Digitalwerks

Do Home Theater PC’s (HTPC’s) have a future?  If yes, how will they look and operate?  And if not, what will people use instead to bring Internet digital content to their TV’s?  Could there possibly be an HTPC in your future?

There are billions of dollars and thousands of jobs at stake in determining these questions, but it’s hard to say that the answers are yet apparent, much less already decided.  Having played and worked in this area for a while now, I thought I would jot down some ideas.  The timing seemed appropriate as a follow-up to Dave’s recent article on media streaming devices, and as I just finished building a couple of new HTPC’s (and also, sadly, retired my prized DivX Connected “Gej-box” media streamer).

The latest media streaming devices that Dave looked at included a digital media adapter from Netgear, a networked Blu-Ray player from LG, and another networked Blu-Ray player from Sony.  Despite how new they are, they still seem to be hobbled by the kind of issues that have faced basically all streaming devices since they first appeared a few years ago.  These devices are inevitably limited in what they can do, either in terms of playable file formats or by a particular digital distribution systems (i.e. Netflix, Amazon VOD, YouTube, etc.).  None of them have proven to be “universal players,” despite some of the marketing copy them employ.  And as Dave noted, the context for such devices is still somewhat dominated by gaming devices such as the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3, that also have very strong streaming options, but still share a number of annoying limitations (some dictated by hardware, some by business decisions).

Fundamentally, these networked media devices are asked to do something they are just not fully designed to do, no matter their particular pedigree or price point.  They are supposed to recreate the video experience of a full-fledged computer on a TV.  Their promise is to bring all the variety and immediacy of Internet video to the comfort of the home theater (or at least to the couch over the office chair).  And, inevitably it seems to me, that is where they always come up short.  The guiding assumptions behind the design and user experience of all these devices is that a). consumers do not want computers in their living rooms and b). that they do not want a computer-like user interface on their TV.  And even Microsoft, which has fought very hard against the former point with its Windows Media PC initiative absolutely concedes on the latter point.  As someone who has used both PC’s and streaming devices over the last few years, I’ve come to the conclusion that neither points a). nor b). actually hold much water, and that a PC, even with a “standard” OS, can work pretty well in the living room.  For unlike all of these myriad streamers, extenders, networked players, etc., only an HTPC can actually recreate the desktop video experience in the living room, and therefore might end up the ultimate winner of this battle.

When I worked in Marketing and PR for DivX, it was incumbent upon me to explain why consumers would never accept having a PC in their living rooms.  They were expensive, awkward, challenging to operate, and as my friend Jerome “Gej” Rota used to energetically demonstrate, they were far too loud.  (He could make a great “whoooshing” sound in a number of different languages).  And at that time, all those criticisms were generally valid of HTPC’s.  As is often mentioned on the very active AVS HTPC forum, building a Home Theater PC can be more of an on-going hobby than a one-off event, requiring a great deal of tinkering and updating.  Nonetheless, the situation has changed a great deal over the last few years, particularly as Intel and AMD have become far more conscious of heat and energy consumption issues with their chips.  Better, more efficient chips has led to the creation of PC’s that just don’t require the extent of cooling as previously (which is the root of the sound problems, for the most part).  As we are seeing with the Atom and Ion platforms, and I would argue the whole Netbook/Nettop phenomenon, a cheaper, lower powered PC is actually quite sufficient and allows for some very interesting designs, particularly on the smaller end of the spectrum.  The old image of a bulky and annoyingly loud PC in the living room is just not an issue any longer

Just to give an concrete example, I recently put together an HTPC for our bedroom.  It’s based on a mini-ITX motherboard with built in nVidia graphics, which is key as it allows for hardware acceleration of video decoding.  By off-loading the video work the PC requires then only a very minimal (and less hot) CPU and not much RAM, even to display 1080p content.  With this particular build, I used an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, which is actually overkill for my purposes, but I had one laying around, so in it went.  I put in a very small and quiet notebook hard drive, undervolted the CPU fan with a fan controller, and connected it to my network via a USB N adapter, and now have a perfectly silent and tiny PC tucked away behind our bedroom TV.

Even my wife who is normally very picky about such things, and has a very low tolerance of my computer experiments with her TV, is very happy with it, mostly because she barely knows it’s even there.  And in comparison to a media streaming device or extender, even very good ones like the Popcorn Hour for instance, this HTPC is pricier but is capable of doing far more in terms of format playability, web video streaming (including Hulu), web surfing, etc.  If your computer can play it, show it, or listen to it, then so can this HTPC.  Additionally, my other HTPC, located in our living room, has a video capture device and functions as our PVR, with the h.264 720p HD captures available throughout the house via the wireless network.  And unlike most media streaming devices, HTPC’s are not limited by future developments .  If some, as yet unnamed format or file container becomes popular, then an HTPC can be updated by either software or hardware to deal with it.  If I decide I want to game seriously with an HTPC, then all I have to do is drop in a beefier video card and that becomes a possibility.  Right now I don’t have much interest in Blu-Ray discs, but if that were to change I could easily install a BR-ROM device.  The options are essentially limitless.  (Although considering the torturous history of getting CableCards actually available for HTPC’s, one should never assume too much).

Of course, an HTPC is more expensive than most standalone media streamers, and the likelihood of something going wrong and needing to be fixed at an inconvenient time is pretty high.  However, I’ve found many media streaming devices to be pretty finicky when it comes to their network connectivity, so they are far from hassle-free themselves.  The other widespread criticism of HTPC’s is their need for a suitable UI, but I truly believe that issue is just not relevant any more.  For one thing, there are quite a few software interfaces available, from Microsoft’s Media Center to the incredible open source alternatives from XBMC and Boxee.  What I have found, however, is that with a sufficiently large display of around 37 inches and up (pretty common these days as HDTV’s become ever cheaper), then even a relatively standard OS works fine, whether it’s Windows XP, Windows 7, or Ubuntu.  Settings can be tweaked if a 1080p display makes text too small, of course, and for 720p, it really shouldn’t be a problem at all.  Further, the use of a “standard” OS makes them very familiar to all PC users.  My wife recently needed to find a particular file on our (admittedly byzantine) home network, something she would have had a hard time doing via Windows Media Center or my old Gej-box, for instance.  However, doing so with Windows 7 really wasn’t that difficult, as she was so used to the Microsoft interface, even though she had not used Windows 7 before.  At this point, the need for an amazing “10-foot UI” seems very unnecessary.

I saw Netflix CEO Reed Hastings give a talk last year in which he described his vision of a future television.  It would consist primarily of a web browser as the UI and a Wii-like device for input.  With some of the more innovative remote/mouse hybrids available even now, Hasting’s vision is pretty much already a reality, at least at our house.  Ultimately, I assume much of this functionality will be absorbed into the televisions themselves, but until they are able to replicate fully the flexiblity and breadth that HTPC’s uniquely provide, there will continue to be a computer in our living room.

[And for anybody interested in trying this out for themselves, I highly encourage spending time at both the above-mentioned AVS Forums and the Silent PC Review site and forums.  They are amazing resources for building home theater PC's, or just kick-as computers in general.]

An oft-mentioned aspect of the digital comic discussion at the San Diego Comic Con this year was the role of intellectual property rights, as both a source of revenue for creators but also as victim to widespread comics piracy.  As with so many popular artistic endeavors, the creators themselves often expressed ambivalent feelings towards intellectual property conceptions, especially in light of technological changes radically undermining the traditional business models of comics publishing.  Many of the most interesting comic book creators I heard at the Con seemed to recognize that new distribution models, digital comics in particular, could create innovative avenues for exposure and revenue, even if every digital copy was not purchased in the same way a physical comic book would had been.

On the other hand, every publisher I encountered at the Con seemed to have the precise opposite opinion, that physical and digital property required the exact same treatment both legally and economically, despite the fundamental differences between an economy of scarcity and one of ubiquity.  At one industry insider panel I attended a publisher appealed to comic artists to create characters and stories that above all contained licensing potential, as a way to ensure revenue streams for “you and your family for generations.”  Needless to say, what I did not hear from many industry representatives was any notion of humility towards the power of intellectual property laws, or a recognition of the incredibly messy history of comic creation and ownership (as the current Superboy lawsuit continues to demonstrate).  At the same time, it seemed so ironic to me for industry professionals to ignore, at Comic Con of all places, the countless ways in which it was the intense interaction and involvement of the fans themselves that have enshrined comic characters with such value. The power of a Spider-Man does not come, as J.K. Rowling might have it, merely from what the publisher puts out every month, but from the intense embrace fans give him, whether through a hand-made convention costume or through all the online discussions, wikipedia entries, fansites, etc. that have helped to sustain Spidey for the decades since his arrival in 1962 via Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby.

Of course, now that Spider-Man is the property of the Disney, one can only imagine the intellectual property structure that will be enforced around him.  Not to say Marvel was very progressive in such matters, but there is no one more aggressive and powerful about extending both the terms and the lengths of copyright than the Mouse.  Which is unfortunate given the state of the digital comics evolution.  As we discussed in a previous post, unless the comics industry truly begins to loosen its grip and take innovative business models seriously, the rather extraordinary levels of comics piracy will continue with no real alternatives presented.  With Disney now entering the field in a dominant fashion, I have little optimism, however, even if the creators themselves are interested in expression far more than locking in revenue streams for “generations.”

There is beginning to be some interesting commentary on the purchase of video codec company On2 by Google today, see here, here and here.  Much of the speculation understandably has to do with what this will mean for Google’s future with video, either via YouTube or in the Chrome browser and eventually OS.  Within the specs for HTML 5 there is a push towards a simpler, more open video standard, with the open source Ogg Theora already getting some official support.  Since On2′s earlier VP3.2 is the basis for Ogg Theora, some believe by purchasing On2, Google is likely looking to take their much more advanced VP7 and VP8 codecs open source and possibly license-free.  Such a move would provide HTML 5 with very advanced video technology for free, and would create serious competition for other current codecs and/or platforms such as h.264, Flash, Silverlight, etc., while at the same time giving Google another point of real strength in future internet developments.

One question that I have yet to see answered sufficiently is how empowered Google would actually be to make such an aggressive move in regards to video technology.  On2 claims that VP8 and their earlier technologies are completely patent free, unlike other video codecs like H.264 that have very complicated patent claims handled currently by the MPEG-LA licensing body.  Even though there are excellent open source versions of h.264 encoders, such as x264, users still have take care of licensing with MPEG-LA.  If Google could actually release VP8 technology as open source, or even if just royalty-free, codec, that would be a major disruption of the current video landscape and the future plans of many competing companies, including Adobe, Microsoft, Apple and DivX (full disclosure, I am a DivX stockholder).  There have, however, been some rumblings about just how patent protected On2′s codecs really are.  I don’t know enough to comment, other than to say that patents and video technology can be very, very complicated and messy.  In any case, there will certainly be much investigation and discussion around these issues before we see any major shifts from Google based on their purchase of 0n2.

Welcome back to Digitalwerks, and apologies for the long delay between postings. I’ve been working on a few articles, but each of them has encountered some complications that will be explained later as they come out, which should be soon hopefully. In the meantime I did want to discuss a topic that may fall a bit outside of this blog’s usual the topics, but actually does share some logical connections as it turns out.

Living in San Diego has many benefits, not least of which is that we are the hometown of the biggest annual popular cultural extravaganza in the U.S., the San Diego Comic-Con, or as I like to think of it, “nerd-vana.” As an old-time comics fan, if very sporadic these days, I still love to attend the SD Comic-Con every year, sometimes professionally but always as a big-time geek, reveling in the seemingly unstoppable advance of nerd-favorite themes in Hollywood and culture generally. This year, other than helping out an old friend with some of her blogging responsibilities, I spent my time at the Con tracking what clearly was a big theme in 2009, the possibility of digital distribution coming to the comics industry. Unlike the music and film industries, the adoption of new distribution technologies in comics is very much in its infancy, but 2009 may turn out to be a tipping point, when digital comics went from at best a sidelight to a major player in how comics are sold and consumed.

Why have comics lagged behind other entertainment industries in feeling the effects of new distribution technologies? Comics are strangely, sui generis, in the sense that they share many of the characteristics of the publishing industry, but in my opinion are quite different from books. Specifically, comics share many elements with art. Comics, no matter how low brow their history, are undeniably a visual medium with a very different experience than purely textual books. Further, comics have traditionally been a collector’s medium, in which the tangible object of the individual comic book, no matter how widely distributed, has value (monetary and sentimental) in the physical sense. Traditional elements of comic book culture often include garages and attics full of “longboxes” containing hundreds or thousands of revered comics safely protected in mylar bags. Nonetheless, even the traditional culture of comics is beginning to recognize the possible benefits of digital distribution, for readers, artists, and for publishers alike. Comics distributed digitally, as plain .jpeg’s or as proprietary formats embedded in separate platform specific applications, do have a number of potential advantages, including eliminating onerous storage requirements, vastly improving search functionality, and providing many new avenues of innovation for enhanced reading experiences or aggregation services. At the same time, digital distribution would radically disrupt existing revenue models, particularly for the two big publishers, Marvel and DC that continue to dominate overall sales and rely very heavily on the quasi-monopolized “direct market” of specialty comics shops. Anything that could damage that revenue stream will certainly need to prove its compelling rationale for acceptance to reach the mainstream of comics publishing.

Yet, in all the comic-themed panels I attended at this year’s Comic Con, digital distribution was an unavoidable topic, brought up by audiences, creators or outside observers, no matter the specific theme of the talk. Not surprisingly, the most vocal proponents of digital comics were those entrepreneurs with their own digital comic services to promote, including LongBox, iVerse, comiXology and the digital arms of DC and Marvel. A consistent message from all the digital spokespeople is that attitudes have changed enormously in recent years and that the acceptance of digital distribution from artists, publishers, and readers has grown by leaps and bounds. The most visible proponent of downloadable comics was LongBox CEO Rantz Hoseley who was seemingly ubiquitous at Comic-Con, appearing at numerous panels and actively giving out codes for users to try out the beta version of his company’s software application (launch is expected in September or October). A tireless marketeer, Hoseley envisions LongBox as the “iTunes of comics,” empowering publishers to sell their comics in a digital format (at .99 an issue) via the internet, to be read on PC’s (and eventually mobile devices and e-readers) using a slick interface that will ultimately have a heavy social recommendation engine. Instead of cannibalizing existing sales, Hoseley believes digital distribution will only increase the size of the comics marketplace by appealing to an audience that would “never” walk into the self-limiting world of comic shops. A key part of his business plan, to entice publishers to cooperate is a system of coupons allowing purchasers of single digital copies of a comic to get a discount on printed collections, the graphic novels that are today a very large percentage of comics sold. Presenting LongBox as a particular champion of smaller independent publishers and creators, Hoseley uses well respected comic creators, like Phonogram‘s Kieron Gillen and Jamie McKelvie to extol the possibilities of digital sales in providing non-mainstream comics artists with a living wage.

A central element to what LongBox, and its competitors, tell prospective publishing partners is to give up the “myth” that readers will not support experiencing their comics on computer screens. Not just anecdotal experience but also his tracking of the “multiple millions” of downloads of popular titles via file-sharing networks clearly demonstrates to Hoseley that readers are comfortable with digital comics. In fact, when the top selling title in a particular month, including big name books from Marvel or DC, barely cracks 100,000 actual copies sold, there are likely more people in sheer numbers reading it digitally than physically. Of course the trick will be in enticing some of those readers away from piracy back to purchasing titles, or by creating enough of an expanded marketplace through new technology to mitigate the “risks” that digital distribution could pose to existing revenue streams. Some of the new players are limiting their offerings to comic versions readable only on mobile devices, primarily the iPhone, taking advantage of the built-in iTunes market system, although obviously limited by the size and resolution of the iPhone screen. All of the solutions discussed at Comic Con 2009 retained some form of DRM, obviously to allay fears of publishers, although the piracy evidence would suggest that DRM, as in other media, would do absolutely nothing to stem unauthorized distribution, but will increase hassle and interoperability challenges for readers willing to pay for authorized copies. While DC and Marvel rarely came up in any of the technology discussions I heard at the Con, I’m sure that all the digital service providers are hoping that they can distinguish themselves from the pack and ultimately convince the big 2 to join with them. Currently the dominant publishers are basically running their own exclusive systems. Marvel in particular has a digital comics subscription (9.99 for a month’s access, 59.88 for a year) service that has a large number of back issues and a smattering of current comics. For some observers the comics industry is still in the “balkanized” stage of distribution, where the larger properties hope to maintain sole control of their products, and want company-specific services that are absolutely designed *not* to replace physical sales, but act more as a teaser. Whether publisher specific services can attract a large enough paying readership, most of whom probably read titles from a number of different publishers, remains to be seen.

Nonetheless, innovation is occurring as publishers and creators recognize that the new digital medium will allow for all kinds of different expressions of comics art than the clearly defined borders of the traditional four-color publication. A number of companies are experimenting with “motion comics,” short films that take the art directly from a published comic, adding some animation, music, and voice-overs to create an amalgamation of comic and movie. Probably the best known example was the 12 part motion comic recreation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s famous Watchmen that was released prior to the 2009 motion picture based on the original comic. In some ways Watchmen was well suited to the nascent form, as heavily as it relied on dialogue, but other attempts have been rather gimmicky in my opinion. Hoseley of LongBox speaks often of “enhanced” digital comics that may not include animation but could include soundtracks, voice-overs, directors’ commentary, etc, something that could be a natural fit for the music-themed Phonogram that he has secured for his service’s launch.

The future of digital comics remains to be seen, but I suspect we will see continued developments in a couple of directions. First, the Japanese manga on mobile phones boom clearly points towards comics becoming more popular on mobile devices, although the specifics of Japanese mobile culture may not be precisely repeatable in the US. More importantly, however, I think you will see a trend towards more comics becoming available widely in digital format, but also at lower and lower price points. Because comics do share some of the qualities of art, they have a tangibility that is different from music and film. They also have a much stronger tradition of collecting, so I think it’s possible you will see an interesting bifurcation, between cheap and possibly free digital copies matched with increasingly expensive limited editions. It would not surprise me if original comic art, limited print runs, special versions, etc. become more collected just as free copies of the same comics go down in price to zero, and become marketing materials for the tangible artistic goods or for non-comics media. Brand awareness of Captain America could become more important than individual issue sales to Marvel as the release date of the Avengers movie approaches. In other words, the digital distribution, even at little or no cost to the reader could become accepted business models as other revenue sources grow in different directions.

Just a follow up to my previous post on video on the Android, as has been reported a few places, Qik is now available for the G1. It has a lot of limitations, based on the T-Mobile network and the camera hardware, but it does work, and it opens up some very cool possibilities. The ability to live-stream from such a small device will allow for video coverage of places that previously would have been impractical if not impossible.

I’m really looking forward to doing some field testing with Qik on the G1 at the upcoming San Diego Comic-Con, which should be a lot of fun, at least as long as I can keep a 3G connection, and the battery holds out.

An update to my previous post about the Swedish Pirate Party growing after the Pirate Bay verdict.

The results from voting today has the Pirate Party winning roughly 7% of the votes in Sweden, which will allow them to gain 2 seats in the upcoming EU parliament. According to reports from Sweden, the party did quite well among the young, receiving around 19% of voters under 30. From a US perspective those numbers may not seem too significant but in a proportional representative system, it’s actually very, very good for an upstart party, although the usual caveats about the general disinterest in EU voting certainly applies. Nonetheless, there’s little doubt that outrage among young Swedes over the Pirate Bay verdict did indeed cause a reaction. Whether or not the 2 Pirate Party representatives in Strassbourg can make a difference among the 725 other MEP’s remains to be seen, but if the copyright lobby expects to continue its crusade against file-trading without opposition, both legal and otherwise, they may be in for a rude awakening.

See Torrentfreak for more detailed coverage and discussion.

After a few delays, the 1.5 (Cupcake) update for the Android G1 phone from T-Mobile has arrived.  Impatient as I am, I followed the instructions from the AndroidGuys and forced my phone to update, although I think I only gained about 12 hours ultimately.  In any case, it’s a big step forward for the phone and the Android platform, with some great UI improvements, including the much discussed virtual keyboard.

For me, however, the most exciting new development is the implementation of video recording on the G1.  After the phone is updated a new app appears, “Camcorder.”  The use is fairly simple, just point and shoot.  There are two quality settings, “Low” and “High,” with the Low setting designated for “MMS” usage.  One nice feature is that video recording is integrated into the Camera app, and the user can switch from video recording to still photography with the click of one button.

The captured video uses the .3gp container format for the h.263 video codec.  Audio is labeled as “samr” and is the standard 3gp audo codec of AMR-Narrowband.  Using the “High” setting the video resolution is 352×288 and the bitrate looks to be around 350-400 kbps.  ”Low” has a resolution of 176×144 and bitrate around 200 kbps.

The Camcorder app allows for very easy video sharing with one-touch email, MMS, and YouTube integration.  The YouTube integration works very well, at least with the relatively small size video files I have tested with so far.

How does the video look?  Well, not great.  The camera on the G1 is not particularly good, and turning it into a video camcorder has not magically improved it.  That said, the video recording on mobile devices is generally not very good from a visual quality standpoint generally, at least with the current generation of in-device cameras.  Motion is pretty jerky, the colors are not great, and the audio quality, while in stereo which is nice, leaves a lot to be desired.  Still, the ability to capture video on the fly and get it uploaded to YouTube very, very easily has a lot of promise for the G1 and future Android phones.  The killer app may be, though, live streaming.  I am very hopeful that Qik can get implemented on the G1 sooner rather than later.  Broadcasting live has a number of great potential uses that rely far more on immediacy a mobile allows rather than the quality it cannot currently provide.

Ernesto at Torrentfreak recently reported that membership in the Swedish Pirate Party is skyrocketing after the recent Pirate Bay trial that resulted in a guilty verdict for the Bay, but also uncovered a number of disturbing facts about the prosecution and the trial judge’s impartiality. In previous life, I used to study European party politics, so I had to comment, as this strikes me as somewhat silly but also not without some possible real ramifications. Despite the membership gains, the Swedish Pirate Party is unlikely to actually disrupt the party landscape in as mature a political system as Sweden, but the particular timing of the trial does really work in the Pirates’ favor. The next notable election for Sweden is for the EU parliament, something that many, many Europeans do not consider of much importance, at least in relation to local and national elections. Not surprisingly, EU voting has been used for protests in the past, to focus on specific interests rather than traditional party differences. If the Pirate Party can translate their current momentum into enough actual votes to get representatives into the EU parliament, it would do a lot to get the word out on precisely the kind of copy-left, filesharing, network neutrality that the Pirate Bay has promoted for years, and it would do so via far more mainstream avenues than in the past. Obviously the Pirate Party would not wield any tangible power, but it would be quite a propaganda coup, and would, just as with the trial, create another strong platform for the proponents of a vastly different copyright landscape than than supported by the MPA’s, BREIN’s and IFPI’s of the world.