<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why have media extenders failed to take off?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/</link>
	<description>Tracking the digital lifestyle</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:21:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter Antypas</title>
		<link>http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/#comment-6119</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Antypas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:36:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/#comment-6119</guid>
		<description>I used to manufacture a device called the JoyPort in '03 (www.joyfaktory.com). Although the device could stream ripped DVDs (decrypted) from a PC to TV, that feature was never fully "advertised" because it was (and still is) illegal. The market didn't grow as much as I predicted at the time, which is why I abandoned the effort.

For David Mackey: There are two issues with streaming analog signal:

a) The quality (obviously)
b) "Push" vs "Pull". You will need to control your PC from your living room / entertainment center since the TV is just a passive monitor in this case. That's inconvenient and kludgy ... definitely not appealing to the majority of consumers.

Generally speaking, consumers *still* don't accept the PC as part of the living room. Media streamers fill that gap by scoring better on the WAF test.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used to manufacture a device called the JoyPort in &#8216;03 (www.joyfaktory.com). Although the device could stream ripped DVDs (decrypted) from a PC to TV, that feature was never fully &#8220;advertised&#8221; because it was (and still is) illegal. The market didn&#8217;t grow as much as I predicted at the time, which is why I abandoned the effort.</p>
<p>For David Mackey: There are two issues with streaming analog signal:</p>
<p>a) The quality (obviously)<br />
b) &#8220;Push&#8221; vs &#8220;Pull&#8221;. You will need to control your PC from your living room / entertainment center since the TV is just a passive monitor in this case. That&#8217;s inconvenient and kludgy &#8230; definitely not appealing to the majority of consumers.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, consumers *still* don&#8217;t accept the PC as part of the living room. Media streamers fill that gap by scoring better on the WAF test.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Mackey</title>
		<link>http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/#comment-6087</link>
		<dc:creator>David Mackey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2007 03:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/#comment-6087</guid>
		<description>I don't have a media extender, but I do have an S-Video cable to connect to my TV with. My question is, why the big bulky media extenders? How about a little box that connects to my S-Video and streams the content wirelessly to another little S-Video box on the TV? Seems like everyone is over-complicating the matter and putting restrictions on what can and can't be streamed, when I can show anything I want just by connecting an S-Video.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t have a media extender, but I do have an S-Video cable to connect to my TV with. My question is, why the big bulky media extenders? How about a little box that connects to my S-Video and streams the content wirelessly to another little S-Video box on the TV? Seems like everyone is over-complicating the matter and putting restrictions on what can and can&#8217;t be streamed, when I can show anything I want just by connecting an S-Video.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve O'Hear (editor)</title>
		<link>http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/#comment-6029</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve O'Hear (editor)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/#comment-6029</guid>
		<description>@G

Thanks for this info. I'll look into it some more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@G</p>
<p>Thanks for this info. I&#8217;ll look into it some more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G</title>
		<link>http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/#comment-6028</link>
		<dc:creator>G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:29:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.last100.com/2007/10/05/why-have-media-extenders-failed-to-take-off/#comment-6028</guid>
		<description>Steve - People have been doing reference implementations in this space for a few years now.  One worthy of mention is called Digitl Transmission Content Protection (DTCP-IP) - and yes it has lagged a bit in adoption.  But recent agreement by Cable Labs and Intel could be catalysts for converged home networks.  Intel has been a big promoter of the DTCP-IP.  Although not explictly mentioned, DTCP-IP is part of the Open Cable Applications Platform (OCAP) Home   Newtworking extensions.

Another one is the the Secure Video Processor being promoted by the Cable Industry - where substantial initiatives have been underway for a while - but the complexity of that initiative could stall things for a while.

Here are some references:
   Websites
   http://www.cablelabs.com/
   http://www.dtcp.com/
   http://www.svpalliance.org/

   Press - Intel / Cable Labs Agreements
   http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2007/07_pr_dtla_082307.html
   http://www.cablelabs.com/news/newsletter/SPECS/JuneJuly_2007/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve - People have been doing reference implementations in this space for a few years now.  One worthy of mention is called Digitl Transmission Content Protection (DTCP-IP) - and yes it has lagged a bit in adoption.  But recent agreement by Cable Labs and Intel could be catalysts for converged home networks.  Intel has been a big promoter of the DTCP-IP.  Although not explictly mentioned, DTCP-IP is part of the Open Cable Applications Platform (OCAP) Home   Newtworking extensions.</p>
<p>Another one is the the Secure Video Processor being promoted by the Cable Industry - where substantial initiatives have been underway for a while - but the complexity of that initiative could stall things for a while.</p>
<p>Here are some references:<br />
   Websites<br />
   <a href="http://www.cablelabs.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cablelabs.com/</a><br />
   <a href="http://www.dtcp.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.dtcp.com/</a><br />
   <a href="http://www.svpalliance.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.svpalliance.org/</a></p>
<p>   Press - Intel / Cable Labs Agreements<br />
   <a href="http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2007/07_pr_dtla_082307.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cablelabs.com/news/.....82307.html</a><br />
   <a href="http://www.cablelabs.com/news/newsletter/SPECS/JuneJuly_2007/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cablelabs.com/news/.....July_2007/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
