Rob Enderle Gets It!

Evan said: From my perspective, and perhaps you'll consider this odd, I have a lot more problem protecting content provided on a physical medium than I do content that I've downloaded off of the internet. Maybe that's succesful marketing conditioning (read: brainwashing) on the part of the industry marketing drones?

I think you've touch on a feeling that I and others have been struggling to define. I don't want copy-protection controls on my music CDs and I like to strip DeCSS off of my purchased movie DVDs so I can back them up and stream them across the home network. But as far as online content services that basically let you "rent" digital media, I have NO PROBLEM with DRM. Strange, huh?

Licious said: I didn't think that he was inaccurate. I just thought that it was phrased in such a way to allow for people to misinterpret it (as it seemed that you did). You'll still get HD. You just won't get VOD, etc (HD or SD -- it doesn't matter).




I still that you you're missing the point; yes, the Cable Companies (better? ;) ) *are* to blame. CableCARD is all that they would agree to support. There is no deadline for MCards. There is no deadline for V2. CableCARD, as is, is all that they agreed to. If they really wanted to open up the STB market, they could. They don't want to.

STB? Ack. "Set Top Box". Killing me slowly with acronyms!





Good point.

That's why it gets people so upset when others say "Microsoft should fight DRM (with regards to cable)." Microsoft is a 90lbs weakling in this fight. It's amazing (if they're about to do it) if they are able to get CableCARDS certified at all. To think that they could do it without implementing DRM is just absurd.

That is to say that the any cable provider, I wouldn't limit this to just MSOs, have little to no interest to open up their content to Microsoft because that would mean renting fewer STBs? That I buy.





As for the DRM, I could see the cable companies fretting about it but only because they would fear content providers pulling out of their service. It's the content providers who are the driving force behind the DRM. The cable companies are just a medium for Hollywood's content. Microsoft and Apple both more than likely want to become another medium and hence the reason that I tend to beat up Microsoft up about DRM.





From my perspective, and perhaps you'll consider this odd, I have a lot more problem protecting content provided on a physical medium than I do content that I've downloaded off of the internet. Maybe that's succesful marketing conditioning (read: brainwashing) on the part of the industry marketing drones?

ChrisL01 said: Alex, Alex, Alex. You clearly are not thinking. Your always on the same side of ditch Microsoft and DRM, why exactly do you run a site? To share your opinion and you have forums for other people to share there's. You have done what is most likely the worst job in history trying to make people come in here and post. Good luck making this go on if you just want to hear what you want. This isn't the way things work and it's pointless to think so.

Excellent, I was hoping you would come back with something like that. Always the victim in your effort to defend Microsoft. All one needs to do is look at your posts on this forum to see that you only respond/participate when a negative comment is made about Microsoft – hence the previous suspicion that you might be working for Microsoft doing damage control on all the blogs. But I was thinking about this more last night... for someone who complains that they're being treated badly on this forum (which is only you), I couldn't understand why you would keep coming back. Now I do... it's so that you can spread your mental spam about how Microsoft is great. Take a hike! The site gets enough spam from marketing people. We don't need a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Alexander Grundner said: I agree with your reply to an extent... but if someone like yourself, who is always so one sided with every issue regarding Microsoft and DRM, there's really no reason to reply. We know where you stand before you even hit submit. Why don't you surprise us with a different take on things. :D

Alex, Alex, Alex. You clearly are not thinking. Your always on the same side of ditch Microsoft and DRM, why exactly do you run a site? To share your opinion and you have forums for other people to share there's. You have done what is most likely the worst job in history trying to make people come in here and post. Good luck making this go on if you just want to hear what you want. This isn't the way things work and it's pointless to think so.





Chris

ChrisL01 said: A tip Alex, when you are trying to encourge and engage members to take time out of there day to provide thought and bring traffic to your site, you don't get to pick how and why they post. You get what they bring to the table, asking people to "tone down" what they bring will come off to most as "leave, I don't agree or care". That's just a tip, I would suggest taking a minute to think about, coming from one of your most active and longest standing members. The choice is all yours.

I agree with your reply to an extent... but if someone like yourself, who is always so one sided with every issue regarding Microsoft and DRM, there's really no reason to reply. We know where you stand before you even hit submit. Why don't you surprise us with a different take on things. :D

Alexander Grundner said: And lastly, I'm not flaming you... I'm engaging you in a discussion. But I do, however, ask that you tone down your pro-Microsoft rhetoric so that we can take your opinion more seriously (others have commented about this to me as well). No company or technology is "perfect." As such, it would be refreshing to hear more balanced arguments coming from your side. :)

A tip Alex, when you are trying to encourge and engage members to take time out of there day to provide thought and bring traffic to your site, you don't get to pick how and why they post. You get what they bring to the table, asking people to "tone down" what they bring will come off to most as "leave, I don't agree or care". That's just a tip, I would suggest taking a minute to think about, coming from one of your most active and longest standing members. The choice is all yours.





Chris

I didn't think that he was inaccurate. I just thought that it was phrased in such a way to allow for people to misinterpret it (as it seemed that you did). You'll still get HD. You just won't get VOD, etc (HD or SD -- it doesn't matter).




I still that you you're missing the point; yes, the Cable Companies (better? ;) ) *are* to blame. CableCARD is all that they would agree to support. There is no deadline for MCards. There is no deadline for V2. CableCARD, as is, is all that they agreed to. If they really wanted to open up the STB market, they could. They don't want to.





My point was only that Rob was a little naive in think that they would want to. They've all but booked (in their minds) billions of dollars in add-on services. All of these require being the front-end.





That's why it gets people so upset when others say "Microsoft should fight DRM (with regards to cable)." Microsoft is a 90lbs weakling in this fight. It's amazing (if they're about to do it) if they are able to get CableCARDS certified at all. To think that they could do it without implementing DRM is just absurd.

Ah, I found it! (Google wasn't much help - "mso" query)




Webopedia - Multiple System Operators (MSO) is a term used in the cable industry to describe a company which owns and operates two or more cable TV systems.

Licious said: Uh... CableCARDs are the MSOs' product. There is a reason they suck (i.e. are delivering the absolute minimum that was agreed upon). That's what the MSOs want. Please explain how I'm pointing the finger at the wrong people/technology.

It's all about interpretation. Just as you interpreted what Enderle said in the interview was "misleading," I found your initial reply unclear. My impression was that you felt that Enderle's remarks were inaccurate and that cable companies were to blame for not allowing subscribers to have the same features when they chose to use a CableCARD on a device other than a provider's set-top box (which is not true, it's the CableCARD's capabilities). And since I have no clue what an MSO is, there's no way for me (and perhaps others) to know what you're talking about.

ChrisL01 said: Please also explain why I get flamed by you for "defending Microsoft", and then you come back saying the exact bit, just quoted from someone else. :confused:

I'll respond to Chris first because it's easier. The above post points out the issues related to implementing the CableCARD on Windows Vista or any other PC platform, really. Chris, instead of you being helpful in explaining why/how Microsoft's implementation of the CableCARD can still benefit users, you prefer (as you do frequently on this forum at least) to defend the company from any type of negative (or this case perceived negative) statement – hence the Yawn. My position is that readers should find out what the CableCARD is capable of feature-wise and not assume that in the future they will be able to do the same things they can do via a set-top on their PC.




And lastly, I'm not flaming you... I'm engaging you in a discussion. But I do, however, ask that you tone down your pro-Microsoft rhetoric so that we can take your opinion more seriously (others have commented about this to me as well). No company or technology is "perfect." As such, it would be refreshing to hear more balanced arguments coming from your side. :)

Please also explain why I get flamed by you for "defending Microsoft", and then you come back saying the exact bit, just quoted from someone else. :confused:

Uh... CableCARDs are the MSOs' product. There is a reason they suck (i.e. are delivering the absolute minimum that was agreed upon). That's what the MSOs want. Please explain how I'm pointing the finger at the wrong people/technology.

Licious, you're pointing the finger at the wrong people. The CableCARD technology itself is what's to blame. I think Clint DeBoer at Audioholics says it best (echos Enderle's statements):

Seems We've Still Got a Long, Long Way to Go

For now, CableCARD is one-way only, meaning that some services can only be provided through a cable company-provided set-top box:<ul><li>Pay-Per-View</li><li>Interactive Program Guides (most manufacturers compensate by providing their own)</li><li>On-Demand with iControl (TWC) or Similar Services</li><li>Season Sports Packages (like the NBA League Pass)</li><li>Interactive and Enhanced TV Services (like games, interactive news, etc.)</li></ul>

While a two-way CableCARD is currently being developed there is a huge gap between what can be provided by the cable companies and what the CableCARD technology will support. In addition, it is likely that one-way (i.e. all current) CableCARD devices (televisions, custom set-top boxes) will not be able to handle two-way CableCARDs and will need to be redesigned. Does this mean you should wait to purchase these products? Not in my opinion. Since there is no date assigned or even an agreement in place (other than good faith negotiations) it would be silly to let such a tremendous technology go to waste. You can enjoy the best quality offered today and still utilize an inexpensive cable company-provided set-top unit should you require interactive, two-way services.

My guess is that two-way CableCARDs are at least two years away. If we support CableCARD technology now, then we'll only hasten the point at which consumer choice rules and two-way devices are placed into the market.

Additional Resources:


CNET - FAQ: CableCard? What's that?


Sound & Vision - Wild Card; Goodbye cable box, hello CableCARD

Personally, I think that he was a bit misleading. There is actually no problem with HD itself. I *think* that he simply saying that, like SD VOD, HD VOD will not work. This should come as no surprise to anyone. His phrasing just made it seem like a bigger problem than it is.




I also thought his assertion that cable companies should like it because "otherwise they would have to have their own boxes out there" very weak. Cable companies have billions of dollars of profits penciled into "third party" services that hinge on being the interface to the customer. Products like MCE give consumers the option to rent movies/music/etc. from the likes of MSN Music, CinemaNow, etc. This, as far as the MSOs are concerned, is lost revenue.

Sure, same with that TV they paid twice as much for that has the exact same problem. ;)

ChrisL01 said: This doesn't just apply to Microsoft. There are several devices that support CableCARD now, that will not be able to support newer implementations of it.

Always to the defense of Microsoft.... (Yawn) People should be aware of what to expect if the CableCard gets implemented on the PC platform. I've noticed a lot of "irrational exuberance" regarding the topic.

This doesn't just apply to Microsoft. There are several devices that support CableCARD now, that will not be able to support newer implementations of it.

Ah the name! it actual started out as the Windows Media Center Show then when I moved to the podcast network they called it the Media Center Show but I still call it Windows Media Center show out of habit :)

Rob was very interesting and I could have done a 3 hour show with him!





the actual link is http://www.thepodcastnetwork.com/me...21-rob-enderle/





So Alex when are you coming on? :p