Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Motorola's IPTV success ..

Hash: SHA1

____/ Chris Ahlstrom on Wednesday 21 January 2009 12:57 : \____

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out
>   this bit o' wisdom:
>>> May I trouble you for a link?
>> Telecom Italia Rejects Microsoft IPTV
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| For Microsoft, Telecom Italia's decision is clearly a blow. But it has
>>| other carrier partners that have deployed its technology in commercial
>>| networks, including AT&T Inc.
>> `----
>> http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=148327
> Thanks!
>    For Microsoft, Telecom Italia's decision is clearly a blow. But it has
>    other carrier partners that have deployed its technology in commercial
>    networks, including AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T - message board), BT Group plc
>    (NYSE: BT - message board; London: BTA), Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE: DT -
>    message board), Swisscom AG (NYSE: SCM - message board), and a
>    number that plan to deploy the Mediaroom system. (See MTS Picks AlcaLu &
>    Microsoft, BT Adds to Its IPTV Options, Swisscom Still Dogged by
>    IPTV Issues, Microsoft Seals $500M IPTV Deal, Singtel Does IPTV,
>    AT&T Launches HDTV, and Microsoft Wins IPTV Deal at DT.)
>    http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=138408
>    During the delays, various Swisscom officials noted problems with set-top
>    boxes, content availability, the bandwidth capabilities of the carrier's
>    access network, and the IPTV content delivery system sourced from
>    Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT - message board). "Our partner Microsoft
>    had some problems with stability," stated the operator's head of fixed
>    network developments, Urs Bratschi, at a Light Reading Ethernet event in
>    April 2006. (See Swisscom Eats Up Ethernet .)
>    http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=111517
>    ... and Tatung announced the availability of HD-ready products compatible
>    with Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT - message board)'s IPTV middleware,
>    which AT&T is using.`
>    (AT&T U-verse walkthrough and review)
>    In doing some checking on this I found out that U-Verse was sending the
>    HD in about 10Mbs MPEG4 streams, the same stream on Dish (Food HD) was
>    using 12 - 14 Mbs. The extra 2 MB of data was enough to make a big
>    difference in the picture quality.
>       . . .
>    However this brings up another major flaw in the U-VERSE, at the moment
>    you can have up to 4 receivers in your house, all of their receivers are
>    HD. The flaw is at this time you can only watch 1 HD channel on any given
>    receiver in your house at a time. This means only 1 receiver can watch a
>    HD channel, if a second person in the house wants to watch something in
>    HD they will see an error message that all HD streams are in use to turn
>    to a non HD channel or it gives you the option to boot the other receiver
>    out of the HD stream it's tuned to.
>    For me this is a major problem especially considering I have 5 HDTV's in
>    my house. The word going around is that they hope to have 2 streams
>    available per house sometime soon, but even that is not enough.
>    On the plus side for the most part I do like the receivers when they are
>    working.
>    What does this mean "when they are working?" For whatever reason the
>    units like to freeze up a lot, the one in the living room sometimes need
>    to be reset 3 times a night, while the DVR has been better behaved only
>    needing to be rebooted once. The problem with these receivers is that a
>    reboot can take close to 3 minutes, kind of annoying when your 4 year old
>    wants his barny back on NOW.
>       . . .
>    My overall thought on AT&T U-Verse are this, it could be a great service,
>    however at the moment with poor VOD service, highly compress HD service,
>    flakey boxes I would say that the U-Verse is still a beta product and is
>    not ready for prime time. There are times when services or channels are
>    not available, and that it unacceptable to me. This is still a beta
>    service and for some reason they decided to roll out out unfinished. They
>    should not be charging for the service as it is now.
> (That's around January 2007).

Microsoft eats s* from Linux in this area ("50% plus is Linux").

- From internal E-mails:

From: Alex Limberis
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 9:25 PM
To: Amir Majidimehr; Will Poole; Kurt Buecheler
Subject: RE: STB ms data

I want to paint a clear picture for us. If you really do add value by holding
on for MS OS’s then we shouldn’t sell ourselves short.

Question to Will. How much data do we need to make the point?

We have

    * Customer visit evidence that 50% plus is Linux
    * CE’s POR market data pointing to only less than 10% market share
    * Support from MSTV agreeing we need to support all OSes

—– Original Message ——
From: Amir Majidimehr
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 3:34PM
To: Alex Limberis; Will Poole; Kurt Buecheler
Subject: RE: STB ms data

In Korea, clearly the format is dragging the OS in. But elsewhere in the world,
where we having nothing close to 90% (or even 90%) marketshare, the OS is
selected first.


—– Original Message ——
From: Alex Limberis
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:17 PM
To: Amir Majidimehr; Will Poole; Kurt Buecheler
Subject: RE: STB ms data

I want to both quantify the positive, i.e. the Korean example as well as the
current situation appearing in other markets where it seems the OS/processor
decision was made first and the format is made second. Do we have more
concrete data, i.e. where is the 90% WMT share? Other comment in line

—– Original Message ——
From: Amir Majidimehr
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:04PM
To: Alex Limberis; Will Poole; Kurt Buecheler
Subject: RE: STB ms data

I think the situation is rather simple (although the decision is not). When we
asked for permission to take our format everywhere 2.5 years ago, no one
blinked. JimAll himself said it was just fine to go on embedded Linux. Of
course, this was at a time when people

though we brought no compelling value.

Now, contrast this with the situation in Korea where WMT has a 90% share. Last
time I was there, I think they said they have something like a dozen WinCE stb
wins, all because of WMT. You better not say anything about supporting Linux
or the ESG guys escort you out to the airport!

So, the story at both extremes is very clear. When we had no value, we could be
everywhere. And where we have ultimate value, then we must be on our own
platform. The question is, when do you make the switch?

[Alex Limberis] To be a format means render everywhere. The key to OS success
is to create the value proposition from a compelling combination of ease of
use, time to market and features of which WM, IE, real time kernel, IP stack,
etc. etc. is part of the package.

With nearly zero design wins for video, and strong threat of MPEG-4, I would
say this is no time to be picky. We must establish our base as we have done
with audio. The stronger we become, the more value we can provide to the other
assets of the company. We need to be the “icing on the cake and not the cake
itself” when it comes to WinCE! This is not what happened PocketPC.

[Alex Limberis] In the case of audio, we were not facing a “thick” os. The CE
team never felt threatened by the OS as it were running on RIO. They are
threatened by the OS running on a Moto, Replay TV, Ti Vo etc. that could
support our format. This is our internal challenge.


—– Original Message ——
From: Alex Limberis
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 10:32 PM
To: Will Poole; Kurt Buecheler; Amir Majidimehr
Subject: RE: STB ms data

If WMT is the Holy grail, then I’d hate to take it away from them, and we
should feel damn proud that we have created such a compelling value that they
will switch OSes just to get WMT. Great job all, we have won!

However, I’m not convinced that our position is that strong.
I always come back to; we are FM radio, or NTSC TV we must render on everything
regardless of what shape, form or OS choice the gizmo is made from. CE must
win on the total value of proposition of ease of use and integration of
technologies including WM. In total power cost to deploy.

His expressed sentiment seems to be the blocker for us moving forward and not
the Linux GPL issue. I don’t know what other argument to make other than we
must have 100% of the nodes available to us to be a successful format, and no
matter how you slice, dice, justify and segment CE doesn’t have anywhere near
100%. Then we get into the belief that having WM in account helps move them to
a Win OS in the future. I believe that, but he doesn’t.

Second, he has what I believe is the misunderstanding of the value of the OS
vs. format. He believes they will pick the format and then figure out what OS
is needed to support the format. Where, I believe that the OS is critical to
the box decision. Motorola chose the PowerPC based on the fact that they own
part of the processor and then created a box with compelling applications.

The .net argument doesn’t cut it. Doesn’t .net need to run on everything also?

Thoughts, before I jump on them?

—– Original Message ——
From: Srivats Srinivasan
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:14 PM
To: Alex Limberis
Cc: Takeshi Numoto
Subject: RE: STB ms data

Alex -

thanks for inviting us on the call today. First to answer your question below -
this is IDC 2001 data and while WinCE share is shown as fairly small (Linux is
even smaller)… and we expect the WinCE share to grow faster now that we’re
actually putting resources behind this effort at our end.

Based on the conversation then, we have a few concerns that we need to
discuss/address -
1. based on the feedback that we’ve got from customers, the most likely
scenario appeas to be that the NetOp or Telco makes a format decision and then
dictates to the OEM what box to build to meet those needs, i.e. the OS
decision is minor and is not a casual factor in the process.
2. As I mentioned on the call, WMT is one of the main distinguishing features
of WinCE. To offer it on Linux (starting with STBs and then extending to other
devices as well) robs us of our competitive edge.
3. While you mentioned that you will start by offering only the codecs and Udl
on Linux today, I am very worried that a year from now, you will need to bow
to customer demand and offer WMP and DRM as well at that stage. And by that
time, the horse may have bolted too far for us to lock the gates.
4. There was mention of OEMs such as Pace, Moto, Nokia moving to Linux today.
It is true that many OEMs are playing around with Linux today (since it is the
easiest for developers to kick tires on)….however, most of the same OEMs
mentioned above are moving to a WinCE platform as we discuss this. And the
move in most cases has been driven by their need for WMT - if you take that
away, we lose the battle before it begins.

We understand the need for DMD to proliferate the format … however, if it is at
the expense of our embedded OSs, I fear that it can hurt us in the long run.
Especially when you consider that part of enabling the .NET vision is to embed
our OSs in devices of all forms going forward - hence our apprehension.

—– Original Message ——
From: Alex Limberis
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 1:19 PM
To: Srivats Srinivasan; Phil Corman; Den Polling
Subject: RE: STB ms data

Thanks, what was the source of this data? I guess the net of it from DMD’s
perspective is only 6% of the world is going to be CE based we must license
onto the competing OSes.

—– Original Message ——
From: Srivats Srinivasan
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 11:17 AM
To: Alex Limberis, Phil Corman; Den Polling
Subject: STB ms data

Srivats Srinivasan

Original PDF: http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/px07010.pdf

- -- 
                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      | Free software is what's left and what's also right
http://Schestowitz.com  |  Open Prospects   |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 140 total,   1 running, 139 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
      http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index