread so far to actually describe what it is has fallen short in one area or another. No, it's not just "moving a set of images from one place to another on the screen". No, it's not just "display of content similar to or related to an item", etc. No, it's not just "an attribute based associative system." It is, of course, all of those things, and more, tied together and applied to a specific application. So if I were to take all of your partially correct descriptions, and tie them all together so that they form a more complete description, it wouldn't sound simple anymore.

Besides, a lot of novel developments appear simple with the benefit of hindsight. Your average open source weenie makes that mistake all the time, when they're busy reimplementing someone else's innovations under a GNU license. Well sure, it's not that hard to develop something when you have a working version of the same thing sitting on your computer already.

At my first glance, the patent describes a complete system: a specific combination of elements which individually may not be unique, but which as integrated together constitute a novel and specific application. (In fact, some of the individual elements could themselves be covered by patents.) Remember, for something to be considered prior art it must incorporate all of the elements or limitations cited in the patent. (Though of course, if there is considerable but incomplete overlap, it can render the patent less valuable.) If I were Kaleidescape I would not be worried at all that the patent would be rejected, at least not in total.

In what way is it conceptually different from any other hyperlinking help system, which provides associative hyperlinking and displays the results in a form in which the most closely related other items appear closests to the original item? The hindsight is not mine, it's theirs. They've done nothing that's not been done a hundred times, just for a different type of data. They've done something that is copyrightable, but it's no an 'invention'. It's an implementation of a decades old prior art.

Wow, Dean, you're being surprisingly obtuse about this stuff. It doesn't matter a hill of beans if this is "conceptually similar" to anything else. Patents don't cover concepts, they cover inventions. Furthermore, let's just cut the crap with this "decades old prior art" nonsense. It is not sufficient for a piece of the invention to have been done before---for the purposes of a patent challenge, prior art has to cover every element of the invention. If the combination of elements is unique, even if the elements themselves are not, it's still a patentable invention.

So do me a favor, hop in your wayback machine to "decades" ago, and find for me a mosaic-style graphical interface for the searching of a relational database of video titles. I mean, just that alone, just that one element of the patent. Forget about the content distance measurements, the shuffling triggers, and all that. Given that 20 years ago we're talking about 128K Macintosh quality graphical interfaces, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to get back to me on that one.

I'm not being obtuse. There's nothing that makes it unique in any way because they chose a different type of data to search. Data is data. The 'newness' requirements of patent law mean that you can't get a patent if:

- the invention was known to the public before it was "invented" by the individual seeking patent protection;
- the invention was described in a publication more than one year prior to the filing date; or
- the invention was used publicly, or offered for sale to the public more than one year prior to the filing date.

It doesn't have to have been implemented before, only described. Weighted hyperlinking systems of the sort they are doing have been described for decades. There's an enormous amount of academic literature about how such systems can or would work.

Weighted hyperlinking systems of the sort they are doing have been described for decades.You might actually have a point if that is what they are describing. They are not. They are describing a system which incorporates that as an element. It's just a piece of it.

Besides, you started off this whole discussion saying it was "just" shuffling images around the screen. Now you're saying it's "just" weighted hyperlinking systems. Make up your mind.

And again, to get back to my first message, this is all academic. Kaleidescape's going to get this patent, largely untouched, that's almost certain. You might claim they shouldn't, and that if challenged it wouldn't survive, but are you willing to wager your business on that premise? I doubt it.

The 'just shuffling images around' was refering to mine, not theirs. That's all I'm doing now, and when someone said it might infringe on someone's patent, I said that shuffling images around on the screen could not be patented. The discussoin then moved on to the associative thing.

As to what has been described in the academic literature regarding such systems, I've not done an exhaustive search, because there's an enormous amount of stuff out there, and they cover a lot of this territory from my quick scan, from fuzzy searching based on weighted criteria to how to arrange the results. I would be flabbergasted if a system pretty just like the K system hasn't been described in the academic literature, if not actually presented as a concept in some science fiction movie already, though I certainly wouldn't put in the time to find one unless it became a legal necessity.

The 'just shuffling images around' was refering to mine, not theirs. That's all I'm doing now, and when someone said it might infringe on someone's patent, I said that shuffling images around on the screen could not be patented. The discussoin then moved on to the associative thing.Fair enough, I don't think you have anything to fear if you're just shuffling images around. If that were a problem, then the company who makes those video rental kiosks at your local Safeway would be hit first, so you'd get a lot of advance warning :)

I think you have to get to the content distance measurements and dimension reduction stuff before you begin to get into hot water.I would be flabbergasted if a system pretty just like the K system hasn't been described in the academic literature,Well, I would be flabbergasted if it were. Again, we're talking about the combination of methods, from the graphical to the database to the mathematical, that K employs here. Google looks a lot like Yahoo but heaven knows they're not the same.

You might claim they shouldn't, and that if challenged it wouldn't survive, but are you willing to wager your business on that premise? I doubt it.


Actually, I would be more pre-emptive than that. I already sent an e-mail to the patent office asking how one goes about submitting a formal complaint to the PO that a filed patent is not sufficiently unique to warrant a patent. I will file such a complaint if it is possible, to at least make sure it doesn't just sail through without someone actually really looking at it. And I'll post some questions on some newsgroups where people who do such work might take a shot at proving it has been described in the academic literature and see what they can come up with in terms of prior reference I can submit in such a complaint. I may also point it out to Google's lawyers who might also feel that their toes are being stepped on in some way or another.

Well, hey, by all means, whatever floats your boat. Keep us posted if you get traction. But Google? Please. Nothing they're doing is even close in a patent sense to this. Again, they might have individual elements covered, which would then make it difficult or expensive for Kaleidescape to implement their own patent, but nothing Google has done covers the whole system. And that is what ultimately matters.

Yeah- but it still looks cool! :)

Yes indeed!

Just to be clear, for those of you who may not know me and/or Dean... you should go check out Dean's stuff. Even if you don't use it, look at it, because he is definitely someone who is going to know what it takes to put together a slick, easy to use graphical interface. I am not saying that to blow smoke up his you-know-what, but simply to point out that he does indeed innovate for a living, as I do (if I say so myself).

So that is why I am genuinely surprised that he would be so dismissive of the innovation present in K's design of this feature. He must certainly know first-hand, as I do, what it is like for someone to unfairly dismiss work he has done as "not that novel or difficult" or "been done before".... that a lot of stuff that looks derivative on the surface contains novel elements that can make all the difference between something that works in theory and something that really works in practice.

As for what I do for a living, well, you can check out my web site I suppose, but unless you're mathematically minded, it will be a waste of your time. At least Dean's stuff is targeted towards a more mainstream application.

The thing is, I just believe that the patent system is really abused. I've never even considered trying to patent anything I've done because I just don't see the point unless it is truely a unique invention.

For instance, Michael, we previously debated the merit of RSA's public key encryption patent, which to me seemed to be a clearly unique 'invention' in that it found a practical way to do something that before was only theoretically possible, but you didn't necessarily think it merited a patent.

Whereas, to me, leaving aside how difficult it is to do something since all non-trivial software is danged difficult, the K system seems to be little more than lashing together some very well understood stuff that I could implement without having to read a single thing about the underlying technology and having no paritcular expertise in that area, but you think that it merits a patent.

Maybe the issue is that, to you being a mathemetician, the RSA system seems a lot more obvious than it seems to me, and therefore less unique. And in the case of the K system, it seems a lot more obvious to me than it seems to you that it's nothing particularly unique because that's my area.

Certainly there can be a lot below the surface of a system. But, that would mean that they would patent a specific underlying algorithm or technology that makes it work. But that doesn't seem what that patent is about. It looks more like a broad claim to patent the entire scheme for such an associative display, not a patent on any underlying, non-obvious technology to produce the end result. The difference is important since one allows anyone else to provide the same functionality as long as they go about it their own way, and the latter stifles competition via what to me seems to be undeservedly broad claims over an entire concept.

I don't really know what to think. Personally, I'd have to agree with Dean. However, I've never found myself on the other side from Michael that I can recall, so I might have to be ambivalent on this one.

However, I've never found myself on the other side from Michael that I can recall, so I might have to be ambivalent on this one.


Come on, man. Disagree just once, for the Gipper.

But Michael is just always SO right! :D

If he told me that jumping off a bridge would improve one's perception of contrast, I'd probably leap off... ;)

The thing is, I just believe that the patent system is really abused.I do not disagree with this. But we're not debating how things should be, rather how they are. And under current U.S. law, it is indeed possible patent a system of the sort that Kaleidescape has proposed in that patent, unless someone can come up with prior art that incorporates all the claims made---not just some over here, and some over there. The integration of elements is part of the claim.I've never even considered trying to patent anything I've done because I just don't see the point unless it is truely a unique invention.I wouldn't be surprised if you're selling yourself short here. I'll bet you've done more unique work than you give yourself credit for.For instance, Michael, we previously debated the merit of RSA's public key encryption patent, which to me seemed to be a clearly unique 'invention' in that it found a practical way to do something that before was only theoretically possible, but you didn't necessarily think it merited a patent... Maybe the issue is that, to you being a mathemetician, the RSA system seems a lot more obvious than it seems to me, and therefore less unique.I had to dig up that discussion to refresh my memory, but I think you're mischaractrerizing my position unintentionally. I certainly do not think that RSA was a trivial invention at all; in fact, despite my affinity for that kind of mathematics I still think it's a complex and interesting and important result. I believe that my arguments rather were in the context of overall software/algorithm patent reform. It's not because I believe that RSA is somehow unworthy of its recognition as a unique invention or for that matter that its inventors don't deserve to make some serious bucks from it. Indeed I even admitted that PKC was significant enough to merit some sort of special protection against parallel implementation.the K system seems to be little more than lashing together some very well understood stuff that I could implementAnd this is really where my previous post is relevant. You say it seems to be this, but because you haven't actually duplicated their efforts, you don't know. And surely you have encountered people in your time, people in your area of expertise, who have claimed that something or other that you did was "no big deal." The only thing is, they didn't actually do it, or for that matter anything close to it, so they really didn't appreciate some of the complexity under the hood that isn't clear on the surface.

For example, do you know the algorithm by which Kaleidescape takes the multi-dimensional "distance vector" between two movie titles and computes a two-dimensional projection of that distance? Sure, Google projects distances down to a single dimension, but that's actually tremendously simpler (well, let me restate: there are far fewer unique ways to do it, so there's less room for innovation in that particular step). Is there any idea why it is significant, as pointed out in claim 20, that the "offsets" in each dimension are relatively prime? Or why it is significant, as pointed out in claim 32, that one offset is "within ln(N) of 2 sqrt(N)"? Heck if I know.

But Michael is just always SO right!Shucks :) If only that were true.

And this is really where my previous post is relevant. You say it seems to be this, but because you haven't actually duplicated their efforts, you don't know. And surely you have encountered people in your time, people in your area of expertise, who have claimed that something or other that you did was "no big deal." The only thing is, they didn't actually do it, or for that matter anything close to it, so they really didn't appreciate some of the complexity under the hood that isn't clear on the surface.


Oh, believe me, I didn't state it as strongly as I actually feel because I didn't think it would be an issue. But I know for a fact I could implement it without much strain at all. I've written a lot of software, I've been thinking about this subject a lot because we are moving more into this area, and I can see very clearly in my mind what it would require.

It would take a few weeks to implement that apsect of the system, mostly just due to the amount of code I would need to write, but not because there's any real rocket science involved. It's just a lot of mostly grunt-work code, as is all software. Since we have such an enormous code base to build on, there would be less work for us that there might be for someone building such a thing from scratch.

I've said the same about our product before. It's just an enormous amount of well understood stuff that is very well implemented and packaged. The barrier to entry isn't comlexity, it's the willingness to do the huge amount of work involved. But hard work isn't patentable.


Sure, Google projects distances down to a single dimension, but that's actually tremendously simpler (well, let me restate: there are far fewer unique ways to do it, so there's less room for innovation in that particular step). Is there any idea why it is significant, as pointed out in claim 20, that the "offsets" in each dimension are relatively prime? Or why it is significant, as pointed out in claim 32, that one offset is "within ln(N) of 2 sqrt(N)"? Heck if I know.


Well, there are doctoral thesis ways of implementing things and there are much more practical ways of doing it. I'd take a lot more practical way that would provide a very reasonable result with not overly high overhead. It wouldn't rest on any theoretical basis, but it would just fine. We aren't talking about a search engine for research or anything here really, just a way to find other movies that are similar in one or more weighted ways. You provide default weights for the more obvious fields (genre(s), director, common actors, etc...), but allow them to be adjusted by the user, and do a search that fills in a sorted list based on final score.

Even in a huge DVD database there wouldn't be much more than 20K entries, which you can search quickly by just providing sorted keys for each attribute. There are lots of nitty gritty details of course, but it wouldn't require anything terribly complex.

In the end, it's about business and if we provide a solution that works basically as well, that's good enough. I doubt seriously any customer would make a decision based on the theoretical soundness of the algorithm involved, hopefully. If they ask for all the movies with Tom Hanks and get all the movies with Tom Hanks, presented by how important a role he played (based on his position in the list of actors), etc..., that's good enough. And I can't imagine how anyone could claim that we can't do that because they have a patent on such a process.

Well, there are doctoral thesis ways of implementing things and there are much more practical ways of doing it. I'd take a lot more practical way that would provide a very reasonable result with not overly high overhead.Well, geez, then what are we arguing about? If you're not going to try to duplicate the patented technology, then it's not an issue. If you explicitly deviate from their claims in significant material ways, then... "Nothing to see here, move along..." :)

Patents are not limited to the best way of accomplishing a goal, just the first way or a novel new way. If someone else can effectively accomplish the same goal by going a different route, then that diminishes (or eliminates) the patent's value, but it doesn't invalidate the patent itself. It means that the original inventor took a chance that his way was the only practical way---and was proven wrong.

By all means, Dean, prove 'em wrong! It would be great for your software to have such a feature.

By all means, Dean, prove 'em wrong! It would be great for your software to have such a feature.


Well, having made all those arguments, I'm not sure it's that important relative to various other things. The comments made by a couple owners here might indicate it's something that might not provide huge customer appeal relative to other things that could be implemented in the same time (and implementing X always means Y doesn't get done.) Though there's always something be said for features that 'give good demo', in the end the stuff that people actually use themost should probably be targeted first.

We might end up just implementing a few types of obvious associations that would provide the biggest bang for the buck, like other movies with the same actor or by the same director, that people would most likely need when they are doing the 'what the heck was that movie' senior moment thing. By genre is always there and is probably far and away the most common filtering mechanism.

Well, given the scope of your software, I'm not surprised this might be low on your priority list... get back to work! :)

I guess the real issue, which would be really difficult it seems to me to determine from reading that application document which seems kind of the antithesis of what one would write if trying to lucidly describe the process, is whether they are asking for a patent on a very specific aspect of the process, or the process as a whole, or something in between? I guess maybe that's part of the patent game to some extent to make it as vague as possible in order to cover as much ground as possible. But could even a lawyer really tease out of that what exactly they are claiming is the original invention?

That document is written in perfect patent lawyerese, most definitely. You'd need a lawyer to figure out exactly what it is their claiming is covered by the patent. But at first glance it seems that the content distance and projection calculations are central to the patent claims.

Here's a good article I Googled up about patent infringement claims, that talks about when something is or is not an infringement:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9205.html

What good is a patent if you do not have the money to fight an infrigement.
Case in point and I wont mention any names but several on this forum know what Im refereing to. A small company had their butt covered with a patent but could not bring the technology to market. A large company comes to market with the technology clearly infringing on the patent. Going to court to fight the infringement could/would cost hundreds of thousands in up front funds. If a larger company sees an opportunity to make some money they grab it. Chances are the smaller company does not stand a chance fighting something that could take years in court and put them under financially over time in hopes their gambling in court pays off. Even if you win getting the money starts another longggg game.

Yes, that is an unfortunate problem indeed. But that's not to say that the system is totally biased against the little guy. For example, the plaintiff can petition the court to suspend sales of the alleged infringing technology until the case can be resolved or settled. If the evidence of infringement is compelling, the judge will sometimes grant this motion. This can force even the biggest, most arrogant, large company to the bargaining table.

But sometimes, the best course of action is not to seek a patent at all, but to keep the technology a trade secret. This is hard to do if someone can just buy your product and open it up, or deduce readily enough how you accomplished it. But in some cases (where the technology is hidden inside a chip or some other closed system, for example), simple trade secret protection can be the better choice.

There's a pretty dramatic example of the other sort going on right now with the Blackberry, which was on the verge of getting shut down because it infringed on a smaller company's patent. In some ways, if you have a really strong patent, almost the best thing that can happen to you is for some other company to hit it big with something that infringes on your patent. If the case is strong, you'll get a good lawyer on contigency and if you win you get a good payoff without having to go through all the mess of creating a company and product :-)

BTW, that's why I don't really worry so much about trying to patent stuff of ours. Just as many encryption systems depend on 'incomputability', which doesn't depend on hiding a secret or protecting an algorithm, but lets everyone know the secret and just depends on the vast amount of work it would take to break any one document, I prefer to depend on 'indevelopability' to protect ourselves. I.e. just have a product so extensive that it doesn't matter whether anyone else can look at it and understand every single thing it does, because the work required to create a competitive product is the barrier.

That way, we don't have to worry about someone else coming up with a more clever idea than ours, and putting us out of business overnight. There's no way to get from there to here except through a long and painful development process that can't be shortcut.

Like I said above... That company just got a 600+ milllion dollar settlement from the Blackberry folks! Oh, to have that kind of patent problem...

Imagine my wealth had I registered Home Theater back in 1979.

Oh, let's not go back there. :D

Then they would have called it Home Cinema instead.

I also coined Advanced Home Cinema in 1991 (remember the infamous check by the Dolphin Quarterback). Boy have I cornered this market.:)

My Stomach runneth over.

Alan- being a memberof both bluray and hddvd groups, do you think it is possible that Kaleidescape could release one reader for all three (dvd as well) formats?

Unless a company like NEC makes a universal transport (BD/HD-DVD/DVD/CD), Kaleidescape won't be able to make a universal reader.

This is off topic, but I thought some of you smarter with netwroking than I might be able to lend a hand. I'm putting together a better backup solution after a recent mishap and have posted about my plan in the HTPC section. Any thoughts you folks had on the matter would be appreciated:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=652391

I know it might be better suited for a non AV forum, but the folks here tend to be more mature than the many adolescents that troll some computer and networking specific forums. ;)

Jeff

Are not, are not, are not!!

I know you are, but what am I?

Unless a company like NEC makes a universal transport (BD/HD-DVD/DVD/CD), Kaleidescape won't be able to make a universal reader.
...and, (IMHO) I don't believe it would be worth their time and effort to do so. I don't see either BlueRay or HD-DVD surviving more than 12-18 months in any case.

Dennis,
Do you really believe that both BR and HDDVD will be dead by the fall of 2007 ? If so, why ?

Art

ONline delivery (not JUST streaming) of high quality content is the future.

ONline delivery (not JUST streaming) of high quality content is the future.
So you believe that this form of delivery will kill HDDVD and BR in < 18 months ?

Art

I don't think so, not immediately at least. We don't even have streaming of SD content yet really. I think it will be some time before that supplants a hard disc HD format.

D-Theater lasted longer than that. I cannot imagine HD-DVD and BluRay both failing in that amount of time. The only way I could see either failing in that time frame is if they are getting their ass kicked in the format war and supporters jump ship to the winning format.

Even if they offered downloads of HD content in the next 12-18 months, how will they sell to people who have dialup or even DSL since 768kbps isn't going to get it done. Plus there are plenty of people who don't want to muck around with a PC to watch a movie.

Look at how many people still go out and buy the CDs - myself included. We don't even have lossless audio available online and how easy is that?!?!

There's no way online delivery of video is going to kill shiney discs any time soon, IMO. Actually, it's not even my opinion, it's just a fact on the ground. You can't sell a product until you can get it into the customer's hands and there's no practical way to do that right now. 10 years from now, I have no doubt that DVD level video will be deliverable to a reasonably large number of people. By that time, highly compressed DVD level video will be the LBR MP3 of video content and people will be sucking it down to their portables and whatnot.

But delivery of high quality HD content to the home to more than a minute number of customers just ain't gonna be practical any time soon. It could certainly be done, but without a broad market, setting up the infrastructure to support it doesn't seem like a paying proposition.

Personally, I think that the sat/cable folks have a better chance at it than network based delivery. The sat folks are moving to MPEG4, which will allow them to deliver much better HD content within their capacity limitations. Combine that with a DVR type box that can store the movie till you are ready to watch it, and it would make for a far more reasonable delivery mechanism, it seems to me.

But I don't think that's going to remotely destroy the shiney disc. People still do want to own their favorite movies. Even Joe Blow buys a certain number of discs for repeated viewing.

Chris and Mike,
I agree ! I think we will have at least a few years of one or the other or both of these.

Art

Well, Dennis' claim did not mention online delivery at all. I could see his prediction coming true if a protracted format war makes it difficult to choose between formats, because each format has only a portion of the titles a consumer might want. Continuing SD-DVD sales and the ramping up of electronic delivery are going to make it easier for consuemrs to stay away. (Note that electronic delivery does not necessarily mean Internet delivery; as Dean points out, satellite and cable providers can provide services of this nature over their networks.) The result could be a repeat of DVD-A/SACD (though that did take far longer than 12-18 months, and it's still not "dead", just comatose)...

Right now we already have two major players selling video content over the internet. And there are smaller players involved.

BLockbuster has for years been trying to figure out how to do it. Netflix is also working on it. Disney has some box (that i keep forgetting the name of) that downloads in the background so that you always have movies available to watch. And even for K, that is one of the holy grails that they want to achieve...

So in a market where you have AT LEAST; Apple, Google, Blockbuster, Netflix and likely others already halfway there... how long does it take for them to go the extra step?

I am not sure about the 12-18 month timeframe, although i would guess that is the timeframe right now to realistically get a good BR or HDDVD library available in the stores. But even Bill gates said it, THis will be the last shiny disc format. And if you do not think that MS is not working on an even tougher DRM that would allow them to Distribute HD in the WMV format to your computer... you are nuts.

The big holdup in the internet delivery is the same as the one for the HD discs... the studios have to trust that their content is protected. So when you look at solutions, ask yourself if that solution protects content. K sure does.

There is also the cynic in me who wants the studios to pull their thumbs out of their butts and make some content worth stealing. It seems all the movies they can come up with are re-makes of already bad 70s TV shows.

The big holdup in the internet delivery is the same as the one for the HD discs... the studios have to trust that their content is protected. So when you look at solutions, ask yourself if that solution protects content. K sure does.

Actually, I think the next generation disc will act as an important bridge between the shinny disc and the internet delivery of high quality HD movie. The success of MC/MMC will pave the way in the trust department. Also downloadable sound track/menu/extras which could seamlessly merge into the next generation disc will greatly help facilitate the infrastructure for the final step.

How great would it be to just be able to browse, purchase, and download thousands of HD movies through the Kaleidescape UI! Or even better, stream the movies.

The only problem I see is browsing through thousands of movies just to find something to watch could take a while. My 5 year old can browse the covers for an hour before he makes a desicion. And I have only 600 movies

I would even settle for Non-HD movies for now.

Streaming isn't going to happen any time soon unless you want to have your movie stop 3-10 times while watching it to see a screen with an hourglass rotating and the words: Buffering - 5%, 6%, 7%... flashing on your screen.

They could add another menu to browse and it would titles you don't own but can purchase. That would be great.

The result could be a repeat of DVD-A/SACD (though that did take far longer than 12-18 months, and it's still not "dead", just comatose)...
My point exactly. Jesus Christ ,we have been talking about this for more than two years let alone introduction and death in less than 18 months. This will take off and no where nearly as DVD has. In a couple of years more choices will be there and so will HDDVD/BR. After that it might be a toss up.

Art

As I've pointed out elsewhere, compare the level of talk about DVD-A/SACD, and the level of talk about HD discs. Unless I just seriously mis-remember, there's hugely more interest in a new major home theater technology than there was in a major new music technology. This makes sense in that there is a far larger interest in the population about big(ger) screen, surround sound home theater than there is about really high quality music. So I think that it's just not an apples and oranges comparison myself.

Jesus Christ ,we have been talking about this for more than two years let alone introduction and death in less than 18 months.

:D I think he'd agree on this one! :)

The whole format war is just hilarious. It's been a few years at least, waiting for HD content, I mean the LEAST we could be is optimistic enough to hope it takes half that long to die off? :(

;)

Dean, your point is fair, there are material ways where this differs from DVD-A/SACD. However, the thought of having to buy two players just to cover the movies one might wish to collect in HD has got to be daunting to many J6Pers. If this format war doesn't end soon I really do think both formats are in trouble.

Steaming is neat, but as Poindexter points out, not practical for high quality playback. but as a delivery method...

Steaming indeed. :)

If this format war doesn't end soon I really do think both formats are in trouble.


You're probably right. Unfortunately... :(

I think if it does take off, it'll take off real slooowwwww. Average folk don't really know much of HD-DVD or BR, only that something is supposedly coming, and I don't see the mass public embrassing HD-DVD/BR the way they did DVD, especially if told they'll need a new display with HDCP in order to really take advantage of the content. Some users, people like my parents, who own 2 HD sets, neither of which have an HDCP port available, won't see the point in spending $500-$1000 on a new "DVD" (they will call it DVD no matter how it's marketed, that's just how my folks are) player that won't even "play properly" on their two TV's.

Down rezzing though makes me hope that the formats fail miserably, and go the way of Divx, then again... the thought of something like Lord of the Rings in HD just makes me giddy. Who knows, maybe it'll go down like the DVD-R/+R format war, where most people couldn't tell you the difference between the two formats, or that there really are 2 seperate formats.

Streaming could happen though, especially if they use MPEG4 for the compression, but it would have to be in a simple system that the average user can understand. I've streamed a couple SD movies recently via Media Center, and I have to say I was impressed with the quality, and how smoothly things went. Picture on my 37" LCD was not nearly as bad as I expected it to be, but I wouldn't have called it DVD quality either. The problem with streaming, or owning electronic versions only, is that I'm the type of consumer that ultimately likes to have the physical product to own. It's the pack rat in me, but I don't like the idea of not having a hard copy of something that I paid for, even if I'm 99% certain that the electronic copy I purchased will be available to me 24/7.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, compare the level of talk about DVD-A/SACD, and the level of talk about HD discs. Unless I just seriously mis-remember, there's hugely more interest in a new major home theater technology than there was in a major new music technology. This makes sense in that there is a far larger interest in the population about big(ger) screen, surround sound home theater than there is about really high quality music. So I think that it's just not an apples and oranges comparison myself.

But could that be attributed to how people's listening habits have changed when it comes to music? As someone who listens to very little music outside of the car, or with something other than headphones, I could careless about multi channel music, or music sampled at a high rate. But as someone that loves to watch movies, I'm slightly more interested in how those movies can be delivered to me, and the quality in which they are delivered.

I think if it does take off, it'll take off real slooowwwww. Average folk don't really know much of HD-DVD or BR, only that something is supposedly coming, and I don't see the mass public embrassing HD-DVD/BR the way they did DVD, especially if told they'll need a new display with HDCP in order to really take advantage of the content. Some users, people like my parents, who own 2 HD sets, neither of which have an HDCP port available, won't see the point in spending $500-$1000 on a new "DVD" (they will call it DVD no matter how it's marketed, that's just how my folks are) player that won't even "play properly" on their two TV's.

That makes me chuckle. My parents are the same way, but my mom can't always spot an HD image when it's being played. If pointed out to her, she'll agree that it looks good, but she won't exactly notice the difference right away like I can. Of course, my mom's not big into TV. My dad has started to embrace HD more but he's easily annoyed by HD channels that don't show everything they broadcast in HD. I can't really blame him but hopefully that will change with time.

Down rezzing though makes me hope that the formats fail miserably, and go the way of Divx, then again... the thought of something like Lord of the Rings in HD just makes me giddy. Who knows, maybe it'll go down like the DVD-R/+R format war, where most people couldn't tell you the difference between the two formats, or that there really are 2 seperate formats.

I don't think they both will fail like Divx did, but there's certainly a good possibility that one will fall by the wayside. I don't think this market is anything like audio where SACD and DVD-A haven't really killed the other off. I think there is interest and a market for HD disc content by the masses. There's still a shortage of HD content for many HD owners. Too few channels and on some of those, not everything is actually shown in HD.

I think the main difference between the HD wars and the DVD recordable wars is that far more people will be willing to embrace HD discs than recordable DVDs. Home DVD recorder sales have never been huge. Many people just see them as a slighlty more advanced VCR. A PVR, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Much better UIs, no worries about burning coasters, etc. Sure, taking content with you requires additional equipment like a recordable DVD, but timeshifting the content is good enough for most and the PVR does a much better job at that than your standard DVD burner.

However, issues like downrezzing are going to be sober wake-up calls for some consumers. Most of those affected will be upset that the shelf life of their TVs are much shorter than they had anticipated. Sure, they can still get HD content elsewhere, but there are moves on play to cutoff the analog loophole in areas beyond BR and HD-DVD.

I think it may take a while for either format to really take off. The PS3 will be a very intersting variable. You're going to have millions of BR players sold by way of the console even if the users don't care a lick about BR. It will certainly lend itself to quite a few people trying BR whereas they may have never bought a standalone player for either format. Whether that translates into a real boon for BR remains to be seen. It seems that the PS3 may be delayed, possibly because of the BR format itself.

Both formats have their issues though. MMC may not be included in either format's run of initial players and it's not 100% that those units will be software upgradeable. How MMC will actually play out is also unclear as the studios seem to have final say on if their content is copyable and perhaps even, at a price. First run HD-DVD titles won't have any of the next gen audio formats and will only have 1080i. Not that tons of displays support 1080p yet, but can't you see re-relases of those titles down the road at 1080p kind of like 4x3 letterbox titles when DVD first came out? Initial releases of BR titles may not be at the larger capacity disk sizes that have been touted as an advantage over HD-DVD. HDMI 1.3 isn't finalized yet and may not be until mid-year with uncertainty about whether 1.2 capable players on either side can be software upgraded after the spec is completed.

Streaming could happen though, especially if they use MPEG4 for the compression, but it would have to be in a simple system that the average user can understand. I've streamed a couple SD movies recently via Media Center, and I have to say I was impressed with the quality, and how smoothly things went. Picture on my 37" LCD was not nearly as bad as I expected it to be, but I wouldn't have called it DVD quality either. The problem with streaming, or owning electronic versions only, is that I'm the type of consumer that ultimately likes to have the physical product to own. It's the pack rat in me, but I don't like the idea of not having a hard copy of something that I paid for, even if I'm 99% certain that the electronic copy I purchased will be available to me 24/7.

Streaming HD is an interesting possibility, but I don't think the studios are ready for it yet. You've seen some attempts here and there with downloadable movie services and we all know Apple is chomping at the bit to add movie content to ITMS. For HD , though, I think the studios would rather squeeze a round of disc based revenue out of consumers before they go to downloadable or streaming. Offering streaming solutions too soon may preemptively cutoff that source. If the disc market struggles, I could certainly see them do this as early as a 2-3 years after the disc formats officially roll out.

But could that be attributed to how people's listening habits have changed when it comes to music? As someone who listens to very little music outside of the car, or with something other than headphones, I could careless about multi channel music, or music sampled at a high rate. But as someone that loves to watch movies, I'm slightly more interested in how those movies can be delivered to me, and the quality in which they are delivered.

Personally, I think the reason is two-fold. For one, MP3 and downloadable services exploded in the last few years. Even before the legal avenues, lots of folks were using Napster and its many clones. Seemingly, the desire for higher quality content by the masses was being trumped by portable enjoyment of content that could be obtained 24/7 even if it meant a trade-off in quality. The other reason is perceived benefit. When you compare SACD or DVD-A to CD as opposed to HD vs broadcast SD or even DVD, more consumers can perceive the difference and hence greater value of the visual medium vs the audible. Besides which, it's very easy to have HD on display for consumers to behold when you first walk in the door - the same isn't nearly as easy to merket with high quality audio.

Jeff

Yeah! So...

I sure hope Kaleidescape supports both formats soon after they hit the market...

Yeah! So...

I sure hope Kaleidescape supports both formats soon after they hit the market...

Depends on your definition of "soon after". Much of this ability for K or anyone else may depend on when and how MMC is implemented. The story I linked earlier in this thread:

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=16413

mentions that MMC is supposed to be part of the finalized AACS standard that should come later this year. So, there's likely going to be a delay after one or both are rolled out for MMC. Then there's the whole question of exactly what rights MMC will give us, will that vary from title to title (I sure as heck hope not - talk about confusing) and how much if anything will the privledge cost users?

Hardware is another factor. K probably will need a new player and at least one new reader. They'll also need to consider the HDMI spec issue. I'd be surprised to see support for either or both formats from K until next year. If HD-DVD had launched last holiday season as it was supposed to, this year would seem more likely. But with all the delays, it pushes everything back.

Jeff

Yeah! So...

I sure hope Kaleidescape supports both formats soon after they hit the market...


I heard they were only supporting 1 of the formats....

THey are currently supporting neither. but they are a member of both consortiums.

Adding HD-DVD to their reader would be fairly easy, since it would be backward compatible with reading DVD and CD.

We still have yet to see what MMC will entail. I dread the thought that they might try to make forcing ads as part of the price to pay to get MMC. Still, it is taking a while for both BluRay and HD-DVD to come to market and I think that expecting the second wave of supporting products to come to market undelayed is being overly optomistic.

At any rate, I think I would like to know a format is going to survive before I expend more than a few thousand dollars into it. Who knows what the costs are going to be for Kaleidescape to add support in terms of hardware/software engineering and license fees. I certainly wouldn't want to put down that much of my money on two horses before the race even really gets going knowing almost certainly one bet is going to be a dud.

First run HD-DVD titles won't have any of the next gen audio formats and will only have 1080i.

This is incorrect. At least three HD DVD titles from Japan on March 28 will have next gen audio(DTS-HD 5.1). HD DVD player use unfiltered 1080i60 to transmit the 1080p24 movie content on the HD DVD disc to the display.

MMC only applies to the title and will be supported from day 1. Studios have a final say on the price. First gen player is not likely to support MC/MMC.

K already has an excellent infrastructure/UI for MMC/MC. If the server could meet the AACS requirement, the user may only need a new loader with AACS-key and a player to enjoy the next generation disc.

This is incorrect. At least three HD DVD titles from Japan on March 28 will have next gen audio(DTS-HD 5.1). HD DVD player use unfiltered 1080i60 to transmit the 1080p24 movie content on the HD DVD disc to the display.

Well, it looks like you are right on 1080p and I wasn't the only one confused. My statements came from an article I read on Ultimate AV Mag's site. Apparently the confusion was not isolated and the folks from Audiohlics asked Sage Schreiner (Microsoft's HD DVD Program Manager) about it in an interview from January:

http://www.audioholics.com/ces/CEStechnology/HDDVDCESinterview.php



"Audioholics: When does HD DVD plan to release 1080p output players? All of what we saw at the show was 1080i.

Sage: The HD DVD players announced so far will not support 1080p outputs -- yet. This is in part because the latest version of HDMI (the only one supporting 1080p as mandatory) is still being finalized. There are CE [consumer electronics] HD DVD players "in the works" that will ship later and are expected to have 1080p outputs, but nothing has yet been announced.

Also note that advanced 1080p displays can also do their own conversions from 1080i to progressive. There are no limitations in HD DVD as a format (i.e., both BD and HD DVD support the same native formats: 720p/60, 1080i/60, 1080p/30). It’s only a player or a display issue whether there’s a conversion to 1080p/60.

Finally, note that PC playback will always be progressive playback. Ditto the Toshiba laptop announced at CES; it will playback 1080p.

Audioholics: The second question I had is based n some feedback I received from the RCA booth whereby they indicated that the titles were not currently mastered in 1080p. Are you aware of whether the movie studios are planning on re-releasing HD DVD software titles in the 1080p format once the second generation players are available? The overarching question is - are the studios aware of any eventual plans for 1080p and the timeline for these second generation players?

Sage: The initial / first generation content will be encoded at 1920x1080p/24. Case in point, playback from a PC, right now, will output 1920x1080p/24 without doing any conversion steps.

The primary issues around encode quality are: quality of the source, encode method used, and bit rate. Modern codecs, like VC1, are capable of delivering a better quality encode at a more moderate bitrate than MPEG2. The primary limitation you will see with 1st generation movies in either format is the use of MPEG2 to encode, even at high bit rates. On a quality 1920x1080p display, MPEG2 will not look as good as VC1 (or H.264). Most (if not all) of what was on display in the HD DVD booths was VC1. You may want to investigate the actual encoding method of a given movie to really get a handle on its likely quality."



Apparently, the HDMI licensing group thought that Sage's comments laid too much blame at their feet, so they responded directly to it in a letter to Audioholics:

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/1080pHDDVDHDMIresponse.php

And then there's the interview from late February with Mark Knox, an adviser for the HD DVD promotion group and apparently Toshiba's goto PR guy for HD DVD:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2006/02/interview_-_mar.php

in which he says:


"HDTV Magazine: There are also people who are now wanting to buy 1080p monitors with 1080p inputs but they are finding that not so easy. Why?.

Mark Knox: There are more TVs with P on the front than connectors that can receive P in the back. It is an issue of standards that are evolving. Here is what I understand as of today (I am told I will learn more on an upcoming trip to Japan). We will develop documentation in Japan that we can deliver to you later explaining all of this issue. But here is what I now understand and then I will explain to you what I don't understand but hope to learn.

The current approved standard for HDMI is Ver 1.1. Within that version there are several mentions of some frame rates for 1080p, but they are listed as an optional specification. What that means is that if you are building a product you are allowed to support 1080p, but only at certain frame rates. But you are not required to support 1080p.

HDTV Magazine: What is required?

Mark Knox: That would be 1080i and below. Then there is a similar story when it comes to the higher resolution and lossless audio codecs. In Toshiba's case there is a very clear set of internal regulations for hardware. When they release a product it can be based only upon an existing mandatory specification. It is a very easy matter for you to allow the player to scale to whatever is native on the disk to 1080p at 24, 30 or 60 fps. But, if you do that there is no guarantee that the receiving device is going to know what to do with that data since with the current Ver 1.1 of HDMI there is no requirement that any device has to support any of those formats. For that reason, and the fact that Ver 1.1 will be the only certified standard for at least some months-well after we launch hardware in March-we are not willing to put 1080p output over the HDMI connector. "



As for the next gen audio formats, my comments also came from news articles I've seen online. It's certainly possible that thsoe were over generalizations stemming from the possibility that none of the mainstream titles from the hollywood studios contain the next gen audio formats. If that's the case then the end result is still the same. The titles most consumers are likely to buy in the initial release won't have them but might very well be re-released later with those formats and a few extras in a "Special" or "Collector's" edition like we've seen done with DVD.

MMC only applies to the title and will be supported from day 1. Studios have a final say on the price. First gen player is not likely to support MC/MMC.

My comments were a little confusing here as it seems like I was talking about MMC as it relates to software. I did mean the hardware not supporting MMC initially. And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if first gen players are incapable of being upgraded to support MMC. Here's a another quote from the Mark Knox interview about how MMC will work:



"HDTV Magazine: What is it and how does 'managed copy' work?

Mark Knox: Managed copy in HD DVD means that every single disk must offer to the consumer the ability to make a legal encrypted copy of his/her disk in another location, most typically a media center PC.

HDTV Magazine: How is that controlled?

Mark Knox: Let's say you put a copy on your media center PC. That copy is still encrypted. In order to decrypt it you need a number of keys. One is the content key which is stored along with the (original) media. Another is a key which is unique to that PC derived from some unique element of that PC.

HDTV Magazine: What about my summer house?

Mark Knox: Several answers depending on your scenario.

If you have a portable device you can connect it to that same PC and use the managed copy to create a mobile copy (which you can play back on that mobile device). You can do that as long as that mobile device is able to "hand shake" with your media center PC (so they can hand the keys off). If that data file with the encrypted video were to be given to some other entity which won't connect directly the playback device to your computer (needed to successfully acquire all of the necessary keys), then you cannot make the copy.

HDTV Magazine: And do you think the public is going to earn their PhD in advanced cryptology with all of this?

Mark Knox:I think the process-the pain for the consumer to perform some of these operations-is going down. I agree that it is far from zero, but it is going down.

HDTV Magazine: Undoubtedly so, but ignorance doesn't vanish quickly.

Mark Knox: We could facetiously say that the acronym for DRM stands for 'Deal Required by Movie Makers.' To some degree we are constrained. We have to recognize that the majority of content owners selling high-def movies are American owned companies and the majority of those selling hardware are not! It is not like we can look to Congress to pursue the Hollywood community to drop their request. But it is also true that not all of the Hollywood content providers are going to throw that switch."



K already has an excellent infrastructure/UI for MMC/MC. If the server could meet the AACS requirement, the user may only need a new loader with AACS-key and a player to enjoy the next generation disc.

Agreed.

Jeff

slightly off topic- for anyonehere that owns a kaleidescape- how does it handle the extended edition versions of the lord of the rings films- is there an option to play the movie through seemlessly?

I think the ones I have are the extended versions (the ones where each film is a 4-disc set and the movie is spread across the first 2 discs). During playback, the K just plays straight through. Since all the data is on an HDD, there's no delay in switching discs. The system's smart anough to know that even though there are multiple discs, it's still a single title.

Separately, I also have the option to play each disc. that would be like popping in a disc into your DVD player and going through teh regular warning screens and Menu intro, etc. Normally, when you choose "Play Movie", you skip right to the start of the movie and skip all that garbage.

I also have noticed separately Play Movie options for films that have just a few minutes of extended content like a director's cut. For instance, on "Meet the Fockers", I have an option to "Play Theatrical Film" as well "Play Entended Edition" and "Play Disc".

Jeff

Jeff is correct. I would also like to add that when you have TV shows or other episodic content, it can "Play Episode" or "Play Episode #XX" or "Play All Episodes" and play episode will play one episode and it will remember which episdode you are on so the next time you select play episode, it will play the following episode. Play episode is the default play option for episodic content.

Jeff is correct. I would also like to add that when you have TV shows or other episodic content, it can "Play Episode" or "Play Episode #XX" or "Play All Episodes" and play episode will play one episode and it will remember which episdode you are on so the next time you select play episode, it will play the following episode. Play episode is the default play option for episodic content.

My wife loves this feature for that kind of content. It really makes TV show boxed sets that much more enjoyable. The fact that they list the episode names for each is also helpful rather than having to access the menu of each of the imported DVDs in order to find a specific episode.

Jeff

Dennis,
Do you really believe that both BR and HDDVD will be dead by the fall of 2007 ? If so, why ?

Sorry...been on the road (and I haven't read all of the intervening comments.

Here's my reasoning.

Neither one of these 'technologies' is really nothing outstanding. Just a higher density, higher bit rate problem with a form factor constraint...nothing innovative on, let's say, the scale of the Arpanet or the work from the old Xerox labs. None the less, the engineers addressed the issue.

But now, hubris has entered the equation. Rather than introducing an enabling technology, the marketing/CEO and corporate pride people have entered the fray and, rather than thinking about the consumer, have engaged in a format fight that the consuming public has absolutely no interest in, and further, are less likely to drop the money for any high priced early release player which has equal odds of loosing the battle (in the end, neither one of these formats is nothing more than "enabling" and there's really nothing which makes one format significantly superior to the other). So, the public doesn't want to hear about it, isn't going to be willing to drop $$$ into the pot until a winner is declared and the studios aren't going to go full bore into production on either format for exactly the same reason (they want market share). In the end, the money won't be there.

In the meanwhile, while the two camps are being silly children, other industry players are moving forward with formats (supporting streaming, download, PC, and hard media) which are less expensive, more efficient, and currently available (at least in one case). Microsoft and Apple are not to be ignored. If you examine WMV, it provides HD on current media, provides license/copy protection, and meets the studios/distributors desires of an online distribution format for new releases. In this case, you have a single format providing HD in streaming (internet, Sat, Cable), download, broadcast, and hard media. You can also be certain Apple is NOT ignoring this market. While the HD-DVD and BluRay camps are focused on killing each other (they will), they're going to get nailed over the top of the head by one of these two other players (or both).

In the end, the market for HD-DVD and BluRay will NOT develop to allow either format to survive longer than just a curosity item. Every week we hear some one is one camp or the other, someone else is in both camps, or someone is riding on the fence. There will not be enough players to justify production (and long lists of titles), and with uncertainty and a lack of titles, the consumer will not be on board and the vicious circle begins.

I've already seen the first HD music video on a format not HD or Blu and it cost me nothing to play it in my HD theater. These formats will die almost as fast as DIVX.

Hey -- does anyone have a new K system with music capability? Do you need a separate player for each zone in the house? This would seem to be really expensive if so.

Hey -- does anyone have a new K system with music capability? Do you need a separate player for each zone in the house? This would seem to be really expensive if so.

The video players can handle the music playback functions as well as video playback. They also have a new, 4-zone audio only piece that has a built-in reader which they are working on and displayed at CES.

Jeff

I saw the music version (or capability) at CES and it was fantastic, as you might expect. I wonder what the price and dates for the audio-only system will be.

I saw the music version (or capability) at CES and it was fantastic, as you might expect. I wonder what the price and dates for the audio-only system will be.

I could be very wrong, but I don't think they will offer an audio only solution, at least not in the forseeable future. If they did, the cost would be substantial and almost certainly much more expensive than anything comparable. The cost of the K server alone without drives would be way over any current audio server and I haven't seen anything suggesting that they are looking to put out a component like aplayer with a HDD built-in.

Jeff

I have been running the music system for a while. I think it was scheduled to be out of beta on the 1st. I am not certain if it got pushed out or not, but if not it should be any day now.

I do not yet have the audio only player, but the movie player does also play back the audio and has the great video user interface. The 4-zone audio only player will not have video to my understanding. I will know better when I get my hands on a production unit of the audio player.

I saw the music version (or capability) at CES and it was fantastic, as you might expect. I wonder what the price and dates for the audio-only system will be.

The server they have is really overkill for audio only. I cannot imagine there being many people who could fill up one of their servers with the 500GB drives using only music. That would be in excess of 5TB of storage!

You can get a system that is video only, or audio + video. There is no audio only system right now and the cost differential would be so slight that I can't see why somebody wouldn't get video with it.

That is great news on the 4 zone audio player. I was trying to figure out how to handle multiple audio zones.

As I understand the audio interface is only supported by Crestron and us AMX guys are out of luck as of now? Anyone know more about this?

That is erroneous.

CRESTRON AND AMX are fully supported with all sorts of new features as well. As well, there is a Java Applet that allows everything from a PC or even a pocket PC

In addition, all their code set is fully documented and available for download. Drivers can be written for virtually any control device.

OK thanks for the clarification. I won't mention who told me but he knows you.

Dizzman- do you work for Kaleidescape?

He did work for them but doesn't work there any longer.

right on. Well, It was explained to me how the entire thing works- the person demoing it had it setup and just unplugged it. He plugged it back in, went othe movie, and started the movie right from that point wher eit had been cut off. Seconds to boot up. It was truly amazing- not a computer, very neat technology.

How does it work with multiple servers clustered?

You plug all the servers in and then go to the installer web utility. Select the groups tab and it will least all the servers as their own independant group. For each server, select a pull down box that says "Join group xxx" and put it in the group with your primary server. Your readers and players need to be grouped with a specified server group as well.

It took me less than 10 seconds to cluster my servers and move my players/readers to the group.

This is nice in that you can have two seperate systems on one network - very handy for installers who are loading discs for a client while their own server is on the network. It also allows you to take your readers and unjoin a current group and move them to another so they load a different server.

I have had 3 servers in 2 groups with 2 single disc readers and a bulk loader running simultaneously with no problems. I was loading 4 discs at a time and still able to watch films off the server that was being loaded.

Wow- how does it handle "bonus discs" that come with movies- like the disc 2 with extras and stuff.

Bonus discs are listed under the options if you load them:

Play Movie
Play Disc -> Disc 1
Disc 2
Play Trailer
Play Scene...
Add to Collection...

I normally do not load the bonus disc, as I rarely want to watch the making of featurette more than once. Sadly, most of those "extra scenes" are of such poor quality that it really disappoints when on a big screen. A lot of them aren't even anamorphic.

Not trying to resurrect a dead thread, but I noticed that there have been some developments in the area of AACS and managed copy as hd dvd and bluray standards are coming to market- does anyone know anything about how managed copy might speed up/slow down the implementation of these disks in to the kaledidescape system?

Not trying to resurrect a dead thread, but I noticed that there have been some developments in the area of AACS and managed copy as hd dvd and bluray standards are coming to market- does anyone know anything about how managed copy might speed up/slow down the implementation of these disks in to the kaledidescape system?

MMC provides a feasible way for K to incorporate HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs into the system. The assumption here is that MMC provisions as they actually play out (and not just what is technically possible) will allow for copying to a system like the K. The devil, as always, is in the details. The AACS standard as of now is an interim one. The final version which is supposed to come out in the next couple of months will include MMC. There could be delays though as details are worked out and agreed upon by all parties. Even after that, each studio still has to choose whether to allow their content to be copyable and separately streamable (such as in the case of Windows Media Center PCs streaming to Media Center Clients - K's architecture probably puts them in the same category).

Ideally, AACS will finalize by mid-year along with HDMI 1.3 and MMC will be widely embraced by the studios. If that timetable happens, I could see a K solution for the next gen formats by early next year. Delays are possible and almost likely given all the issues we've seen pop up in the new formats so far.

Jeff

This is an interesting article I just came across:

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/24/next-gen_hdtv_compensates_for_first-gen_hddvd/page2.html

I found this quote very interesting:

"Over the last several months, nearly all sides in the dispute have said they are in favor of "managed copy" or "mandatory managed copy," but then got caught up in a quagmire over just what the "mandatory" part refers so. "The idea of mandatory managed copy, and specifically the word 'mandatory,'" explained Doherty, "relates to the ability of the user to make a copy of all the media, with very rare exceptions. So a managed copy - without the word 'mandatory' - means the ability to make a copy of the disc, or essentially a legal rip, into another content protection system onto your hard drive, or onto your portable player, under the control. The 'mandatory' part is specifically put there to mean, studios can't arbitrarily turn it off - that you have the expectation as a consumer that you can rip every disc.""

Of course, there's also this quote:

"For the first time, however, Doherty did concede that there will be some mandate that applies to the studios. "The terms of the copy are under the studio control," he told TG Daily. "So if they want to charge money, and how much money to charge, are [matters] completely under their purview."

This could very easily be used as a way to strictly limit or even outright deter copying for those studios who just don't like the idea. Also, it may take a while for the market to get consistent pricing worked out for this. Sony could charge $10 for the right to copy their titles while Fox charges $20. Hopefully, in a case like that if Fox sees that Sony is taking in a whole lot more revenue due to the lower price, they will follow suit. It could take a while though.

Jeff

Interesting development that, IMO, is wayyyyyyy overdue:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/03/seven-major-studios-line-up-to-sell-movies-online/

Still pricey, limited functionality (no PMC support yet and burned DVDs of the movies can't be played back on any regular DVD player) and offering less than DVD quality, but it's a start. I wonder what this means for Jobs' efforts to get mainstream movie content into ITMS.

Jeff

By the way, how have the prices of high end CD transports like Wadia and Meitner come down with the stiff competition from the $39 DVD players at Wal Mart?

I don't buy this analogy. Videophiles tend to be a different breed from audiophiles and video gear pricing tends to be different from audio.

Take the Denon flagship DVD player of a couple years ago, the 5900. It MSRP'd for $2,000. The 3910 came out, which was basically the same player, but with some improvements and MSRP's for $1,500.

The Sony "Ruby" has already been cited. Close to the Qualia in performance, but at something like 33% of the cost.

Look at digital cameras. 10 years ago, I bought a one megapixel digital camera for $1,600. Now, you can get an 8 megapixel pro-sumer digital camera like a Rebel XT for around $1,000.

Look at plasma displays. i don't know anyone who is out looking to buy those first generation plasmas that went for $25,000. Sixth generation plasmas are six generations improved and go for a fraction of the price.

I don't buy the Lamborghini analogy, either.

The Lamborghini is the result of proprietary engineering, craftsmanship, etc.

What does Kaleidescape offer that, in time, cannot be duplicated by another product?

They offer an elegant solution, but once another company offers an elegant solution, what will Kaleidescape have to offer that is proprietary? Where is their engineering
advantage? Once another company comes out with an elegant solution for a fraction of the price, I don't believe videophiles will pay a premium for Kaleidescape like a car enthusiast will pay a premium for a Lamborghini. There would be no incentive to do so.

What does Kaleidescape offer that, in time, cannot be duplicated by another product?

They offer an elegant solution, but once another company offers an elegant solution, what will Kaleidescape have to offer that is proprietary? Where is their engineering
advantage? Once another company comes out with an elegant solution for a fraction of the price, I don't believe videophiles will pay a premium for Kaleidescape like a car enthusiast will pay a premium for a Lamborghini. There would be no incentive to do so.

Agreed.

Digital electronics is the great leveler of costs. Proprietary electronics today can be mass produced tomorrow with VLSI integration for a fraction of the cost.

Well of course I agree with you in principle, rsbeck---that if the Kaleidescape's functionality can be duplicated at a lower cost, there will be no reason for people to pay K's premium.

And I'm sure the K folks agree, too. I know this for four reasons. First of all, their prices have already gone down, and will continue to do so. Secondly, from what I know of their product strategy, they do intend to insert themselves into the market at lower price points (with commensurate reduction in features/capacity/etc.). And thirdly, they are not standing still in their product development: music service, alternate content delivery mechanisms, high def...

And fourthly, they have been very aggressive about protecting their IP, some of which may very well be critical to achieving the level of "elegance" you're referring to. For example, they are currently the only company who can legally rip DVDs for you. Yes, CSS disagrees, but I think they'll lose. And whey they do lose, it won't open the door for other companies to do it, because 1) they'll still need a license from CSS; and 2) even if they get one, they'll likely trample on K's patents if they try. So there's a K feature that, for SD DVDs at least, won't readily be duplicated; for all other systems, you'll have to figure out how to rip them yourself. Thankfully HD-DVD and Blu-Ray seem to be implementing MC, which will level this playing field for HD content; but for those of us with sizeable legacy libraries, this feature retains significant value.

The bottom line is, yes, companies will be able to chip away at Kaleidescape's added value, forcing them to bring prices down in the process. And yes, it's entirely possiblke that someone could knock K off the top of the mountain. But K isn't going to make it easy, and I think people on this forum tend to underestimate the value K brings to the table.

Regardless, to whatever degree companies succeed in chipping away at K's lead, it will be to our benefit, the consumers.

Anyone check out the media max which is supposed to be the equivalent of the Kaleidescape?

I tried it and can tell you that it is not to be compared to the Kscape in any way and the price is not substantially less. To me it looks like a Media center PC with a MS OS.

K has very little to do with electronics.

K is all about the software and the "experience" for the user.

K knows this far better than any of the competition. And while many here will refuse to beleive it... it is the hardest lesson of all to comprehend.

The lesson is so hard to comprehend for me, that I haven't become a customer.
The customer is always right.

Tony, your perception of what it is has made your decision and that is cool. from the beginning though, you were so convinced that it was horrendously overpriced that you were not interested in the first place. but i do recall you being far more interested in the software than the hardware (even though in the K case they cannot be seperated)

My point was that in almost every other option; Home brew system, Xperinet, Max, MediaMax, etc... these systems are as complex as computers. None of them were designed with a clear understanding that a 2 year old needs to be able to use it, the non technical wife needs to operate it. As a result, those systems have unneccesary complexity.

If I am the user, and i am fine with it and my wife does not venture forth to try to use it... then that would be fine. But if i want everything in the theatre also available in the bedroom and the living room and the guest room and not need a manual in those rooms... the choices drop off rapidly.

2) even if they get one, they'll likely trample on K's patents if they try. So there's a K feature that, for SD DVDs at least, won't readily be duplicated


What patent could K possibly have on ripping DVDs? That would involve patenting the read of data off a disc. So there's no way they could stop anyone else from ripping DVDs if it became legal to do so.

If I were the CSS folks, and I lost the suit, then I'd seriously consider the nuclear option. If you can't stop it from being done by K, then license a number of their competitors and get revenge and make money at the same time.

they'll likely trample on K's patents if they try.

Maybe I don't understand Kaleidescape as well as I think. If other companies gain the right to load DVD's onto a hard drive, what other patents does Kaleidescape hold that would bar anyone else from producing a competing product?

Right now, one can download software from the web for free that will allow one to rip DVD's to a hard drive. So, K-scape does not have an insurmountable lead in that technology. They are not leaders in storage or delivery -- it seems to me they are purchasers of this technology from other companies -- and there is nothing to stop others from purchasing the same technology. It seems to me like there is a population of hackers out there and someone is just a few hacks away from being able to duplicate what K-scape does.

The bottom line is, yes, companies will be able to chip away at Kaleidescape's added value, forcing them to bring prices down in the process.

That was my point. Prices are going to drop.

And yes, it's entirely possiblke that someone could knock K off the top of the mountain.

This is not where I am heading with my argument. I have no interest in seeing K-scape fail or even to be supassed in market share. They seem like a bright bunch of folks and they may well be able to hold their lead in the marketplace -- I wish them well -- I just think they will be doing it by selling K-scapes at a fraction of their current price.

But K isn't going to make it easy, and I think people on this forum tend to underestimate the value K brings to the table.

I do not undersestimate the value K-scape currently brings to the table. If one wants an elegant solution, they are currently the only game in town. They have an excellent product. For anyone who is shopping for a megabuck whole home solution and who wants to be the first on the block, K-scape in not only the only game in town, but they offer a well-thought-out product. Once you get past the price, there is no real downside to owning one.

Regardless, to whatever degree companies succeed in chipping away at K's lead, it will be to our benefit, the consumers.

Agree.

My point was that in almost every other option; Home brew system, Xperinet, Max, MediaMax, etc... these systems are as complex as computers. None of them were designed with a clear understanding that a 2 year old needs to be able to use it, the non technical wife needs to operate it. As a result, those systems have unneccesary complexity.


My system is 'home brew', though based on a commercial product. Anyone could clearly use it without any problems to drive the whole home theater and house lighting, weather info, and music/movie browsing, and anything else I might want to hook up.

Right now, one can download software from the web for free that will allow one to rip DVD's to a hard drive. So, K-scape does not have an insurmountable lead in that technology. They are not leaders in storage or delivery -- it seems to me they are purchasers of this technology from other companies


I doubt they even had to purchase it. The information is freely available and it's not difficult to do. They just couldn't have any patents in this area that would prevent anyone else from doing it.

I meant that they buy hard drive and player technology from others.

Lets be honest, the software you "download for free" is ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In order to have this discussion, one must stop talking about things that are illegal. whether you agree with the laws or not is immaterial.

Licencees is a better term than purchasers where applicable.

Again, the system is not about importing a DVD... it is all the research into usability and how people watch and making a UI that allows ANYBODY to find what they want, and just watch it.

THe funny part here is that the argument about what it is and isn't is usually maintained by many who do not even have the system.

THeose who have it saw it and decided that it was worth it and it provided a value that NOTHING else could. Even guys like Poindexter and Rgby_Hkr who are self professed geeks who love nothing more than tweaking hardware and fiddling with things jumped at K because of what it is.

And that is not a server and a box.

My system is 'home brew', though based on a commercial product. Anyone could clearly use it without any problems to drive the whole home theater and house lighting, weather info, and music/movie browsing, and anything else I might want to hook up.

If you don't mind my asking, how is your system configured?

In order to have this discussion, one must stop talking about things that are illegal.

The discussion was based on what would happen if others gained the right to download movies to hard drive. Does anyone really think that k-scape will continue indefinitely to be the only ones with this right? As far as the legality issue goes, look at music for an example. Once one has software like i-tunes, there is no barrier to loading CD's to a hard drive and piping them throughout the house and millions of people are taking advantage of this ability -- legal or not. So, once the hack has been ascertained, illegality won't stop people from downloading movies and partaking in the experience k-scape currently offers. Then, some company simply has to put the technology together, reduce the number of boxes, gadgets, separate gear and offer it to the public for a price that makes it less desirable to do it yourself.

If you don't mind my asking, how is your system configured?

It's based on my own product, CQC (www.charmedquark.com). In my case, I used a DVD changer for movies and music on-disc, because I don't have a closet that I can put a big RAID array in, but other customers go with on-disk movies. Yes, they are using an 'illegal' product to rip the DVDs, and we cannot get involved with that at all. But, as a practical matter, if you have all the discs on your shelf to prove that you own them, as an individual within your own home you have zero chance of getting into any trouble over that.

The biggest problem we've had so far is that we didn't have our own CD ripping and metadata retrieval for CD/DVDs, so we depended on two external apps (J.River and DVD Profiler) for doing that (an adiministrative type activity, not something that you'd deal with in the day to day use of the system.) But we've now got our own ripping engine and metadata retrieval system worked out, and they will be coming up in the next release. So that will really only leave the DVD ripping as a 'weak link', in that you'd have to do that via third party code we cannot provide you.

Our product of course is a full automation system, not just a media management system, so you can integrate your media management and theater automation together into a whole home automation scenario if you choose to do so. Or you can use it just within your theater and provide theater control and media management only. In my personal system, I'm doing theater control, media management, weather, and apartment lighting control.

It's a fully network distributed product and you can access it from smart phones, PPCs, tablets, wall pads, other PCs in the home and so forth. It doesn't have any built in interface for the end user, those are designed via our interface designer to suit the needs of the end user.

Here are some screen caps of the interfaces I built for my own system:

Movie Browsing (http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Gallery/CQCDemo1/MoviesOverlay.jpg) In this one you browse available movies. You can see just images, text and images or just text, as desired. There is a category (genre) browser at the top. Select a genre and you can browse the titles in that genre below. Select a title and you get basic metadata at the bottom. If you want to play that one, select Play It. If you want to just go to the "Now Playing" screen without selecting a new title, press the Playing button.

Now Playing Movie (http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Gallery/CQCDemo1/CurMovieOverlay.jpg). This is the now playing page for movies. It provides metadata and transport control for the player (a Sony 777ES in my case, it would be a software based player if you use on-disk movies.)

Browse Music (http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Gallery/CQCDemo1/MusicOverlay.jpg). Now Playing Music (http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Gallery/CQCDemo1/CurMusicOverlay.jpg) Music works similarly. You have a browsing page and a now playing page that provides control. In this case the music is on-disc and I'm controlling a software player (Zoom Player which provides a very nice IP based automation interface.)

There are other screens for other stuff, here are some:

Lighting Control (http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Gallery/CQCDemo1/LightingOverlay.jpg) Controlling a Z-Wave wireles lighting system.
Weather Information (http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Gallery/CQCDemo1/WeatherOverlay.jpg) Pulling in data from the Weather Channel data feed.
Audio Format (http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Gallery/CQCDemo1/AudioOverlay.jpg) Controlling audio aspects of my Lexicon.
TV Viewing (http://www.charmedquark.com/Web/Gallery/CQCDemo1/TVOverlay.jpg) Controlling a Sony HD-300 DirecTV STB.

There are many ways to lay out screens, but I chose an 'overlay' scheme where the main interface stays the same and various smaller interfaces are loaded into an 'overlay' widget. So there are standard controls around the edges that are always available. The volume knob controls my Lexicon volume. The Effect/Signal values are showing the Lexicon settings for audio settings. The weather display at the top is showing a current conditions summary from the weather data feed. The lights go off automatically when video is selected, but you can control it manually via the Lights button at the top right. The power button powers up and down the whole theater at a touch. And the mute button mutes the Lexicon.

But all of this is purely arbitrary and you can build any interface layout you want. I just created using our interface designer and a combination of images that we ship with the product and some that I imported for my personal use and used.

The only thing that's really a pain about this system is the use of J.River/DVDProfiler external apps, and that will go away soon and then I'll be very happy with it. Some folks prefer on-disk movies and to stream it to other machines in the network. In my case, I have a small apartment and live alone, so having a changer based system works very well for me.

So, once the hack has been ascertained, illegality won't stop people from downloading movies and partaking in the experience k-scape currently offers.


But illegality will stop company to invest into this area. Without decent investment, it is hard to develop such an elegent product as K.

Also, it is not cheap to build a server which could smoothly do >10 AV stream.

Last, I hope K could push a stand alone front-end player into the market. Thus, those who don't have a budget but desperate for K's interface could have a cure. :)

As i have said, other comapnies getting the legal right to download is not a part of whether or not they have a good solution. K's advantage is in how you access the information on screen.

That is the part that will take quite a bit of work to catch up to.

But illegality will stop company to invest into this area.

First answer -- Only if no one can come up with a work-around solution. I wouldn't bet on that.

Second answer -- People are already vested in the technology K employs and will continue to be whether K exists or not. K simply buys the stuff from others and packages it. After that, you're talking about software. K's software does provide an excellent experience, but others can come up with similar software -- I don't believe their UI will be difficult to approximate.

Third answer -- even if it continues to be illegal and no company provides an all-in- one solution, we are just a few hacks away from approximating what K does. When it becomes easy for people to put together home systems that approximate what K does, but for a fraction of the price, K's prices will have to drop.

K's advantage is in how you access the information on screen.
That is the part that will take quite a bit of work to catch up to.

I have taken part in a demonstration of K. They do have a nice way to access the film titles, but come on -- you're talking about accessing film titles. I have downloaded free software that makes it very easy to access movie titles stored on my hard drive. This, to me, does not seem like an insurmountable barrier to entry.

K's software does provide an excellent experience, but others can come up with similar software -- I don't believe their UI will be difficult to approximate.

Decss exist for how many years? Why are we still in the believe stage? :)
Also,it is the extra mile that require 90% of the effort.


Third answer -- even if it continues to be illegal and no company provides an all-in- one solution, we are just a few hacks away from approximating what K does. When it becomes easy for people to put together home systems that approximate what K does, but for a fraction of the price, K's prices will have to drop.

Vista will allow legal DVD streaming(but no word on the ripping).Let's wait and see. To be honest, I don't think it is just a few hacks away. But anyway since you are talking about approximating. :)

Also you keep saying that you could build a similar solution for a fraction of price given no legal obstacle. I really doubt it.

Last, there are other unreplicable advantages come with the K's package such as HD movie distribution.

rsbeck: Maybe I don't understand Kaleidescape as well as I think. If other companies gain the right to load DVD's onto a hard drive, what other patents does Kaleidescape hold that would bar anyone else from producing a competing product?The question is, exactly how do they gain the right? If other media server companies seek a standard CSS license, the same as K has, then it's very likely that they will be completely unable to rip DVDs to their servers in a legal, license-compliant fashion without violating K's IP.

Now, if CSS were to change their license terms to provide a more liberal view on managed copies, then it's conceivable that this would enable other companies to implement a ripping capability that circuments K's patents (though I am not sure of this). But honestly, do we think it's likely that CSS will relax their rules in this area?
Right now, one can download software from the web for free that will allow one to rip DVD's to a hard drive. So, K-scape does not have an insurmountable lead in that technology.You, as an individual, can download a DVD ripper and use it to load up a media server. But no company besides K can do it for you, nor can they provide you with the software to do so. And arguably, they might even be risking their necks just by supporting the playback of images that are obviously ripped from DVDs. So in terms of what companies can provide, they definitely have a lead that is going to be rather difficult to surmount, at least for SD-DVDs.

Again, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have managed copy built in, so the situation is different.It seems to me like there is a population of hackers out there and someone is just a few hacks away from being able to duplicate what K-scape does.Why haven't they done it, then?

I think it actually boils down to what it is that you actually think K-scape does---which in turn depends a lot on what it is you actually value. Yes, there are software solutions out there that can do a portion of what Kaleidescape does. And for those people who find that portion sufficient, fine.

Dean Roddey: They just couldn't have any patents in this area that would prevent anyone else from doing it.Yes, indeed, they can; what their patents cover, specifically, is the process of ripping the DVDs in a manner compliant with the CSS license.

So I suppose you could argue that the patents don't really apply to anyone who doesn't purport to be a CSS licensee. For individuals like you and me, then, it's not going to matter.

The situation is different for a company who wants to sell a system that includes the capability of ripping DVDs. If they want to do it legally, the only way they can do so is to become a CSS licensee. I don't know how likely that is now that CSS is realizing that they have this media server "loophole." But if CSS does decide to allow media server manufacturers to become CSS licensees, then those licensees will have to rip discs in a compliant manner---which means they'll be knocking on K's door.

I was speaking in terms of DVD ripping in general. However, your logic is flawed. If CSS allows people to rip DVDs, that is their sole legal right to do that and no patent by K could prevent it. You cannot create a patent that prevents the owner of something from allowing anyone they want to use that product to use it.

K is claiming a patent on a method that tiptoes around a legal constraint. If that legal constraint were not present, then there would not need to tiptoe, and one could just do the ripping in the obvious way, and there's no freaking way K can prevent the folks who own the technology from licensing its use to whoever they want.

Personally, I would find the granting of a patent, the sole claim of which is to finese a legal agreement, is retarded on the face of it anyway. It doesn't represent any discovery. If it does, then any lawyer should be able to patent any scheme they find to finese a law.

If CSS allows people to rip DVDs, that is their sole legal right to do that and no patent by K could prevent it.Don't be absurd, of course they can. You would be right if CSS defined in their specification a specific procedure for ripping DVDs, but they did not. CSS instead simply defines a set of security measures that a system must comply with. So Kaleidescape found a process by which DVDs can be ripped while presumably satisfying those security criteria. They were the first to do so, and they patented it.K is claiming a patent on a method that tiptoes around a legal constraint.Right. So?If that legal constraint were not present, then there would not need to tiptoe, and one could just do the ripping in the obvious way.Of course, and if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass a-hoppin.and there's no freaking way K can prevent the folks who own the technology from licensing its use to whoever they want.K is not preventing CSS from licensing their technology to anyone they choose. But anyone else who wishes to do it is going to have to find another way to comply, or pay K some coin.Personally, I would find the granting of a patent, the sole claim of which is to finese a legal agreement, is retarded on the face of it anyway.Well, I already knew you had a dim view of patents anyway, so this isn't a surprise. Or perhaps more civilly stated, you set a rather high bar for what constitutes a patentable invention, higher than, frankly, the law does.It doesn't represent any discovery.Now that's absurd. Obviously K was the first to discover how to rip DVDs in a compliant manner. In fact, not even CSS realized it was possible, apparently.If it does, then any lawyer should be able to patent any scheme they find to finese a law.No, because we're talking about a technical process and a business process, not some combination of laws. But the truth is I'll bet it happens all the time. All sorts of inventions are designed with the express purpose of complying with legal regulations.

A great example would be devices and techniques for reducing the pollution output of automobiles. Most of these devices don't add any consumer value; they often increase the cost of the vehicle, and they often reduce gas mileage. So the only reason to have them at all is because the law says that emissions have to be reduced. To borrow from your argument, "If the legal constraint were not present, these devices would be unnecessary."

Any company that invents a new way to achieve those emission reductions, then, has a patentable invention whose only practical purpose is to comply with the law. But I guess all of those patents are retarted to you, aren't they.

K is not preventing CSS from licensing their technology to anyone they choose. But anyone else who wishes to do it is going to have to find another way to comply, or pay K some coin.


If CSS licenses someone to rip DVDs to a hard drive, then it's a moot point. They've given you permission (and I assume therefore a license) to decrypt their data. That's all that's required. There's not squat K can do about it. There would be no need to tiptoe in that case, because you are given the right to do it.

You don't seem to understand the technical issues involved. There are only two things involved, if you are licensed by CSS. You read the data off the disk, clearly something that cannot be patented, and you decrypted it, something that clearly CSS has the sole right to grant anyone they want to do it.

What K has done, AFAIK, is to finess that by not De-CSSing the data, i.e. they just replicate the data from the DVD to their hard drive without removing any encryption. They then play that data using licensed players that have a right to decrypt.

If the CSS folks grant you a license to decrypt, as though you were a player, then all you have to do is copy the data to your hard drive and you are the player. There is not way in the world K could do anythng to stop that or make any claim against any company that does so. They would get laughed out of court.

They cannot patent copying of the data from the disk, and CSS has the sole right to license people to decrypt it. There is no discovery involved, other than, hey, they probably can't sue us if we do this. There's nothing remotely technically advanced about it.

And, BTW, your portrayal of my attitude towards patents is incorrect. I believe strongly in the patent and copyright system. What I don't believe in is the stupid abuses of the patent system by companies who try to patent ridiculous things and to gain advantage by legal means instead of competing. If they have have a truely patentable process, then I'm all for it. They should be able to patent it and have all the protections involved. But too often people are just using patents as a nuisance weapon, and they undermine the point of the whole system.

If CSS licenses someone to rip DVDs to a hard drive, then it's a moot point.Yes, but you have to understand what this means. This means that CSS would actually have to change their licensing terms. Currently they don't issue such licenses.They've given you permission (and I assume therefore a license) to decrypt their data. That's all that's required.Again, this is not the way it is currently done. They give you permission to decrypt their data only if you adhere to certain security conditions. Those conditions were laid down primarily for standalone players, not servers. At present, there is only one process that has been discovered to do create a media server while meeting those conditions. That process was not laid down by CSS itself, it was discovered by K separately.There's not squat K can do about it. There would be no need to tiptoe in that case, because you are given the rip to do it.Again, this is not the way CSS currently works. If CSS changes their license agreement, so be it.

Look at it this way: the folks who designed AACS had to jump through considerable hoops to define a set of conditions under which managed copies can be made. But even they defined only the conditions for doing so; the process for doing so is not defined.

Multiple vendors will have the opportunity to have their security model validated by the AACS consortium; and once they receive that validation, they will be given permission to rip discs under that model. No doubt, each of those security models/processes will have some sort of patent protection.

Well, CSS was not design with such applications in mind, and the security conditions reflect that. K found a way around them.

But you are missing the point here I think, even outside of CSS provding a license, which again comes back to the fact that nothing remotely patentable is involved, because it's purely a legal issue.

K is just pulling the raw encrypted data from the DVD raw and putting it on the hard drive. You cannot patent that. That's reading a drive. It's not patentable. Do you agree with that? Do you think that someone can patent the reading of the raw data on a disc? I assume not.

Therefore, they've done nothing but find a loophole that they might be able to get around in court, though that's not a given. If they do, and the court indicates that doing that is not prevented by the CSS licensing system, there is no way they can prevent anyone else from doing the same thing. They cannot patent reading data from a disk. And if the court judges that that can be done, then clearly that judgement would apply to everyone.

If part of the reason that the court decides it is ok is if tha tsystem also provides good protections of the data once ripped, then there are many ways to provide good protection of data on a hard drive and K doesn't control any of those ways.

Once the data is on the hard drive, any legal, licensed player that can understand access of the data on a hard drive can play it. The player is not doing anything wrong since it has the right to decrypt the data.

Unless of course this case is about a specific, previously entered agreement above and beyond the CSS licensing issue between CSS and K and not about CSS in general? I.e. did CSS grant K a specific license to do what they are doing, and then back out, or is K claiming that what they are doing is just within the limits of the CSS agreement? If it's the former, then it may be that if K wins, then they still are left the only ones able to do it. If it's just about CSS in general, and the court rules on K's side, then I cannot see how it could leave K in a unique position anymore.

But you are missing the point here I think, even outside of CSS provding a license, which again comes back to the fact that nothing remotely patentable is involved, because it's purely a legal issue.No, I'm not missing your point, I'm saying you're wrong. it's not purely a legal issue. It's a technical process that meets certain legal requirements.K is just pulling the raw encrypted data from the DVD raw and putting it on the hard drive.Dean, you're just batty. Give me, and frankly K, some credit. Do you honestly believe that the only step is just "reading the data off the drive"? Of course not.

A CSS license is not simply an unconditional permission slip to read the raw data off of a DVD and do whatever you want with it. The permission slip is contingent on the adherence to the CSS security measures.

So the process we're talking about here is far more than just "reading the raw data", it is the process by which that data remains secure (by CSS's definition) as it is moved from the disc to the media server, while it remains on the server, when it is shipped from server to player, and when it is decrypted. It could very well include specific hardware implementation consequences as well as firmware/software, I am not sure.
Once the data is on the hard drive, any legal, licensed player that can understand access of the data on a hard drive can play it. The player is not doing anything wrong since it has the right to decrypt the data.Absolutely incorrect. Again, CSS does not give an unconditional permission slip to rip data. Permission is conditional on adhering to security measures after the data is removed from the disc. No standalone ripper currently available today meets that criteria.

As for whether or not a CSS-licensed player has the right to decrypt CSS-encrypted data that is stored on a standard PC, I do not know. That would depend on the exact terms of the agreement. It is entirely conceivable that CSS would not allow compliant players to decrypt content that could not be reasonably verified as having come from a legitimate disc, and not a rip. But given the number of players that support reading ISO images, CSS either doesn't impose that restriction or doesn't enforce it.

You continue to misunderstand my point, which is this:

If the court decision is not about some private agreement between K and CSS that is in dispute, i.e. if it is about CSS itself, then if K wins, that opens the door. The security of the data is irrelevant. CSS supposedly decides what is sufficient security, does it not? If K can force CSS to accept that their system is sufficiently protective of the data, against CSS' will, when CSS argues that it's not, then clearly any other system that provides sufficient protections of the data could have a good change of winning such a court challenge, and some big players with easily as much legal clout as K may well step into this arena.

MS could easily be such a player, since they desparately want to have such capabilities in Vista. Do you think that CSS could argue that K is capable of sufficiently protecting the data while an infinitely more technically and financially endowed company cannot, one whose OS is going to be granted the right to rip hugely more valuable HD content? Would not MS or anyone else with a lot of lawyers and a lot of desire attack this as what is now an unfair advantage of one company who has been allowed to get around the agreement while no one else has? Not to mention Sony and other companies of that sort, who I'm sure would love to get into this area.

And, given that the encrypted data on a DVD is *even more open to access* than the data would be after being ripped (raw, still encrypted) and stored in any reasonably implemented system, I cannot see how, if K wins, CSS could fight off big companies with the ability to create systems that protect the data infinitely better than it is in the form sold the user, and easily as much so as the K system. The encrypted data can be read by anyone, and the ability to do so is built into the OS. The only thing protecting it is the CSS encryption, which is not being broken by reading the raw data off the disc.

The only place where the unencrypted data is vulnerable, is in the actual player. But that vulnerability exists *exactly the same* whether it's played from an actual DVD drive or from a hard drive. There is no difference whatsoever in terms of the exposure of the data. In both cases it reads the encrypted data into its own memory, and decrypts it. If a small company like WinDVD can create a compliant and licensed software DVD player, I think that any of the big players can do so as well without a lot of strain. In fact WinDVD and all other Windows based players are mostly using MS's media framework anyway.

So the protection argument, when you are talking about the raw encrypted data, is a bogus one because it was never protected to begin with. Anyone can read it any time they want from the orignal disc. If you are reading the raw encrypted data onto a hard drive, you've not increased the vulnerabilty at all, and if you read it into an encrypted system, then you've decreased the vulnerability considerably.

I would hope that K's argument would rest at least someowhat on that point, since it's a pretty fundamental issue. But, it's nothing that they can own or prevent anyone else from doing. And if CSS no longer can impose a particular implementation for security of such data, then I don't see how, if K wins, they can argue that equally safe or safer implementations are not legal, when some of the companies involved have enough legal clout (and strong desire) to push the issue heavily. There are clearly numerous ways to protect data that are very strong, and K has no lock on them. They obviously are not doing anything magical in this area that cannot be done 20 different ways and be just as safe.

That's my point in a fairly large nutshell. Again, it hinges on whether this case is about CSS itself, or about a private agreement between K and CSS. And it depends on whether companies like MS want to get into this area. I think that the latter is obviously true. And I think that, if K should win, that they will. For those companies like ours, all that matters is that MS win. If they win, we win.

Or, it's always possible that MS may just say, screw the DVD world, and look to the HD world and be done with it. That wouldn't be bad necessarily either, since it would push HD into the mass market faster and create a world where the whole issue has gone away, and the CSS folks can drift away into insignificance, as can K's legal advantage.

So in terms of what companies can provide, they definitely have a lead that is going to be rather difficult to surmount, at least for SD-DVDs.

You already have companies making media servers. K has no lead in that area. You already have companies making players. K has no lead in that area. There's no area of technology where K has the lead. The only area where they have the lead is in regard to the legal issue. The argument is -- what would happen if the legal issue wer to be resolved. You seem to be taking the position that if the legal issue were to be resolved and others gained the same rights, they wouldn't gain the same rights.
Once the legal issue is set aside, by definition, poof, K's lead is gone.

I'm going further than that. Even if the legal issue is not resolved, we're just a few hacks away from being able to approximate the K experience. You already have people making media servers and all of the other pieces necessary. The last piece of the puzzle is software and there are hackers working on this stuff -- you can download their stuff for free. Why haven't they hacked it already? Who knows? A better question, IMO, is why have they gotten this far? They charge no money and make no profit. I assume these guys have day jobs and families. Yet, these guys in their spare time are just a few hacks away from a company that, I assume, employs full-time engineers and does this for a living.

Some of you guys are comparing Kaleidescape to a media center pc or any other variation of dvd decrypting/ripping server/client based system.

That is like comparing a souped-up Corvette to a Ferrari 430. Sure- it will go fast, and maybe it will corner well, but the total package of the ferrari cannot be touched!

The details are what makes the difference. Has everyone here owned or at least played around with a Keliedescape or had it properly demonstrated? IT is not this computer-style system- you unplug it, plug it back in, it is up in about 6 seconds, ready to continue playing- it is based on a lot of computer- style proprietary engineering, but it is simply far more elegant than a MCE system, even with my movies or something else like it.

Here is an example- my wife's brother has downsyndrome- he picks up a brightly colored remote and selects his movie- no joke, this sold my father in-law on buying the system for his Park City house. Teh intuitive nature of the system, the automatic categorization fo movie disks, and the SPEED at which it began playing- those set it apart.

I guess what I am trying to say is this- even if the dvd licensing people decided to remove their heads from their asses and let everyone rip dvds to hard drives tommorrow, Kaleidescape would still be an amazing system- a cut above anything else in terms of simplicty and ease of use because they own the patents that makes it so user friendly and elegant. A lot of companies might get close if they could legally rip a dvd in the traditional "dvd decrypter" method, driving K's price down- but still- K would still posess features that no other system could touch because they own the rights to their implementation.

Bingo!

Has everyone here owned or at least played around with a Keliedescape or had it properly demonstrated?

Yep.

Kaleidescape would still be an amazing system

No one is knocking Kaleidescape.

a cut above anything else in terms of simplicty and ease of use

Aghhh --- I think it is time to turn the question around. You can get software free from the web that will catalogue your movies -- just like i-tunes -- with titles, cover art, etc. You want to watch a movie, you click on the cover art -- bing -- the movie plays. You can scroll through titles, cover art, whatever you like.

Maybe it isn't that people don't have enough experience with Kaleidescape, maybe some people find Kaleidescape so amazing because it is all they've seen.

>>because they own the patents that makes it so user friendly and elegant.<<

Sounds like advertising babble to me.

not babble- patents. Without them, we would not have the economy we do- that is a fact.

Also- I have MCE, my movies 1 and the latest beta of 2, that stuff is great. But it is simply not on thelevel of K, it might get 90% of the way there for functionality- but it is that extra 10% that makes all of the difference between K and everything else

not babble- patents.

What, specifically, do you believe they have patented?

They ahve or are in the proces of patenting a number of the specifc ways the movies are sorted, the way the disk is copied to the system without ripping, and the architecture- at least this is how it was explained to me.

Well, as long as they don't infringe on my alphabetizing patent.

That is like comparing a souped-up Corvette to a Ferrari 430. Sure- it will go fast, and maybe it will corner well, but the total package of the ferrari cannot be touched!


How many people own Ferraris? How many people own Toyotas? How much does Toyota make relative to Ferrari? The person who ends up ruling this area will not be the Ferrari company, it'll be the Toyota company, who figures out how to provide enough functionality, for a reasonable price, in a package that is reasonable robust enough to deliver into the homes of at least a fair percentage of the unwashed masses. They'll earn orders of magnitude more revenues.

This assumes that there is even a Toyota style market for this type of system, and their might not be for some time yet to come. If not, then it will remain a high end but small pond, and K's growth will remain limited. They won't be suffering per se, but they'll be far more limited than if they could deliver the same product for a tenth of the price to a hundred times the number of customers.

First of all, I would argue that the Kaleidescape is not like a Ferrari at all. A Kaleidescape is prized for its convenience. No one drives a Ferarri because of its convenience. Right now, the Kaleidescape, to me, is more like a microwave oven. The only thing it has in common with a Ferrari is an eye-popping price. Microwave ovens used to be made by only one company; Amana, a division of Raytheon. The first microwave ovens were really expensive. The first ones sold for a cool $2,000. Coincidentally, that would be $20,000 in today's dollars. The public was initially reluctant to own a microwave oven. It took something like 20 years for them to become a common household appliance. Now, you see them everywhere and you can get one for a hundred bucks. Now that everyone is making microwave ovens, there is very little one company can do to distinguish its microwave oven from anyone else's. The first microwave ovens are not looked upon as Ferraris -- they're just looked upon as early models.

Oh, and the inventor of the microwave oven, Percy Spencer, had a patent on the technology, too.

You can get software free from the web that will catalogue your movies -- just like i-tunes -- with titles, cover art, etc. You want to watch a movie, you click on the cover art -- bing -- the movie plays.



As a 5 year user of several of those free and not free software, I can say that the last part of your comment should read......

"bing...and nothing happens! and your family is once again disapointed since they wanted to watch the Incredibles.

Becuase you can have the best HTPC with nothing else on the system, and with alot of those software front ends (not including Dean's since I never gave it a fair chance) there are hiccups freezes and just plain old nothing happens.

My 5 year old son started expertly navigating the Kscape with ease right from the start. There has never been even one time that the system refused to instantly play a movie. I have never seen a system that can instantly browse through the titles, covers, sort by genres, actors, directors etc.. without some sort of delay. There is no delay with anything you do to the Kscape. And thats all while you have 5 players all playing the same or different movie from a single server.

Im sure eventually there will media players that catch up to the Kscape but right now there are none.

How many people own Ferraris?

Only one participating in his thread. And he invented an attractive automation software.

Dean:If the court decision is not about some private agreement between K and CSS that is in dispute, i.e. if it is about CSS itself, then if K wins, that opens the door. The security of the data is irrelevant. CSS supposedly decides what is sufficient security, does it not? If K can force CSS to accept that their system is sufficiently protective of the data, against CSS' will, when CSS argues that it's not, then clearly any other system that provides sufficient protections of the data could have a good change of winning such a court challenge, and some big players with easily as much legal clout as K may well step into this arena.This analysis is incorrect. It only opens the door as far as K has opened it.

The dispute is this: K claims that they have found a way to build a media server compliant with the CSS contract; the CSS folks disagree. If CSS wins, then of course the door is shut on K and everyone else. But if K wins, it does not mean that anyone else can build a media server willy nilly without regard for the security conditions imposed by CSS. On the contrary, they must still abide by CSS' conditions---it's just that those conditions now have a new understanding.

In that new understanding, there is currently only one known method for abiding by the CSS security conditions in a media server framework---and that method is patented by K.

So, that leaves a new media server manufacturer who desires to become a CSS licensee with one of two options: 1) they can follow K's procedure, and pay them royalties to do so; or 2) they can try to come up with a new method, a new loophole, that does not. But they still have to find a way to comply in a very specific way with the requirements that CSS imposes.

"First of all, I would argue that the Kaleidescape is not like a Ferrari at all. A Kaleidescape is prized for its convenience. No one drives a Ferarri because of its convenience. Right now, the Kaleidescape, to me, is more like a microwave oven. The only thing it has in common with a Ferrari is an eye-popping price. Microwave ovens used to be made by only one company; Amana, a division of Raytheon. The first microwave ovens were really expensive. The first ones sold for a cool $2,000. Coincidentally, that would be $20,000 in today's dollars. The public was initially reluctant to own a microwave oven. It took something like 20 years for them to become a common household appliance. Now, you see them everywhere and you can get one for a hundred bucks. Now that everyone is making microwave ovens, there is very little one company can do to distinguish its microwave oven from anyone else's. The first microwave ovens are not looked upon as Ferraris -- they're just looked upon as early models."


That's a good point RSBECK- You also forgot to mention that the Kaleidescape is nothing like a Ferrari and more like a microwave oven because the Kaleidescape cannot take you to 7-11 for a slurpee.

In that new understanding, there is currently only one known method for abiding by the CSS security conditions in a media server framework---and that method is patented by K.



This is my point- only expressed far better :)

In that new understanding, there is currently only one known method for abiding by the CSS security conditions in a media server framework---and that method is patented by K.


Patented, or applied for? I still find it hard to believe that they can get a patent for effectively working out a loophole. BTW, I said it was a loophole to begin with, and you then used the same term, since that's all it is, IMO. There are plenty of ways to what they are doing, they only found one that does squeak through (assuming it does.) That, to me, is not an invention, it's a loophole.

Becuase you can have the best HTPC with nothing else on the system, and with alot of those software front ends (not including Dean's since I never gave it a fair chance) there are hiccups freezes and just plain old nothing happens.


Our product is completely stable as long as it's set up correctly. I used it every day in my own system (eat my dog food) and it always works. Our product has a hugely more difficult job than K's to begin with, since it's an automation system and is tied into all kinds of devices around the house and has to deal with the vagaries of the real world, plus be an interactive media system. That's why it has to be set up correctly, because it's not a closed world, it's an extremely open world that is designed to bring lots of disparate stuff under a single umbrella and integrate it into a system.

My CE devices in my theater fail to work correctly far more than my CQC system. The Lexicon has a habit of not locking onto the digital audio signal from the DVD player sometimes and I have to cycle it to make it see the signal. And my video processor, if there is a power sag or quick glitch, will stop responding until it's power cycled. And my auto-sensing subwoofer goes off in the middle of movies when there's no activity and suddenly comes on when something happens, losing the first half second of the sound.

But the CQC system always works.

As a 5 year user of several of those free and not free software, I can say that the last part of your comment should read......"bing...and nothing happens! and your family is once again disapointed since they wanted to watch the Incredibles.

You experienced early versions of the software. Clicking and having a movie start is no longer a problem. So, if that is the big advantage of K, that advantage is gone.

As far as browsing through titles -- that's no problem, either.

When I demoed K, it was interesting to browse through genres, etc -- but 99.9% of the time, I doubt I -- or anyone else in my family -- would use that function.

Patented, or applied for?Fair question, I don't know for sure.I still find it hard to believe that they can get a patent for effectively working out a loophole.Perhaps that's because you keep thinking it's jsut a matter of "ripping the data off the disc." If it encompasses the construction of an end-to-end secure data retrieval, storage, and delivery system, then it's a process. And a process is entirely patentable.BTW, I said it was a loophole to begin with, and you then used the same term, since that's all it is, IMO.Yes, but just because it's a loophole doesn't mean it is an easy loophole. It could very well require contortions of Rube Goldberg-ian complexity to pass through the loophole.There are plenty of ways to what they are doing, they only found one that does squeak through (assuming it does.) That, to me, is not an invention, it's a loophole.And to go back to my car analogy, there are plenty of ways to build an automobile that drives down the road, but far fewer ways to build one that adheres to governmental regulations---including many that serve only to increase a consumer's costs. Many of the developments the car manufacturers have made to satisfy those requirements are patentable. That can include physical devices like, say, an oxygen sensor, but it can also include manufacturing processes for making a particular part more accurately.

So it's seems to me entirely within precedent to patent the discovery of processes whose purposes are to satisfy a set of legal conditions, particularly if they encompass a sequence of technical measures.