Would you consider any offering from Microsoft relating to a satellite-based all-HDTV service based on 11 Mbps WM9 provided the hardware costs were inline with current MPEG-2 receiver-decoders? This would be a Microsoft challenge to place a bird in space and deliver subscription-based HDTV service, say 15-20 HD channels initially, and then spreading to about 10 new channels semi-annually? If the interest were there, at what price?
Would you buy into a Microsoft HD-DBS Service?
- Status
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Hi WanMan.
I saw a similar poll for the HW on the HD HW forum, but didn't think much about it. What makes you suddenly interested in people's opinion on this Microsoft matter, eh? Care to spill the beans?
IMHO, 11 mbps WM9 might be at the edge for 1080i material, 720p would be fine. Encoding will need to be tweaked here and there - WM9 is not very good at handling fade-outs / fade-ins, and on very dynamic materials (again IMHO).
In any case, if there exist a satellite HD provider, that provides PQ as good as DishNetwork's offerings, I would be interested in it - Pricewise, monthly, let's say about $2 per HD channel available at the start (4 or 5 channels), tapering down to $1 per HD channel when it gets to 20 channels. Would be nice to do ala carte, but we know it's not gonna happen - no business in their right mind would do that.
For most people, however, it's the commitment that's usually the problem. Microsoft has never been known to commit to something for too long, if it doesn't generate enough money/sales. UltimateTV, Windows CE and the sidewinder joysticks stuff are not making enough money, so they just drop it. The XBox is at the edge there - if it makes a bit less money that what they make now, it might be made obsolete. And people won't want to upgrade their STB every 2-3 years.
MS has a lot of bad publicity upfront - it might make more sense for them to team with a cableco, and let the cableco do the PR for spinning off a satellite division - with MS pulling the ropes behind it. Just my thought.
I saw a similar poll for the HW on the HD HW forum, but didn't think much about it. What makes you suddenly interested in people's opinion on this Microsoft matter, eh? Care to spill the beans?
IMHO, 11 mbps WM9 might be at the edge for 1080i material, 720p would be fine. Encoding will need to be tweaked here and there - WM9 is not very good at handling fade-outs / fade-ins, and on very dynamic materials (again IMHO).
In any case, if there exist a satellite HD provider, that provides PQ as good as DishNetwork's offerings, I would be interested in it - Pricewise, monthly, let's say about $2 per HD channel available at the start (4 or 5 channels), tapering down to $1 per HD channel when it gets to 20 channels. Would be nice to do ala carte, but we know it's not gonna happen - no business in their right mind would do that.
For most people, however, it's the commitment that's usually the problem. Microsoft has never been known to commit to something for too long, if it doesn't generate enough money/sales. UltimateTV, Windows CE and the sidewinder joysticks stuff are not making enough money, so they just drop it. The XBox is at the edge there - if it makes a bit less money that what they make now, it might be made obsolete. And people won't want to upgrade their STB every 2-3 years
.MS has a lot of bad publicity upfront - it might make more sense for them to team with a cableco, and let the cableco do the PR for spinning off a satellite division - with MS pulling the ropes behind it. Just my thought.
Joined
·
4,632 Posts
Is microsoft thinking of doing something in the dbs service?
"I know nothing! Nothing!" -Schultz, Hogan's Heros
Actually, there is an on-going WM9 discussion going on in one of the digital projector forums (wrong place!!!) and I thought I would garner some field responses to a potential 3rd DBS provider.
I separated the original poll idea into hardware/programming because there wasn't a general HD-DBS forum to garner feedback. So, one poll for hardware and the other for programming.
Actually, there is an on-going WM9 discussion going on in one of the digital projector forums (wrong place!!!) and I thought I would garner some field responses to a potential 3rd DBS provider.
I separated the original poll idea into hardware/programming because there wasn't a general HD-DBS forum to garner feedback. So, one poll for hardware and the other for programming.
Joined
·
111 Posts
Can we get a "No" option? Less vague than "Other"?
Well, Cruzer, several key individuals in the Hollywood and HT industry beg to differ. They used and have made claim that 11 Mbps WM9 looks better than 28 Mbps D-Theater, and as such used WM9 content at this year's recent CEDIA show.
I am not advocating one or the other as I have not seen 28 Mbps MPEG-2 nor have I seen 11 Mbps WM9. I guess you have already made the proper auditions to draw your conclusions from.
I am not advocating one or the other as I have not seen 28 Mbps MPEG-2 nor have I seen 11 Mbps WM9. I guess you have already made the proper auditions to draw your conclusions from.
Joined
·
19,586 Posts
As I've pointed out a number of times, it's not all a technical matter, there are political issues here, and Cruzer's post is a perfect example, and I'm sure that most of the people in the companies that MS would ahve to have the cooperation of in order ot create such a system (or more to the point to have any content to display on it once it was created), probably are even less sanguine about getting in bed with MS.
And, since the chances of them doing any such things is so close to zero that it's not worth sweating the difference, the outcome of this poll is pretty meaningless.
And, since the chances of them doing any such things is so close to zero that it's not worth sweating the difference, the outcome of this poll is pretty meaningless.
Joined
·
561 Posts
No M$!!!
Joined
·
860 Posts
Finally, a service where having Microsoft crash twice a day is not
that big a deal !!
that big a deal !!
Quote:
I'm not so sure this may be the entire case. Microsoft is the root evil in the world, because if that were the case we'd all be Mozilla and owning Macs.
I think you may personally underestimate the power and inflence of money, especialy in this economy. How could the FCC say no to Microsoft trying to bring competition to the satellite industry? Microsoft would be far from the first company to strongly branch out into multiple sectors (look at Sony).
Quote:
It was quite meaningful to me in that 80% of those voting in the poll were looking for somethnig other than 'Other'.
| Originally posted by Dean Roddey As I've pointed out a number of times, it's not all a technical matter, there are political issues here, and Cruzer's post is a perfect example, and I'm sure that most of the people in the companies that MS would ahve to have the cooperation of in order ot create such a system (or more to the point to have any content to display on it once it was created), probably are even less sanguine about getting in bed with MS. |
I think you may personally underestimate the power and inflence of money, especialy in this economy. How could the FCC say no to Microsoft trying to bring competition to the satellite industry? Microsoft would be far from the first company to strongly branch out into multiple sectors (look at Sony).
Quote:
| And, since the chances of them doing any such things is so close to zero that it's not worth sweating the difference, the outcome of this poll is pretty meaningless. |
Quote:
This may be the case when encoding uncompressed content (like say... making an WM9 HD-DVD) But this would NOT be the case with a DBS service. The content providers are providing their stations in MPEG-2 at various bitrates, re-encoding them into yet another lossy format is a BAD idea.
The other issue is that that "11 Mbps WM9" was likely not encoded in realtime, as it would be in the DBS scenario. Realtime encoding brings up many more quality issues that don't apply when you have the time to do multi-pass encoding.
| Originally posted by WanMan They used and have made claim that 11 Mbps WM9 looks better than 28 Mbps D-Theater, and as such used WM9 content at this year's recent CEDIA show. |
The other issue is that that "11 Mbps WM9" was likely not encoded in realtime, as it would be in the DBS scenario. Realtime encoding brings up many more quality issues that don't apply when you have the time to do multi-pass encoding.
Quote:
Legacy. Where did I say that the activity or idea would involve current content providers? And it wouldn't be difficult with the correct palm application en grease to offer assistance in setting up the necessary framework for developing WM9 (or any other new) codec-based content.
Quote:
I'm not trying to debate the technical hurdles, here, but trying to find out if interest in such an offering if an offering were made.
| Originally posted by kurros This may be the case when encoding uncompressed content (like say... making an WM9 HD-DVD) But this would NOT be the case with a DBS service. The content providers are providing their stations in MPEG-2 at various bitrates, re-encoding them into yet another lossy format is a BAD idea. |
Quote:
| The other issue is that that "11 Mbps WM9" was likely not encoded in realtime, as it would be in the DBS scenario. Realtime encoding brings up many more quality issues that don't apply when you have the time to do multi-pass encoding. |
Depends. Are they going to leave me hanging like they did with UltimateTV the minute the competition doesn't run away and hide? I have nothing against Microsoft - I use their software unashamedly. However, the UltimateTV experience has soured me on any of their efforts outside the computer spectrum. I don't count X-Box, since all it is is a souped-up PC anyway.
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
